Why Do People Think Peyton Should Have More Sb's?

[dn4192]

Yes Peyton is going to go down as a top 5 QB or all time, but as we look throughout the history of the NFL, just because you are great or one of the greatest that does not equal out to title game championships or SB appearances. So given this is a team sport, which during most of Peyton's time has been under a salary cap, I am interested to know why people think the Colts/Peyton should have more the 2 trips to the big game during Peyton's career. I mean lets be honost, Peyton has been a Colt I believe since 1999. Well how many QB's make it to the SB in their first couple of seasons in the NFL unless they get lucky like Ben did and get drafted by a pretty decent team. So take away the first couple of seasons for Peyton and you have what like maybe 10 years, of which the colts went twice.

I think some times people's expectations get higher then can be expected, I think we should look back on the past 10 years and be proud how the team and Peyton did.

[vinatierifan4]

I think we'll get back to the superbowl in the next two years, because sure our team hasn't played well, BUT weve had alotta two score games or even one score games where you know peyton could have gotten one more touchdown. We've had so many three and out's this year and punts of course our D is gonna be bad because they never get a rest. I know our D isn't good, but it could be better if we had a QB that could sustain more than one long drive a game.

[deedub75]

It's not that Peyton should have more Super Bowls but the team as a whole should have more. It just doesn't make sense to dominate the regular season and the division for 10 plus years and make it to only 2 Super Bowls. Call me a spoiled fan or what have you but it just doesn't make sense. With 10 years of domination, not just making the playoffs, you would expect more Super Bowl appearances. The Atlanta Braves dominated the 90s winning 14 consecutive division titles, 4 trips to the World Series, but on 1 World Series win. As a Braves fan, this doesn't make sense to me either.

[dn4192]

It's not that Peyton should have more Super Bowls but the team as a whole should have more. It just doesn't make sense to dominate the regular season and the division for 10 plus years and make it to only 2 Super Bowls. Call me a spoiled fan or what have you but it just doesn't make sense. With 10 years of domination, not just making the playoffs, you would expect more Super Bowl appearances. The Atlanta Braves dominated the 90s winning 14 consecutive division titles, 4 trips to the World Series, but on 1 World Series win. As a Braves fan, this doesn't make sense to me either.

Especially in football more then baseball, the playoffs are a 1 game crap shoot, anything can happe. that is why I believe a true greatness of a team is better seen in what they do during the regular season over the post season.

[deedub75]

Especially in football more then baseball, the playoffs are a 1 game crap shoot, anything can happe. that is why I believe a true greatness of a team is better seen in what they do during the regular season over the post season.

You're entitled to your opinion but teams play to win in the postseason. That is the whole purpose of the playing the games. If people listened to your flawed logic then they should just cancel the postseason altogether. Years down the road people will remember that the Colts won the 2006 Super Bowl and they will not remember that the Colts won a lot of regular season games. Historically great teams like the Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers are historically great because the won championships. Nobody remembers how they played in the regular season.

[WSO]

Especially in football more then baseball, the playoffs are a 1 game crap shoot, anything can happe. that is why I believe a true greatness of a team is better seen in what they do during the regular season over the post season.

this has to be the worst post I've ever read since joining the forums

Whats the point of the Super Bowl then? Great teams are known for winning the super bowl. Great franchises are the ones that have 4 5 or 6 Super Bowls(Im aware the Steelers are the only one in the '6' category)

When I think of great teams of this decade I think of the Patriots and Steelers. Easiest the two best based off not only what they have done in the regular season but what they did in the post season. They showed consistency and as I type this are still Super Bowl contenders. While the Colts have been great in the regular season they are too inconsistent in the post season. Whether it be poor play on Mannings part, injuries, luck etc. they have trouble getting it done.

It baffles me a team that can win 10,11,12,13 or 14 games in a row in the regular season have trouble putting together a 3 or 4 game run in the post season.

2005 is a great example, the team was playing great on both sides of the ball yet struggled against the Steelers. If Vanderjagt didn't shank that kick the Colts would have played the Broncos in the AFCCG. Manning has torched the Broncos in his career and that is the one year I feel like the Colts really let it get away. . 2005. Ifs and buts dont work but that is the one year that still bugs me.

[Duolian]

Have to agree that having huge regular season success minus championships only benefits the bottom-line of ownership. Keeps the seats filled, sells a lot of merchandise, but does nothing for the legacy and historical recognition. The odor of underachievement is strong and hard to get rid of, similar to a cat I once owned briefly.

[WSO]

this has to be the worst post I've ever read since joining the forums

Whats the point of the Super Bowl then? Great teams are known for winning the super bowl. Great franchises are the ones that have 4 5 or 6 Super Bowls(Im aware the Steelers are the only one in the '6' category)

When I think of great teams of this decade I think of the Patriots and Steelers. Easiest the two best based off not only what they have done in the regular season but what they did in the post season. They showed consistency and as I type this are still Super Bowl contenders. While the Colts have been great in the regular season they are too inconsistent in the post season. Whether it be poor play on Mannings part, injuries, luck etc. they have trouble getting it done.

It baffles me a team that can win 10,11,12,13 or 14 games in a row in the regular season have trouble putting together a 3 or 4 game run in the post season.

2005 is a great example, the team was playing great on both sides of the ball yet struggled against the Steelers. If Vanderjagt didn't shank that kick the Colts would have played the Broncos in the AFCCG. Manning has torched the Broncos in his career and that is the one year I feel like the Colts really let it get away. . 2005. Ifs and buts dont work but that is the one year that still bugs me.

i dont know how to edit my post but this is assuming the Colts beat the steelers in OT

[dn4192]

this has to be the worst post I've ever read since joining the forums

Whats the point of the Super Bowl then? Great teams are known for winning the super bowl. Great franchises are the ones that have 4 5 or 6 Super Bowls(Im aware the Steelers are the only one in the '6' category)

When I think of great teams of this decade I think of the Patriots and Steelers. Easiest the two best based off not only what they have done in the regular season but what they did in the post season. They showed consistency and as I type this are still Super Bowl contenders. While the Colts have been great in the regular season they are too inconsistent in the post season. Whether it be poor play on Mannings part, injuries, luck etc. they have trouble getting it done.

It baffles me a team that can win 10,11,12,13 or 14 games in a row in the regular season have trouble putting together a 3 or 4 game run in the post season.

2005 is a great example, the team was playing great on both sides of the ball yet struggled against the Steelers. If Vanderjagt didn't shank that kick the Colts would have played the Broncos in the AFCCG. Manning has torched the Broncos in his career and that is the one year I feel like the Colts really let it get away. . 2005. Ifs and buts dont work but that is the one year that still bugs me.

Exaclty, the game came down to a kicker. Were the Steelers a better team or did they just get lucky? If the Colts and Steelers say play a best of 5 over 5 weeks who wins that series? To many things can happen in a 1 game playoff.

[Case]

Especially in football more then baseball, the playoffs are a 1 game crap shoot, anything can happe. that is why I believe a true greatness of a team is better seen in what they do during the regular season over the post season.

Lol at this post. had a good chuckle at work from this one. Super bowls r overrated lol

It's all about championships. That's why u play.

[Duolian]

If you're only gonna win one Super Bowl, it would be helpful to at least have it be a classic game that would enter the rotation of great moments in Super Bowl history. I really don't know that beating Rex Grossman in the pouring rain is going to qualify. The SB against the Saints certainly fits the bill, but not for Indy fans unfortunately.

[BOONE]

Because with just a few good moves we could have been so much more or should I say can be so much more.....maybe sign a good FA from time to time, stop paying players like BOB,gonzo ect ect... year after year after year to do NOTHING BUT TAKE CAP SPACE! Get a real HC and show Jim the door...I could keep this up all night but we all know where im going here. Manning has outdone himself just pulling off what he has but with just a little help from the boss he could have done much more in the post season. As a paid player Im not sure he is owed anything from them but as a Colts fan I say your DAN right they do!

[wirymo]

Had Peyton had a decent defense, head coach, and special teams all these years, then there's no doubt in my mind that he would have won 2-3 more SBs.

[KyFan18]

Super Bowls are a good measurement of how good a team is. Super Bowl wins are not a good measurement of how good a quarterback is.

Does anyone really think Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, or Troy Aikman is better than Manning, Favre, Marino, or Unitas because they won more Super Bowls?

[Mark]

The Colts are not a good football team. You see this now when Peyton's not here. In the playoffs, you can't just depend on one player to get you to the promise land it just doesn't work that way. It's a team game. If Peyton was with the Patroits he could've won at least 4 superbowls

[everybodysgotone]

Especially in football more then baseball, the playoffs are a 1 game crap shoot, anything can happe. that is why I believe a true greatness of a team is better seen in what they do during the regular season over the post season.

You're fired.

[jskinnz]

If you're only gonna win one Super Bowl, it would be helpful to at least have it be a classic game that would enter the rotation of great moments in Super Bowl history. I really don't know that beating Rex Grossman in the pouring rain is going to qualify. The SB against the Saints certainly fits the bill, but not for Indy fans unfortunately.

Absolutely ridicuous. So the Colts Super Bowl win is undervalued because they beat a Rex Grossman QB'd team? What a bunch of nonsense. Isn't that kind of like saying you date the ugliest Playboy Playmate? She may not be as pretty as Ms. September but Ms. June is still pretty freaking good.

They can only play and beat whoever is in front of them.

[Duolian]

Absolutely ridicuous. So the Colts Super Bowl win is undervalued because they beat a Rex Grossman QB'd team? What a bunch of nonsense. Isn't that kind of like saying you date the ugliest Playboy Playmate? She may not be as pretty as Ms. September but Ms. June is still pretty freaking good.

They can only play and beat whoever is in front of them.

Sorry, but years down the road the main thing I remember is the frequent laughing at Rex Grossman tripping over himself. Which tends to undercut the perception that it was a match worthy of two teams for the title. No fault of anyone's, just the way it turned out. I'm fully aware that you play whoever you get - but I am talking about the Colts historical legacy, and if they only end up with the single SB win during Peyton's era I think it is unfortunate that this game is what we have to put up there with all the rest. Doesn't cheapen the accomplishment, but it does cheapen the PERCEPTION of the accomplishment by the general football public (ie non-Colts diehards).

He may have had the nickname Sexy Rexy, but on your dating scale I would have to rank him somewhere Phyllis Diller and that decomposing woman Jack Nicholson was making out with in The Shining.

[JoKeR]

The Colts are not a good football team. You see this now when Peyton's not here. In the playoffs, you can't just depend on one player to get you to the promise land it just doesn't work that way. It's a team game. If Peyton was with the Patroits he could've won at least 4 superbowls

Most championship teams had a good qb to depend on. What team does Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Clark, Bethea, Collie, and Saturday play for again?

[jskinnz]

Sorry, but years down the road the main thing I remember is the frequent laughing at Rex Grossman tripping over himself. Which tends to undercut the perception that it was a match worthy of two teams for the title. No fault of anyone's, just the way it turned out. I'm fully aware that you play whoever you get - but I am talking about the Colts historical legacy, and if they only end up with the single SB win during Peyton's era I think it is unfortunate that this game is what we have to put up there with all the rest. Doesn't cheapen the accomplishment, but it does cheapen the PERCEPTION of the accomplishment by the general football public (ie non-Colts diehards).

He may have had the nickname Sexy Rexy, but on your dating scale I would have to rank him somewhere Phyllis Diller and that decomposing woman Jack Nicholson was making out with in The Shining.

A much better explanation. Still wrong but stated much better.

I don't care about the perception of the general football public. Who does? If someone belittles the Colts' accomplishment that year because of Grossman, how does that matter? It means nothing to me and I don't know why it would mean anything to fans of the Colts. History will only recognize them as the champs that year. It is like a golf scorecard - there is no dialog box to detail how you arrived at your score on a particular hole. The only thing relevant is the score itself.

[Jaric]

Super Bowls are a good measurement of how good a team is. Super Bowl wins are not a good measurement of how good a quarterback is.

Does anyone really think Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, or Troy Aikman is better than Manning, Favre, Marino, or Unitas because they won more Super Bowls?

Well for the record, Young won the same number as Peyton did (as a starter at least)

As to the original question, considering that we've apparently been one player away from going winless, I think it's a modern miracle we even have one superbowl. Winning the superbowl is hard, which is why I get a chuckle when I hear people (of any fan base) talk about winning "a couple more superbowls" as if you can just pick up a Lombardi at walmart. It doesn't work that way.

NFL history is littered with amazing teams that didn't win the superbowl because they got beat by an even better team. Or by a team that had a good day. A missed call. A mental error here or there. There is so much that go wrong during the playoffs that to expect to win it all is foolhardy.

Take this year for example. Lets say we were having our normal 12-4 year. I count at least 5 to 6 other teams that will make the playoffs that would be hard to beat, and we'd have to beat at least 3 of them to win it all.

Long runs of success tend to make people forget just how hard it is to win in this league. We of all fan bases should know that considering that with the exception of the Manning era, we really haven't won that many games at all (since moving to Indy of course)

[Jaric]

Absolutely ridicuous. So the Colts Super Bowl win is undervalued because they beat a Rex Grossman QB'd team? What a bunch of nonsense. Isn't that kind of like saying you date the ugliest Playboy Playmate? She may not be as pretty as Ms. September but Ms. June is still pretty freaking good.

They can only play and beat whoever is in front of them.

Yeah lots of this.

Besides the AFFCG was the real superbowl that year. Which we won in pretty epic fashion I might add.

[Duolian]

A much better explanation. Still wrong but stated much better.

I don't care about the perception of the general football public. Who does? If someone belittles the Colts' accomplishment that year because of Grossman, how does that matter? It means nothing to me and I don't know why it would mean anything to fans of the Colts. History will only recognize them as the champs that year. It is like a golf scorecard - there is no dialog box to detail how you arrived at your score on a particular hole. The only thing relevant is the score itself.

I can see your point, but judging from the daily outrage on this board when someone in the national media disrespects the Colts - I'd say quite a few Colts fans care about what "outsiders" think. It's just human nature to want as many people as possible to share your high opinion of your team, and there's nothing wrong with that. Eventually, Peyton's era will ONLY exist (for most) on TV shows, just like Bart Starr only exists there for us. Fewer and fewer people who actually watched the games are around with each passing year. And I think that unfortunately, that SB - if it gets shown much - will probably be presented almost like an NFL bloopers reel. I hated Grossman for stinking up the game the way he did, I wanted an epic battle of two worthy champions. That's all I'm pushing.

And I do grant Jaric points about the AFCGG - it was epic. But the OP was about Super Bowls, so that's the road I took.

[Peytongirl]

Only one team out of 32 can win the SB each year. And it is one game...so you know the whole saying about "any given Sunday".

Yes, the playoffs are important, but I don't think that people give enough credit to regular season wins and how it measures success.

I think back to the greatest female figure skater (IMHO) and her longevity in the sport. She won almost every championship she competed in, with the exception of an Olympic gold medal (won silver and bronze). She was at the very top of the sport for over 10 years. Everyone knows her name and it is synonymous with the ideal perfection of skating. The two who won the gold medals at the Olympics where she competed and didn't win...they were upstarts, the next "big" thing and they won at very young ages. One good season and that was it. Most people cannot even recall their names and they fell out of the spotlight (and competition) when their single shot was over. But not the real champion. Skaters still strive to be like her.

I am always reminded of Peyton and the Colts when I think of Michelle Kwan. Her measure of greatness is not linked to gold medals. Just as I don't think Peyton's greatness is linked to Lombardis.

I know my viewpoint is radical, but how many fluke teams that won the SB were truly the best that season? Or did they 'just get hot at the right time'?

Yes, it is about competition and winning and for many it is all about "winning it all". But only one team gets that Lombardi and only 45 of them have been given out so far in as many years. Yes, they are important but they are not the solo measurement of greatness. My anyway.

[JoKeR]

Great QBs don't guarantee dynasties. Most people tend to forget the dynasties of old were great overall teams.

The Colts had a g.o.a.t. like QB and some very good players on both sides of the ball BUT there have been some big holes on those teams.

I think Peyton should have 2 rings.

[jskinnz]

I can see your point, but judging from the daily outrage on this board when someone in the national media disrespects the Colts - I'd say quite a few Colts fans care about what "outsiders" think. It's just human nature to want as many people as possible to share your high opinion of your team, and there's nothing wrong with that. Eventually, Peyton's era will ONLY exist (for most) on TV shows, just like Bart Starr only exists there for us. Fewer and fewer people who actually watched the games are around with each passing year. And I think that unfortunately, that SB - if it gets shown much - will probably be presented almost like an NFL bloopers reel. I hated Grossman for stinking up the game the way he did, I wanted an epic battle of two worthy champions. That's all I'm pushing.

And I do grant Jaric points about the AFCGG - it was epic. But the OP was about Super Bowls, so that's the road I took.

My team won the 2006 Super Bowl. Whoever discredits that accomplish is meaningless to me. I was at the AFCCG against the Pats. I was in Miami to see the Bears game. Nothing that anyone says can take away from what those memories were to me.

And secondly, anyone discrediting their accomplishments are more than likely fans of another team, who were either not good enough to get beat by Grossman in the playoffs or are wishing like heck their team was good enough to play in the game and compete against such a lousy QB.

Methinks you care way too much about the opinions of others.

[JoKeR]

Ok instead of saying Manning beat Rex Grossman,

It really was about Manning beating the highly vaunted Bears defense.

[Bond Shane]

If you're only gonna win one Super Bowl, it would be helpful to at least have it be a classic game that would enter the rotation of great moments in Super Bowl history. I really don't know that beating Rex Grossman in the pouring rain is going to qualify. The SB against the Saints certainly fits the bill, but not for Indy fans unfortunately.

Pardon me but we beat Ravens and Patriots to get to SB. Does that qualify for you, Respected Duolian?.

Also Bears defense and special teams are one amongst the best.

[Bond Shane]

Sorry, but years down the road the main thing I remember is the frequent laughing at Rex Grossman tripping over himself. Which tends to undercut the perception that it was a match worthy of two teams for the title. No fault of anyone's, just the way it turned out. I'm fully aware that you play whoever you get - but I am talking about the Colts historical legacy, and if they only end up with the single SB win during Peyton's era I think it is unfortunate that this game is what we have to put up there with all the rest. Doesn't cheapen the accomplishment, but it does cheapen the PERCEPTION of the accomplishment by the general football public (ie non-Colts diehards).

He may have had the nickname Sexy Rexy, but on your dating scale I would have to rank him somewhere Phyllis Diller and that decomposing woman Jack Nicholson was making out with in The Shining.

Rex Grossman is better than Trent Dilfer. Trent Dilfer has a SB.

Why is hard to comprehend SB is a TEAM effort.

[Duolian]

Ok, so let's just continue to mutate my simple statement into larger and larger claims why don't we? This thread was a discussion of how many SBs people thought PEYTON should have. I just made the point that if you only have one to hang on your wall, it would be nice if it was really memorable. it was a shame that it had to be one where Peyton's counterpart came off as Bozo the Clown, who repeatedly shot his own great team in the foot. But please, make my point whatever fits your argument, I'm cool with it. And thanks especially for the new tag name "Respected Duolian", I kind of like the sound of that. This is a nice place.

[Andy]

Because he's had some of the best regular seasons in recent memory and top offenses... Although PM did have terrible games, the D was at fault for a lot of the losses. 41-0 to the Jets, 1999 loss to the Titans

There have been some flat out unlucky years where we have a kicker miss a game tying field goal, and the refs making an interesting call in a Pats game

[IMissMarvin]

It is because he has been far and away the most dominant regular season QB of our times, and if our playoff winning % were anything like our regular season one (I know it is unrealistic to expect against playoff teams) he'd have 3 or 4 rings. Heck if he played with a Steelers D or a Bears D he might have 5 or 6 by now.

[Mark]

Most championship teams had a good qb to depend on. What team does Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Clark, Bethea, Collie, and Saturday play for again?

A team that can't win a single game with Peyton Manning and honestly, made everyone one of those players look better than they really are. Obviously he made the offensive players look good cause he's an amazing quarterback. But he also put the opposing teams in situations where they had to throw the ball. Let's be honest, Freeney and Mathis are only good at rushing the passer, when you put them up against a run game, they aren't even a factor. And stopping the run game is vital to winning a championship. Get Peyton out of Indianapolis he deserves better.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Ok instead of saying Manning beat Rex Grossman,

It really was about Manning beating the highly vaunted Bears defense.

It was the only time ever that a team beat the #3, #2, & #1 scoring defenses in order to win a championship

[IndyTrav]

In respect to Duolian, I get what your saying. Of the Super Bowls in the last 10 years Grossman, is arguably the absolute worst. Mannings legacy would be more 'complete' had he beaten another QB IMO.

Manning, Manning, Brees, Brady,Rodgers, Warner, BigBen,Hasselbeck,Johnson,Gannon, McNabb, Delhomme.

Whats really amazing is seeing Brady/Warner/BigBen names come up 10 times in 12 years.

[jskinnz]

In respect to Duolian, I get what your saying. Of the Super Bowls in the last 10 years Grossman, is arguably the absolute worst. Mannings legacy would be more 'complete' had he beaten another QB IMO.

Manning, Manning, Brees, Brady,Rodgers, Warner, BigBen,Hasselbeck,Johnson,Gannon, McNabb, Delhomme.

Whats really amazing is seeing Brady/Warner/BigBen names come up 10 times in 12 years.

If you want to argue about Manning's legacy, you are far better served to bring up the one and dones than the quality of QB he played against in the year they won the whole freaking thing. If anything, the win against the Bears cemented Manning's legacy.

[jskinnz]

Because he's had some of the best regular seasons in recent memory and top offenses... Although PM did have terrible games, the D was at fault for a lot of the losses. 41-0 to the Jets, 1999 loss to the Titans

There have been some flat out unlucky years where we have a kicker miss a game tying field goal, and the refs making an interesting call in a Pats game

So let me understand - in a game in which they scored zero points, you are laying the blame at the feet of the defense? Seems like an entire team breakdown to me.

[Bond Shane]

In respect to Duolian, I get what your saying. Of the Super Bowls in the last 10 years Grossman, is arguably the absolute worst. Mannings legacy would be more 'complete' had he beaten another QB IMO.

Manning, Manning, Brees, Brady,Rodgers, Warner, BigBen,Hasselbeck,Johnson,Gannon, McNabb, Delhomme.

Whats really amazing is seeing Brady/Warner/BigBen names come up 10 times in 12 years.

His legacy is still not complete?. This is unreal.

First of all, Manning doesnt have a choice to pick his opponent.

Secondly, Manning was involved in one of the greatest game played ever ( AFC Championship ). If you dont think beating Bill Belichick, Tom Brady with Ted Brushi, Rodney, Asanta Samuel, Vrabel etc was "complete", i have nothing else to say.

Personally, i am glad in many ways for this year. The people who dddnt realize his magnitude before would get an idea ( i hope ).

[LUVTHESHOE]

You're entitled to your opinion but teams play to win in the postseason. That is the whole purpose of the playing the games. If people listened to your flawed logic then they should just cancel the postseason altogether. Years down the road people will remember that the Colts won the 2006 Super Bowl and they will not remember that the Colts won a lot of regular season games. Historically great teams like the Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers are historically great because the won championships. Nobody remembers how they played in the regular season.

Playoffs and championship are what sports are all about. The regular is for eliminating the also rans. Hence why viewership doubles during playoff of any sport.

[IndyTrav]

His legacy is still not complete?. This is unreal.

First of all, Manning doesnt have a choice to pick his opponent.

Secondly, Manning was involved in one of the greatest game played ever ( AFC Championship ). If you dont think beating Bill Belichick, Tom Brady with Ted Brushi, Rodney, Asanta Samuel, Vrabel etc was "complete", i have nothing else to say.

Personally, i am glad in many ways for this year. The people who dddnt realize his magnitude before would get an idea ( i hope ).

I said MORE complete.

What looks better on a resume. Beating Grossman in a SB. Or beating Brees in a SB?

I'm not saying he's not the greatest of all time. He is. And I'm not saying we shouldn't have win the SB. We did. But the fact of the matter is Grossman is/was the worst starting QB in the last 10+ years to appear in a Super Bowl.

As for the Pats game. I agree that was our SB. But just that, OUR super bowl. As in Colt fans SB. The rest of the nation considers our lone SB less than stellar. Fair or unfair. That's how it's viewed.