Peyton Manning Voted No.1 By The Players

[Superman]

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.

 

I don't know what this means.

 

As for the sample size, if you put his playoff numbers in scale with his career regular season numbers, there's not a whole lot of variance. Per 16 games, his playoff numbers would be about 4,600 yards, 26 TDs, 17 INTs, with a completion rate of 64.4%. And that includes his early playoff games, where he really struggled. If you were to exclude his first three playoff games, the TDs and yards would go up (29 TDs, 4800 yards) the INTs would stay about the same. You'd basically be looking at his 2009 season, when he won his fourth MVP and made his second SB. And that's against consistently better competition; as you said earlier, there are no gimmees in the playoffs.

 

There's not much difference from Manning's individual performance in the regular season vs. the playoffs. 

[Synthetic]

INB4 your best buddy comes a knocking, and to be the only one to agree with you.

 

 

Right, cause all I do is wave my cane in the air and she pops up to make you guys go *sigh* "not again!"

[amfootball]

I don't know what this means.

 

As for the sample size, if you put his playoff numbers in scale with his career regular season numbers, there's not a whole lot of variance. Per 16 games, his playoff numbers would be about 4,600 yards, 26 TDs, 17 INTs, with a completion rate of 64.4%. And that includes his early playoff games, where he really struggled. If you were to exclude his first three playoff games, the TDs and yards would go up (29 TDs, 4800 yards) the INTs would stay about the same. You'd basically be looking at his 2009 season, when he won his fourth MVP and made his second SB. And that's against consistently better competition; as you said earlier, there are no gimmees in the playoffs.

 

There's not much difference from Manning's individual performance in the regular season vs. the playoffs. 

I was talking more about the nature of the games. His losses, in particular the one and done's, are games where he has scored under 20 and has had multiple picks. I think this is more of a factor of the Indy offense that struggles against teams that can match up with the receivers and force Manning to hold the ball allowing the pressure to get there. When Manning has struggled it has always looked the same where he is forcing throws into coverage or taking sacks because no one is open. There is no plan B when the offense meets its match and it can get ugly fast as it did with Seattle this past season or the early years vs the Pats.

 

When he first got to Denver, Fox had him running his offense and it was ugly. When he switched over to the Indy offense in the second half of the Falcons game all was well again. And it is hard to argue with success but I do think it helps to explain all his one and done's and sub .500 record.

[chad72]

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. 

 

There is validity to what you are saying. Like I said before, teams that Manning goes to, build a sub-conscious dependence on him thinking that he is above all QBs and can win the same games in the postseason that he could in the regular season. I never see a Belichick or any Harbaugh led team or the Seahawks giving up the hail mary that Rahim Moore did vs the Ravens.

 

His success and media exposure leads to sometimes a sub-conscious shortage of urgency amongst his teammates (fair or not) and sometimes even his coaches who feel that they don't have to help Peyton out because he is "up there" and doesn't need their help. So, when he makes a mistake, it is almost like the air is let out of their balloon and they cannot recover. At least it did with the Colts, IMO. Peyton and the Colts won the SB despite special teams woes but then, 2 out of the 3 - run O and D were working well in unison to control tempo. The D stopped relying on Peyton, which is why they won.

 

Time and time again, you see Flacco or Brady or Big Ben make a mistake, but their D shows character and rallies to minimize the damage. That character is missing in Peyton led teams. My only reasoning is that they may feel that he gets all the credit even if they do well, so that urgency to minimize the damage for Peyton's mistakes is not nearly as bad as rallying the troops for one amongst them, the feeling they may have for a Flacco or Brady or Big Ben. It may not be far fetched to say that based on Mathis' comments after beating the Broncos "there is Peyton and there are 52 others".

 

You turn the ball over within the 5 yard line like the 2007 Chargers playoff game, a team like the Ravens or Steelers would up the intensity to get the ball back, that was always missing in our D, that intensity. Only time I saw the intensity from the defense in a rallying/desperate situation was the 2006 AFCCG when we dug a big hole and the D forced so many 3 and outs/punts in the second half allowing the comeback.

[HtownColt]

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

I am well aware of that

[NewColtsFan]

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

 

Oh, for goodness sake.....

 

There is so much credibility at stake.    If it ever got out that NFLN was making this up and the players weren't voting,  that would be death to the network.    Too much money at stake.   Too many jobs at stake.

 

There's almost nothing to be gained from doing something dishonest and way too much to lose.

 

If it got out that it was a fake,  most everyone associated with the Network would be fired!

 

I'm not sure I can say this any more plainly.    Whitner is wrong.     Not a doubt in my mind.

 

You're way too smart to believe such nonsense.   And that's what this is..........

[NewColtsFan]

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

 

That's because he IS a great GM.       And only an unhappy fan would think otherwise.

 

The Colts won double-digit games for about a decade.    Not sure fans here appreciate just how hard that is..........

[NewColtsFan]

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. 

 

Doing fake TV is a huge risk.    Beyond huge.     It would be an enormous scandal.

 

And for what?    A top-100 list?

 

Jobs and livelihoods at stake.    If it came out that this were fake,  people would be fired.   Good luck to them getting a job elsewhere if happened.

 

There's nothing to be gained and everything to lose if it was fake.

 

There's exactly 0% chance of it being faked.

 

And here's something that was posted inside the thread.

 

It's the NFLN's response to this being fake....    It's short and to the point.    Well worth a minute of your time to read....

 

 

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

[NewColtsFan]

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

 

Bless your heart!

 

Thank you so much for posting this.

 

It won't change the mind of the non-believers,  but I appreciate you putting this out there for all to see.....  

 

I'm not including it in some of my responses.

 

Two huge thumbs up to you!!               Mad props to you!!

[Superman]

There is validity to what you are saying. Like I said before, teams that Manning goes to, build a sub-conscious dependence on him thinking that he is above all QBs and can win the same games in the postseason that he could in the regular season. I never see a Belichick or any Harbaugh led team or the Seahawks giving up the hail mary that Rahim Moore did vs the Ravens.

 

His success and media exposure leads to sometimes a sub-conscious shortage of urgency amongst his teammates (fair or not) and sometimes even his coaches who feel that they don't have to help Peyton out because he is "up there" and doesn't need their help. So, when he makes a mistake, it is almost like the air is let out of their balloon and they cannot recover. At least it did with the Colts, IMO. Peyton and the Colts won the SB despite special teams woes but then, 2 out of the 3 - run O and D were working well in unison to control tempo. The D stopped relying on Peyton, which is why they won.

 

Time and time again, you see Flacco or Brady or Big Ben make a mistake, but their D shows character and rallies to minimize the damage. That character is missing in Peyton led teams. My only reasoning is that they may feel that he gets all the credit even if they do well, so that urgency to minimize the damage for Peyton's mistakes is not nearly as bad as rallying the troops for one amongst them, the feeling they may have for a Flacco or Brady or Big Ben. It may not be far fetched to say that based on Mathis' comments after beating the Broncos "there is Peyton and there are 52 others".

 

You turn the ball over within the 5 yard line like the 2007 Chargers playoff game, a team like the Ravens or Steelers would up the intensity to get the ball back, that was always missing in our D, that intensity. Only time I saw the intensity from the defense in a rallying/desperate situation was the 2006 AFCCG when we dug a big hole and the D forced so many 3 and outs/punts in the second half allowing the comeback.

 

So your argument is that the defense resented the attention that Manning and the offense received, and therefore, consciously or otherwise, didn't play as hard? And those times they didn't play as hard were mostly the times when they were needed the most?

 

Even if I agreed with that, doesn't that highlight just how important Manning has been to his teams? How is that a demerit for Manning? (By the way, I don't really agree with the premise; there are plenty of games where the defense pulled out all the stops to get wins. You only highlighted the AFCCG because it was in the playoffs, but there dozens of other big games like that for Manning-led teams. The same defense that gave up the Hail Mary against Baltimore was able to shut down the Chargers and come back from 24 down to win 35-24. People just like to focus on the playoff games only, and I think that's faulty.)

 

I do agree that sometimes, the coaches and GMs didn't do enough to fill holes on defense, employing a philosophy that was sometimes overly dependent on Manning. But again, I don't see that as a reason to be critical of Manning. I think that's when you acknowledge that some of Manning's teams have been light defensively, for whatever reason.

[Superman]

That's because he IS a great GM.       And only an unhappy fan would think otherwise.

 

The Colts won double-digit games for about a decade.    Not sure fans here appreciate just how hard that is..........

 

Ehhh, Polian had his flaws. They're well documented. He was a good GM, but it doesn't take an unhappy fan to recognize or acknowledge that some of his teams had issues, and that those issues at times related to his team building. That's especially true of the Colts from 2008-11.

[HtownColt]

Oh, for goodness sake.....

There is so much credibility at stake. If it ever got out that NFLN was making this up and the players weren't voting, that would be death to the network. Too much money at stake. Too many jobs at stake.

There's almost nothing to be gained from doing something dishonest and way too much to lose.

If it got out that it was a fake, most everyone associated with the Network would be fired!

I'm not sure I can say this any more plainly. Whitner is wrong. Not a doubt in my mind.

You're way too smart to believe such nonsense. And that's what this is..........

How dare I go by what some actual players say over NFL Network regarding the list..NFL Network wouldn't dare do such a thing.

I apologize for believing the players over a network

[Qwiz]

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.

 Whew, that was one heck of a post, though I do appreciate you typing it out to convey your opinion. Obviously our viewpoints on several things differ, and that probably is never going to change, so I'm not going to get too deep into all these different points. I will say this: The postseason is where legends and tales are made. Other QBs in Manning's era have gone to the playoffs and had great games, and his biggest rival, Tom Brady, has won 3 and been to 5. He's taken his team to the AFC Championship Game with mediocre receivers and without his best weapon. Compare this to Manning who had a great receiving corps, one of the best in the NFL, who could not elevate his team to the next level once he got the chance to do so in the big game. And we've seen with Aaron Rodgers that a bad defense can be overcome if the quarterback can elevate the offense. Now, I'm not saying this erases the historic season, so I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing this up. But it does put things in perspective.

 And the QB touches the ball every play on offense; He will get the blame for losses and the credit for wins, that is the way it is. Thee is no more important and challenging position in any sport than the quarterback. And when said QB is hailed as the best of all time and a killer in the regular season, well, yeah, he is expected to step it up in the postseason. We've seen it with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Eli; They win their Super Bowls when they get there. Eli more so because of his defense but he has also stepped it up; Brady was basically a game manager in his first Super Bowl but experience polished him; Rodgers is Rodgers. It doesn't help things that there is always those people who like to stand up for Manning and put the blame on everything but him. I'm not saying all the blame of this past Super Bowl goes on him, but it shouldn't be chalked up simply to the fact that Seattle played like men on fire. Yes it is a testament to Seattle but it is also a testament to that Broncos team. When Manning gets the credit for the great things that he does, no one should be surprised that the hammer comes down hard when he doesn't do so great. That's all I'm saying.

[oldunclemark]

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.

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'm very happy that Brady and Manning (and Drew Brees) seem no where near retirement and will play for 3 more years at least.

When they play, its a must-watch for me

[Qwiz]

I'm very happy that Brady and Manning (and Drew Brees) seem no where near retirement and will play for 3 more years at least.

When they play, its a must-watch for me

Yep. It's a privilege to see this guys do what they do and how they do it, because we may not see players like them again ever or for a long, long time. I don't like Brees but the guy goes out there and balls. I don't particularly have a liking for Rodgers either but he is a force and could eventually potentially be the best quarterback of all time. We are lucky fans to be able to see all of these guys playing the game at it's pinnacle.

[oldunclemark]

Even though he set all-time records..what sticks with me even now .......

is how Richard Sherman said that Peyton Manning helped him up the stairs to the interview room after he got hurt during the game.

I would pay real money for a picture of that...

[Superman]

 Whew, that was one heck of a post, though I do appreciate you typing it out to convey your opinion. Obviously our viewpoints on several things differ, and that probably is never going to change, so I'm not going to get too deep into all these different points. I will say this: The postseason is where legends and tales are made. Other QBs in Manning's era have gone to the playoffs and had great games, and his biggest rival, Tom Brady, has won 3 and been to 5. He's taken his team to the AFC Championship Game with mediocre receivers and without his best weapon. Compare this to Manning who had a great receiving corps, one of the best in the NFL, who could not elevate his team to the next level once he got the chance to do so in the big game. I'm not saying this erases the historic season, so I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing this up. But it does put things in perspective.

 And the QB touches the ball every play on offense; He will get the blame for losses and the credit for wins, that is the way it is. Thee is no more important and challenging position in any sport than the quarterback. And when said QB is hailed as the best of all time and a killer in the regular season, well, yeah, he is expected to step it up in the postseason. We've seen it with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Eli; They win their Super Bowls when they get there. Eli more so because of his defense but he has also stepped it up; Brady was basically a game manager in his first Super Bowl but experience polished him; Rodgers is Rodgers. It doesn't help things that there is always those people who like to stand up for Manning and put the blame on everything but him. I'm not saying all the blame of this past Super Bowl goes on him, but it shouldn't be chalked up simply to the fact that Seattle played like men on fire. Yes it is a testament to Seattle but it is also a testament to that Broncos team. When Manning gets the credit for the great things that he does, no one should be surprised that the hammer comes down hard when he doesn't do so great. That's all I'm saying.

 

Like you said, we differ on several points.

 

My problem is that this particular criticism of Manning -- one that comes up continually -- is heavy on talking points, but light on analysis. I bolded some of those talking points that don't hold up to further scrutiny. (For instance, while you praise Brady for getting to the AFCCG but losing, you're critical of Manning for losing the SB.)

 

And my original contention was with your idea that it's better to not go than to go and get blown out. I disagree, and I think guys like Rodgers and Brees -- both of whom have only been once -- would disagree. I think Eli would disagree, as a guy who's been twice but has had some pretty ugly skids otherwise. And I think Brady would disagree, as a guy who has lost his last two, including the 18-0 game.

 

It's the same thing as always. I disagree with the way this discussion is calibrated, like I always do.

[NewColtsFan]

How dare I go by what some actual players say over NFL Network regarding the list..NFL Network wouldn't dare do such a thing.

I apologize for believing the players over a network

 

Players are players.   They can, and often do say incredibly stupid things.    Happens all the time.

 

Like Charles Barkley who once said he was misquoted.....    IN HIS OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY!!

 

Are you reading what I'm writing you?    People would get fired if this were found to be a hoax,  a fraud.    Do you understand fired?    If you get fired while committing a fraud that destroys a network,  who do you think is going to hire you?!?

 

Why is this hard to grasp?

 

The link to the NFLN reponse shows less than 500 players responded to the 2013 poll,  that's less than 30 percent of the league.  It's not a surprise that someone would say they don't know anyone who voted in this.   But all of them are offered.   It's on them if they don't.

 

There's nothing to be gained by faking this.    There's everything to lose.

 

As I said in another post,  I don't like the poll.   I think it's badly run.   But that doesn't mean I think it's a fraud.

 

That's a totally different world.

 

Come on now........

[NewColtsFan]

Ehhh, Polian had his flaws. They're well documented. He was a good GM, but it doesn't take an unhappy fan to recognize or acknowledge that some of his teams had issues, and that those issues at times related to his team building. That's especially true of the Colts from 2008-11.

 

Oh, no doubt about it.   He made plenty of mistakes.    But for me,  some of that comes with the territory.

 

I've posted a number of times that I understand completely that Polian's shelf-life with the Colts was done.   It was time for a divorce.    And it seemed reasonably amicable.

 

But I get that he made mistakes and it was time for him to go.    I've got no complaints about that.   None at all.

[oldunclemark]

I was talking more about the nature of the games. His losses, in particular the one and done's, are games where he has scored under 20 and has had multiple picks. I think this is more of a factor of the Indy offense that struggles against teams that can match up with the receivers and force Manning to hold the ball allowing the pressure to get there. When Manning has struggled it has always looked the same where he is forcing throws into coverage or taking sacks because no one is open. There is no plan B when the offense meets its match and it can get ugly fast as it did with Seattle this past season or the early years vs the Pats.

 

When he first got to Denver, Fox had him running his offense and it was ugly. When he switched over to the Indy offense in the second half of the Falcons game all was well again. And it is hard to argue with success but I do think it helps to explain all his one and done's and sub .500 record.

...except for the Baltimore game that Denver lost 38-35..

I think the effort to find a trend a thread that follow s through losses....is a theory in search of support..

You hit on it...When Manning is rushed and nobody is open he loses. All QBs do.

It bothers me that QBs who don't make the playoffs every year are analyzed differently than Peyton Manning.

I still hear how Eli Manning is so good in the post-season. Well, it helps your post-season record when you don't make the post season every year.

Joe Flacco's post-season record is good. It helps that Baltimore missed the playoffs last season.

See what I mean?

What is Peyton...11-12..How many QBs have 11 playoff wins?

[Superman]

I was talking more about the nature of the games. His losses, in particular the one and done's, are games where he has scored under 20 and has had multiple picks. I think this is more of a factor of the Indy offense that struggles against teams that can match up with the receivers and force Manning to hold the ball allowing the pressure to get there. When Manning has struggled it has always looked the same where he is forcing throws into coverage or taking sacks because no one is open. There is no plan B when the offense meets its match and it can get ugly fast as it did with Seattle this past season or the early years vs the Pats.

 

When he first got to Denver, Fox had him running his offense and it was ugly. When he switched over to the Indy offense in the second half of the Falcons game all was well again. And it is hard to argue with success but I do think it helps to explain all his one and done's and sub .500 record.

 

So you're telling me that Manning's offenses don't do as well against better defenses? How is that news? How is it exclusive to Manning?

 

I just think it's like you said earlier. In some respects, the standards that other QBs are held to are raised for Manning. 

[Qwiz]

Like you said, we differ on several points.

My problem is that this particular criticism of Manning -- one that comes up continually -- is heavy on talking points, but light on analysis. I bolded some of those talking points that don't hold up to further scrutiny. (For instance, while you praise Brady for getting to the AFCCG but losing, you're critical of Manning for losing the SB.)

And my original contention was with your idea that it's better to not go than to go and get blown out. I disagree, and I think guys like Rodgers and Brees -- both of whom have only been once -- would disagree. I think Eli would disagree, as a guy who's been twice but has had some pretty ugly skids otherwise. And I think Brady would disagree, as a guy who has lost his last two, including the 18-0 game.

It's the same thing as always. I disagree with the way this discussion is calibrated, like I always do.

I also pointed out why I was praising Brady. His stats may have dipped for reasons out of his control but he got his guys within one game of the big game. It is the complete opposite with Manning, except the losing part is the same. But we are beating a dead horse here.

These guys play to win so I don't necessarily buy into them cherishing the chance to play the losing side in a Super Bowl. Like you mentioned, two of them have only been once and won. I know it is some kind of fan theory that Brady wants to get back and win one to erase spygate out of the world's eyes. But I'm sure he doesn't like those losses one bit, especially compared to his earlier success, and I don't know the guy so I won't say that he would rather have not gone. As a guy that played on a team that enjoyed regular season success only to get demolished in the biggest game in school history, I can say that I would rather not have been a part of the losing postseason. Yeah I know high school is completely different than the NFL but that is how I felt about this particular thing. I hate losing more than I love winning I guess, but that's just me.

[HtownColt]

Players are players. They can, and often do say incredibly stupid things. Happens all the time.

Like Charles Barkley who once said he was misquoted..... IN HIS OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY!!

Are you reading what I'm writing you? People would get fired if this were found to be a hoax, a fraud. Do you understand fired? If you get fired while committing a fraud that destroys a network, who do you think is going to hire you?!?

Why is this hard to grasp?

The link to the NFLN reponse shows less than 500 players responded to the 2013 poll, that's less than 30 percent of the league. It's not a surprise that someone would say they don't know anyone who voted in this. But all of them are offered. It's on them if they don't.

There's nothing to be gained by faking this. There's everything to lose.

As I said in another post, I don't like the poll. I think it's badly run. But that doesn't mean I think it's a fraud.

That's a totally different world.

Come on now........

You could get practice squad players and say it's a players list to justify NFL network calling it a players list.. But those aren't the opinions the fans want to here from. Might as well have a fan vote if they are only getting bottom of the barrel players to participate

[Superman]

I also pointed out why I was praising Brady. His stats may have dipped but he got his guys within one game of the big game. It is the complete opposite with Manning, except the losing part is the same. But we are beating a dead horse here.

These guys play to win so I don't necessarily buy into them cherishing the chance to play the losing side in a Super Bowl. Like you mentioned, two of them have only been once and won. I know it is some kind of fan theory that Brady wants to get back and win one to erase spygate out of the world's eyes. But I'm sure he doesn't like those losses one bit, especially compared to his earlier success, and I don't know the guy so I won't say that he would rather have not gone. As a guy that played on a team that enjoyed regular season success only to get demolished in the biggest game in school history, I can say that I would rather not have been a part of the losing postseason. Yeah I know high school is completely different than the NFL but that is how I felt about this particular thing. I hate losing more than I love winning I guess, but that's just me.

 

To the bolded, how so? Manning's team beat Brady's team to get to the SB. But somehow what Brady did is better than what Manning did... and then in the next breath, you'll argue that Manning "can't win the big game." I don't get it.

 

As to the "hate losing" line, that's still strange to me. You still lost; you just lost sooner. How is that better?

 

If you asked any of these guys to pick between losing a close conference championship game, or getting blown out in the SB, they'd likely all decline to answer, saying something like they'd rather win both games and make it a moot point. No one likes losing; they're not "cherishing" the chance to get taken apart in the SB, hoping for credit just because they got there. That's not the point at all.

 

The point is that this "can't win the big games" line allows you to choose what games qualify as big. There's no logic that supports the idea that it's better to lose the AFCCG than it is to lose the SB. 

[Superman]

You could get practice squad players and say it's a players list to justify NFL network calling it a players list.. But those aren't the opinions the fans want to here from. Might as well have a fan vote if they are only getting bottom of the barrel players to participate

 

This is painful to watch. First they said no players vote. Now that that's been debunked, it's about how you don't like the quality of the players that vote, even though you can't know which players do or don't vote. 

 

Why not just say you don't think much about the voting or the process? It's pretty obvious that some of the players actually do vote...

[HtownColt]

This is painful to watch. First they said no players vote. Now that that's been debunked, it's about how you don't like the quality of the players that vote, even though you can't know which players do or don't vote.

Why not just say you don't think much about the voting or the process? It's pretty obvious that some of the players actually do vote...

Then don't watch

[Superman]

Then don't watch

 

That won't change how flimsy your argument is.

[Qwiz]

To the bolded, how so? Manning's team beat Brady's team to get to the SB. But somehow what Brady did is better than what Manning did... and then in the next breath, you'll argue that Manning "can't win the big game." I don't get it.

As to the "hate losing" line, that's still strange to me. You still lost; you just lost sooner. How is that better?

If you asked any of these guys to pick between losing a close conference championship game, or getting blown out in the SB, they'd likely all decline to answer, saying something like they'd rather win both games and make it a moot point. No one likes losing; they're not "cherishing" the chance to get taken apart in the SB, hoping for credit just because they got there. That's not the point at all.

The point is that this "can't win the big games" line allows you to choose what games qualify as big. There's no logic that supports the idea that it's better to lose the AFCCG than it is to lose the SB.

Brady had far less pieces on offense to work with then Manning did. That is why him making it to the AFC Championship Game is impressive. This whole Manning can't win the big one thing isn't something I made up. It's been argued to death and where there is smoke there is fire. The big one is indeed subjective, and it goes back to his college days, but in my mind it is the Super Bowl. Yea, he won one, but his recent track record isn't very impressive, especially regarding a QB of his stature. His fans and the media are at fault with this: When you build a guy up to godlike status and praise him for MVPs and smashing records you can expect him to get a heckuva lot of blame too when 48-8 happens. He is a nice guy and a stupendous player but there are always excuses for when he doesn't play well or doesn't live up to the expectations. And that just adds fuel to the fire.

I used my example to show my feelings about losing in the postseason; I wasn't applying it to Brady or saying that because he lost sooner makes his situation better. Both guys deserve a lot of credit but no one should be shamed into not attributing blame as well.

[HtownColt]

That won't change how flimsy your argument is.

Touché

[Superman]

Brady had far less pieces on offense to work with then Manning did. That is why him making it to the AFC Championship Game is impressive. This whole Manning can't win the big one thing isn't something I made up. It's been argued to death and where there is smoke there is fire. The big one is indeed subjective, and it goes back to his college days, but in my mind it is the Super Bowl. Yea, he won one, but his recent track record isn't very impressive, especially regarding a QB of his stature. His fans and the media are at fault with this: When you build a guy up to godlike status and praise him for MVPs and smashing records you can expect him to get a heckuva lot of blame too when 48-8 happens. He is a nice guy and a stupendous player but there are always excuses for when he doesn't play well or doesn't live up to the expectations. And that just adds fuel to the fire.

I used my example to show my feelings about losing in the postseason; I wasn't applying it to Brady or saying that because he lost sooner makes his situation better. Both guys deserve a lot of credit but no one should be shamed into not attributing blame as well.

 

There's not a lot of analysis behind that "can't win the big one" argument, that's all I'm saying. I disagree with it in Manning's case, and I disagree with it when it's said about Marino, and when people said it about Jim Kelly, and as people have started saying it about Aaron Rodgers, and usually just in general. Because again, it doesn't hold up to real scrutiny and analysis. It's a tagline, a talking point, and it's not based in fact, no matter how popular it is.

[Qwiz]

There's not a lot of analysis behind that "can't win the big one" argument, that's all I'm saying. I disagree with it in Manning's case, and I disagree with it when it's said about Marino, and when people said it about Jim Kelly, and as people have started saying it about Aaron Rodgers, and usually just in general. Because again, it doesn't hold up to real scrutiny and analysis. It's a tagline, a talking point, and it's not based in fact, no matter how popular it is.

Not everything has to be overanalyzed (or analyzed at all) in order to be true. The case of Marino is quite different than this one as is the case with Rodgers, but we can agree to disagree here. And I'm not saying that my opinion is the definitively right one either.

[NewColtsFan]

You could get practice squad players and say it's a players list to justify NFL network calling it a players list.. But those aren't the opinions the fans want to here from. Might as well have a fan vote if they are only getting bottom of the barrel players to participate

 

You could get practice squad players.    But I think we both realize the likelihood of that happening is incredibly small, bordering on nothing.

 

I'll share a story with you and anyone else who happens to read this....

 

About 3 years ago, or so,  a big story broke overnight, and when the sun came up on the East Coast,  the network who had the story was...............  ESPN.

 

That's because there was no funding for overnight staffing at the NFL Network.

 

Owners were furious.   But, they dug down and came up with funding so the Network is staffed 24/7/365.   Something like that won't happen again.

 

If the owners take something like so seriously,  what are the chances that some executive is going to risk his job and his career by faking a players vote poll?!?

 

A faked poll would destroy the credibility of the NFL Network.   They'd clean house.   That's hundreds of jobs.   

 

For a top-100 poll?       I don't think so.

 

Wouldn't you think the chances would be less then zero.

 

The more you stop and think about this,  the more you'll realize that Whitner is as wrong as can be.......

[HtownColt]

3 years ago, what's the story that broke overnight?

[Superman]

Not everything has to be overanalyzed (or analyzed at all) in order to be true. The case of Marino is quite different than this one as is the case with Rodgers, but we can agree to disagree here. And I'm not saying that my opinion is the definitively right one either.

 

We can agree to disagree, but I'll just say that the truth typically holds up to analysis and scrutiny. The talking point about Manning not being able to perform and win big games doesn't hold up to analysis and scrutiny. 

[Jules]

Right, cause all I do is wave my cane in the air and she pops up to make you guys go *sigh* "not again!"

 

I am here!!!!

 

 

 

Thou art has many prophecies for upcoming season!!! With Peyton the future in January/February looks cloudy.

[Shane Bond]

The Greatest long career Indoor Regular Season QB.

Thanks to Houston, Jacksonville, Tenn., Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, KC, Oakland. ;) 

If i had to win one Big game indoors, i would take Warner over Manning.

How does his last 2 years in outdoor looks?. Check out after you have done hibernating.

 

So Manning has success because of those teams?. And why doesn't that apply to any other successful QB?.

[Shane Bond]

I am not sure that is good comparison the Pats were in that game. It took the Tyree head catch kind of a hail mary on the final drive for the Giants to pull off 17-14 victory. While Brady didn't have his best game he throw for like 250 yards no picks and none of the Manning pick 6's that are almost customary in playoff games. The Pats looked like they had that game.  The Giants scored with under a minute to go.

 

The Bronco's on the other hand got manhandled Manning threw his customary pick 6 and they were never in that Super Bowl. That game was nothing like the Pats v Giants that game. That was the Seahawks embarrassing the Bronco's it was 43-8 again Manning 2 picks one for a td meanwhile Wilson played a clean game 2td 0 int's 

He is not trying to compare apples to apples.

 

His point was for a team which went 18-0, couldnt get the job done. 

[Shane Bond]

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.

 

He looks great against awful teams because his team's defense doesn't need much work. He struggles against good teams because he has to carry the load more.

 

Point is, its a team game. It requires a team including coaches to look good.

 

There are games even last year, he looked great against good teams too. Thats because his team played well overall.

 

Kansas City was on top till they played Denver. Both Chargers and Pats playoffs game was a good team effort.

[Shane Bond]

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. 

I mean isnt that normal?. How will the difference be equal?.

[Shane Bond]

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.

Yeah i want to see that too. Till then i reserve my judgement not blaming the QB.