Is Peyton Manning Injured or Declining?

[GoPats]

I wasn't in to football back when Elway was playing, but didn't he rely heavily on the run when Denver won their SBs? If Peyton can win a SB with a running game, I don't think he'll be too disappointed. He has plenty of individual records. Don't think he's so concerned about that. Of course, this is only my opinion.

 

ABSOLUTELY!

 

In fact, as good as Elway was, he could not win a Super Bowl until Terrell Davis came along. It was the running game that really made the difference for him. 

 

(Then the Broncos cheated the salary cap, won two titles, got caught cheating the cap, got fined $968,000, and lost a 3rd round pick. But no one cares about that because it happened before message boards and social media.  ;) )

[dw49]

I always get the sense that the media is quick to put a player in a box and label him. Cam and Kaep have never been good from the pocket and that was the rap coming out of college. It is not surprising that they are struggling in the pros.

 

Wilson is a bit of an enigma but he really did carry the Hawks more this year than last year given his defense was not great at the start of the season and they did not sign Tate and traded Harvin. Honestly, I don't know how he puts the points he does with that offense. I know Lynch is a beast but everyone else is meh. The defense is rounding into form and he is still making all the plays to win. He really does have the knack for the moment to make the plays to keep the Hawks ahead and allow that defense to do its stuff with the lead.

 

 

I think his receivers are better than are given credit for. These guys can all play and as long as you don't have clueless rookies in there , a good QB makes it work. Do you think Brady's WR's are outstanding ? When did he struggle ... just the year he had a couple of low talent rookies forced into play. I will say that Wilson is clutch but for reasons (mostly being 5'101/2") I cited numerous times , I think his ceiling is lower than the very top QB's. Do you think he get's 20 mill per ?

[amfootball]

I think his receivers are better than are given credit for. These guys can all play and as long as you don't have clueless rookies in there , a good QB makes it work. Do you think Brady's WR's are outstanding ? When did he struggle ... just the year he had a couple of low talent rookies forced into play. I will say that Wilson is clutch but for reasons (mostly being 5'101/2") I cited numerous times , I think his ceiling is lower than the very top QB's. Do you think he get's 20 mill per ?

I don't know. They don't get much separation. I watched most of the Eagles game and they were blanketed most of the time. Took great throws from Wilson to get it to them. At least Harvin was a guy that could make a play in space for him.

 

I am not sure about his ceiling. He has got better every year. He will never be a guy that throws 45 TDs and 4500 yards but he is so great situationally. I suppose we will have to see what happens when the talent around him erodes more. He took a hit this year with losing his top two receivers and players from the defense and he is still chugging along.

 

He gets 20 mil easily. I think Luck gets 25 or more.

[B~Town]

You mean dynasty for Wilson.

Wilson getting paid after this year There D will be picked apart Wilson will not lead that team to a dynasty count on that

[Yehoodi]

Do you call winning 3 out of 6 road games struggling   :???:       Sounds  about even to me.

 

With all stats one needs to look at them to see what is behind them . . . sure the Broncos are 3-3 on the road, but two of the games were against the tomato cans of the league, Jets and Raiders, both presently 2-11, and they needed a pick six to seal the deal with the Jets and look not so great in the first half in Oakland . . .  the other 4 games have been against teams with winning records and they are 1-3 . . . so to date they have struggled against their peers and teams perhaps a step below them on the food chain  . . . I am not so sure we can look at the tomato cans of the league (two of the 4 worst teams in football) to bolster an argument that they have not struggled on the road . . .

 

the Broncos have two away games coming up against good opponents, SD/CINN, and time will tell if that 1-3 record against similarly situated teams is indicative of the teams performance . . .

 

but regardless as they are 1-3 against good teams on road and look no so great in two wins against the tomato cans in the league . . .

 

if we look at the pats in contrast . . . they have played 7 road games 6 against winning teams and the 7th was the 6-7 Vikings . . . the pats are 4-3 on the road . . . more teams and a better record . . .

 

The broncos can certainly win the next two, but the prior 6 games indicated that they have not faired well away from home . . .

 

they have two road games coming up

[Yehoodi]

Brady has lost 3 on the road as well. He must be declining as well. So with Brady and Manning on the way out, looks like an AFC Dynasty for Mr Luck approaching.

 

yes but they have also won 4 and have played stiffer competition than the Broncos in road games . . . so I do not have to type again I would kindly ask you to read my last post for a more detail explanation of my points . . .

[braveheartcolt]

yes but they have also won 4 and have played stiffer competition than the Broncos in road games . . . so I do not have to type again I would kindly ask you to read my last post for a more detail explanation of my points . . .

I have done as you said, as I certainly hope that you do not have to type again.

[Yehoodi]

time will tell if Manning is struggling . . . a few games late in the year are not dispositive on a player . . . lets see at least a season of "reduced" play before we start to think about opinions like this . . .

 

one reason why I am not a fan of stats and more often than not folks do not look at what is behind them . . .admittedly I have not see the games, but sometimes a RB will get in the end zone or the defense dictates that a run play is a better option and the RB gets the TD and not the QB . . . it happens, and frankly happens the other way too . . . so we need to look at all of that . . .  

 

Also, they may be things that we do not know that are causing the Broncos to run the offense the way they are and its not necessarily related to Peyton . . .

 

We will see what happens in the last three games and the playoffs and can get a better idea of what is going on . . . if the broncos are in a position where they want or need to use Peyton's assets, we will get a better idea on this question . . . but again it will still only be a small sample size . . .if a season or two goes by that is a different story . . .

[Cnr324]

He's just fine just wait and see

[Synthetic]

He's been declining for a few years now. Notice his wobbly throws and the way he can't throw a perfect deep ball unless he has a lot of time to force all his strength in his arm? Best possible thing for him is a strong running game and not throwing the ball a bunch.

 

Of course, anyone that says this is lambasted with essays and reminders of what meanie heads we are and how dumb we are for pointing this out. So go ahead, feel free to remind me for the thousandth time over, I do not care. Sorry guys but he's not the same anymore. I can say the same thing about Brady and Brees too with how they over rely on short pass/dink and donk offense but even there, you also take heat for pointing it out.

[YOUR GM]

They still remember how much they were dominated in the trenches during the Super Bowl. The shift to more of a run attack is just the signaling of their mindset changing to playoff football. I think Peyton could still throw it 50 times a game if he wanted to, but they're trying to get away from that and establish a balanced attack for the final stretch of the season. Smart plan, if you ask me. You have to win the trench wars if you want to win it all

[-JJ-]

Well Fox has always been a run man FWTW

Fox ball=Marty ball.

 

Every time I see him on the sidelines he looks like a spectator with all the passing

[BloodyChamp]

No matter how ugly it gets, you don't count Peyton out. If you don't believe me go back and watch some of Favre's, Warner's, Elway's etc ugly games before they GOT BACK TO THE SUPERBOWL! Yeah yeah Favre never got back but only because of that Bountygate %.

[Fx Stryker]

Honestly Peyton competed what, 14/20? Not amazing, and certainly not Peyton like, but they were running the ball.

He only had one bad throw the whole game, and that was his first interception. The second one was just him and DT weren't on the same page. It wasn't a floater or anything.

Honestly he might just be resting. He is 38, I would be surprised if he didn't feel a little tired. Right now the Broncos are running hard and he gets a chance to rest a little. I don't see the problem.

[Shane Bond]

With all stats one needs to look at them to see what is behind them . . . sure the Broncos are 3-3 on the road, but two of the games were against the tomato cans of the league, Jets and Raiders, both presently 2-11, and they needed a pick six to seal the deal with the Jets and look not so great in the first half in Oakland . . .  the other 4 games have been against teams with winning records and they are 1-3 . . . so to date they have struggled against their peers and teams perhaps a step below them on the food chain  . . . I am not so sure we can look at the tomato cans of the league (two of the 4 worst teams in football) to bolster an argument that they have not struggled on the road . . .

 

the Broncos have two away games coming up against good opponents, SD/CINN, and time will tell if that 1-3 record against similarly situated teams is indicative of the teams performance . . .

 

but regardless as they are 1-3 against good teams on road and look no so great in two wins against the tomato cans in the league . . .

 

if we look at the pats in contrast . . . they have played 7 road games 6 against winning teams and the 7th was the 6-7 Vikings . . . the pats are 4-3 on the road . . . more teams and a better record . . .

 

The broncos can certainly win the next two, but the prior 6 games indicated that they have not faired well away from home . . .

 

they have two road games coming up

We cant really measure based on the team they played away.

 

Arrowhead is a tough place to play and they beat them there. I am sure you remember Arrowhead, the game Jimmy started in the 4th quarter.

 

In Seattle, they took them to overtime.

 

The same tomato can Jets almost beat the Pats in Foxboro.

 

Win is a win. You cant undervalue that based on who they played.

[oldunclemark]

70% Stryk.....and they led all the way and 24-3 starting the fourth Q..and you're right about the 2nd pick

...its late in the year ..they had an early bye and its been a grind again: much tougher schedule this year

Maybe he only threw 20 times so his injured receivers (Demariyus, Tamme, Welker) wouldn't get hit more.

...he's just playing to get the Super Bowl...like all the old stars

He has spoiled us with 300 and 3 TDs every game

[Yehoodi]

We cant really measure based on the team they played away.

 

Arrowhead is a tough place to play and they beat them there. I am sure you remember Arrowhead, the game Jimmy started in the 4th quarter.

 

In Seattle, they took them to overtime.

 

The same tomato can Jets almost beat the Pats in Foxboro.

 

Win is a win. You cant undervalue that based on who they played.

 

Who they have played is at the heart of the question . . . is it not a black and white of wins and losses when one is discussing how one has played . . . it is based on who they play, when they play them, where they play them and how they played them . . .the pats getting spanked by KC shows a different image then the pats losing a squeaker in GB . . . there are not the same and when one evaluates a team they will not look at them the same when you look to see how well a team is playing . . . if you can not see then I can not help you . . .

 

Yes the pats got spanked in KC but the pats also have 4 road wins . . . you can spin it away way you want too but the 2 of 3 Denver's wins are against tomato cans . . . and when they played teams in their caliber they are 1-3 . . . again they have a great chance to win two games in the next two weeks . . .

[Shane Bond]

Who they have played is at the heart of the question . . . is it not a black and white of wins and losses when one is discussing how one has played . . . it is based on who they play, when they play them, where they play them and how they played them . . .the pats getting spanked by KC shows a different image then the pats losing a squeaker in GB . . . there are not the same and when one evaluates a team they will not look at them the same when you look to see how well a team is playing . . . if you can not see then I can not help you . . .

 

Yes the pats got spanked in KC but the pats also have 4 road wins . . . you can spin it away way you want too but the 2 of 3 Denver's wins are against tomato cans . . . and when they played teams in their caliber they are 1-3 . . . again they have a great chance to win two games in the next two weeks . . .

 

You are spinning to suit your need and you are also spinning it to undervalue Denver.

 

My point is teams they beat are not an indicator to value the wins. If thats the case, how do you define Kansas manhandling Pats in Arrowhead?. Does that mean Pats are so bad?.

 

Just because Denver beat Jets doesn't make Denver bad.

 

Now keep spinning.

[Yehoodi]

You are spinning to suit your need and you are also spinning it to undervalue Denver.

 

My point is teams they beat are not an indicator to value the wins. If thats the case, how do you define Kansas manhandling Pats in Arrowhead?. Does that mean Pats are so bad?.

 

Just because Denver beat Jets doesn't make Denver bad.

 

Now keep spinning.

 

it does not make them bad in the sense of a negative thing it has more to do with the fact that it is not as big of a positive . . . you like how I phrase that one, I knew you would . . .  

 

look, it is kind of like the pats early in the season, they were overall 2-2 (three road games btw) and many in the nation, locally, and a handful on this board had them down as struggling . . . and some even said that brady was struggling and looked bad . . . if you don't believe me just check that old thread on Brady's Arm is Shot . . . there where a lot of zingers binging thrown, and some by you btw ;) , about how those first four games defined the season and quality of the pats to date, with the last game being the spanking by KC . . .

 

and there were many who looked at those first four games, realized that the pats were only 2-2 with one of those wins a hang on by the skin of your teeth win against the Raiders which only made the 2-2 look worse, that is you lost twice to two good teams, and you barely beat a team that has not won a game in like 15 games . . . see my point . . . ;)  

 

I agreed that the pats where struggling as they sometimes do early in the season when they go through their roster adjustments . . . but the Pats needed to prove themselves to show that the 2-2 win against Oakland was not a foreshadow of things to come . . . and we had the "we are on to Cincinnati" press conference if you remember . . .

 

So had they gone 4-0 there would be no questions but when you are 500 and barely beat a tomato can, people are going to start to talk . . . now is not the pats fault who they played like you are indicating. . . but one can not ignore the fact that folks were casting a doubting eye towards a 500 team with not the strongest of wins . . . point being, you have two loses against good teams and one of the wins was not that impressive . . . so its not that the win is a negative per se, it is just that on the balance sheet of a teams quality on the win side you don't get as many positive points for barely beating the Raiders as you would spanking the Seahawks . .  that is my point . . .

 

so no its not the Broncos fault who they have played on the road and they have two more road games against quality opponents to help balance out the competition on their road games docket . . . but to date, like the 2-2 Pats in September, the Broncos are 3-3 with two wins of the wins against tomato cans like the Raiders (well one was the Raiders but you get the point) . . . so if we, including myself, stated that the 2-2 Pats could be viewed as struggling so can one, and me included, look to the to date Broncos road record as a team that can be viewed as struggling . . . and like the 2-2 Pats did, the Broncos can win the next two road games to change the results on the balance sheet, but what we have to date, regardless of whose fault it is, a team that on the road has results not that dissimilar to the September Pats . . . and we all know that there we some boo birds thinking that it was a team that was struggling at the time . . . ;)  

 

so I am not spinning anything . . .

[MJD42]

They still remember how much they were dominated in the trenches during the Super Bowl. The shift to more of a run attack is just the signaling of their mindset changing to playoff football. I think Peyton could still throw it 50 times a game if he wanted to, but they're trying to get away from that and establish a balanced attack for the final stretch of the season. Smart plan, if you ask me. You have to win the trench wars if you want to win it all

Their run game is not good enough to carry them all the way. It will come down to Manning making plays which I think he can but I do wonder if there is something going on. He is a timing, rhythm QB and his second pick on Sunday was because he and the receiver were not on the same page. If there is a decline, I don't think it is significant yet but these last three games should be a better indicator given the quality of opponent they are facing on the road.

[sweetsurrender]

Fox knew after the Rams game that the passing game was struggling. He said the team would run and it has very successfully. The real question is can this team win if it is reliant completely on Manning? I think that answer is no. Whether he is injured or declining, I don't know but they are not putting the ball in his hands right now. SD will be a big test. They will look to shut down the run and force Manning to beat them. Seems strange to say that but they have to see what he has got.

[Shane Bond]

it does not make them bad in the sense of a negative thing it has more to do with the fact that it is not as big of a positive . . . you like how I phrase that one, I knew you would . . .  

 

look, it is kind of like the pats early in the season, they were overall 2-2 (three road games btw) and many in the nation, locally, and a handful on this board had them down as struggling . . . and some even said that brady was struggling and looked bad . . . if you don't believe me just check that old thread on Brady's Arm is Shot . . . there where a lot of zingers binging thrown, and some by you btw ;) , about how those first four games defined the season and quality of the pats to date, with the last game being the spanking by KC . . .

 

and there were many who looked at those first four games, realized that the pats were only 2-2 with one of those wins a hang on by the skin of your teeth win against the Raiders which only made the 2-2 look worse, that is you lost twice to two good teams, and you barely beat a team that has not won a game in like 15 games . . . see my point . . . ;)  

 

I agreed that the pats where struggling as they sometimes do early in the season when they go through their roster adjustments . . . but the Pats needed to prove themselves to show that the 2-2 win against Oakland was not a foreshadow of things to come . . . and we had the "we are on to Cincinnati" press conference if you remember . . .

 

So had they gone 4-0 there would be no questions but when you are 500 and barely beat a tomato can, people are going to start to talk . . . now is not the pats fault who they played like you are indicating. . . but one can not ignore the fact that folks were casting a doubting eye towards a 500 team with not the strongest of wins . . . point being, you have two loses against good teams and one of the wins was not that impressive . . . so its not that the win is a negative per se, it is just that on the balance sheet of a teams quality on the win side you don't get as many positive points for barely beating the Raiders as you would spanking the Seahawks . .  that is my point . . .

 

so no its not the Broncos fault who they have played on the road and they have two more road games against quality opponents to help balance out the competition on their road games docket . . . but to date, like the 2-2 Pats in September, the Broncos are 3-3 with two wins of the wins against tomato cans like the Raiders (well one was the Raiders but you get the point) . . . so if we, including myself, stated that the 2-2 Pats could be viewed as struggling so can one, and me included, look to the to date Broncos road record as a team that can be viewed as struggling . . . and like the 2-2 Pats did, the Broncos can win the next two road games to change the results on the balance sheet, but what we have to date, regardless of whose fault it is, a team that on the road has results not that dissimilar to the September Pats . . . and we all know that there we some boo birds thinking that it was a team that was struggling at the time . . . ;)  

 

so I am not spinning anything . . .

Exactly but i am not one of them who said Pats were horrible when they were struggling. I knew they would make a turnaround.

 

And i expect the same for Denver.

[Gramz]

He's fine.     Whether he's throwing, or passing off to the RB's,  he's still orchestrating the plays, and it's working.

 

Some people are never happy, and like to nit pik, no matter what.     As Susie said in another thread, you can't accuse him of padding his stats right now.