Peyton has handled things well

[southwest1]

This line made me sad though: 

 

"Manning's work also included some scout-team repetitions, since he's been ruled out for any participation in Sunday's game at Pittsburgh." 

 

 

A man of 18's credentials reduced to scout team reps? That's not right. Yeah, I know people will say Peyton's on the mend what's the big deal? 18 has earned the right to play & finish on his own terms. 

 

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Broncos-Injury-Update-Peyton-Manning-returns-to-practice/f52bedc4-41ab-4715-936b-745e90292936

[Surge89]

3 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

If Jules is annoying over Manning, you haven't meet several Pats fans yet lol! Atleast you straight up admitted that this was about shamelessly sticking up for Manning because he was such a dang good Colt. Other people are trying to justify it without admitting it. That's what brings people like me and Jules to say some of things we've said.

 

The poster I referenced... nevermind...

 

Also my whole point was that yes they are standing by their QB but what I fail to see is how that is beyond logic?  If they were being defiant against something that had actual logical ground to stand on then I'd remain quiet but the post that started this uproar was a piece of trash and should have been the one under the microscope not the 10 other posters who just pointed it out for what it was.  Trash.  In fact before your reference on Colts fans having a fear of critique on Manning literally no one had posted except the OP who is a well known follower of the Broncos and Colts.  So again I fail to see what the big fuss was.  

[Surge89]

51 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

People have a right to disagree with Jules on an opinion she may have about Manning just like they can disagree with me if they want. Is Peyton Manning a great NFL QB? Yes, absolutely. His SB ring, 2 other appearances, multiple MVP Awards, countless division titles, & more 4,000 yard throwing seasons than I can count proves & validates that undeniable fact. 

 

But Jules is 100% right about 1 thing regarding Peyton: His biggest knock against him is that when he does lose in the Playoffs the NFL media loves to focus on his records collectively rather than his shortcomings on the field individually in the post season that no other elite QB in this league gets a pass on. Translation: Why can't Peyton's playoff losses be dissected on a game by game basis as opposed to treating the man like a lifetime achievement award? 

 

Granted evaluating a QBs greatness doesn't simply stop at Lombardi trophies. I get that & Peyton anticipates throws better than any field general I have ever seen in my lifetime, but that's the point, why did I feel the need to constructively criticize 18 SB stumbling blocks & then send him a nice complement to cushion the blow? Translation: Peyton Manning is so beloved by the masses that if anybody dares point out a minor flaw they go from a fan to a pariah in under 15 seconds. It's not popular to say that, but it's the truth & I respect Jules for have the courage to say something truthful & unpopular in INDY & Denver at the same time. JMO. 

 

Yes, you are free to disagree with me too. That's fine by me. No need to dip this wanna be record producer & film critic in a chocolate cat mold either, but you can try a Chewbacca Star Wars mold made out of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups if you want. 

 

Ahem... who gives Manning a general praising oversight other than Colts fans and Colts media?  That's absurd.  The media stopped holding Manning's hand in 2009 when he coughed up that superbowl.  Since then it's never been seen on a game by game basis but a complete oversight of his career negatively.  Even in his 2013 year half the media was singing his praises and the other half still waited for his playoff failure.  He'll he couldn't even get the unanimous MVP vote when there was literally no comparison between him and any other player that year.

 

As a Colts fan I think he's the greatest of all time and I could care less what anyone else says, but it does make good edgy conversation with some posters.  The others I will just reserve my right to pass on by.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

People have a right to disagree with Jules on an opinion she may have about Manning just like they can disagree with me if they want. Is Peyton Manning a great NFL QB? Yes, absolutely. His SB ring, 2 other appearances, multiple MVP Awards, countless division titles, & more 4,000 yard throwing seasons than I can count proves & validates that undeniable fact. 

 

But Jules is 100% right about 1 thing regarding Peyton: His biggest knock against him is that when he does lose in the Playoffs the NFL media loves to focus on his records collectively rather than his shortcomings on the field individually in the post season that no other elite QB in this league gets a pass on. Translation: Why can't Peyton's playoff losses be dissected on a game by game basis as opposed to treating the man like a lifetime achievement award? 

 

Granted evaluating a QBs greatness doesn't simply stop at Lombardi trophies. I get that & Peyton anticipates throws better than any field general I have ever seen in my lifetime, but that's the point, why did I feel the need to constructively criticize 18 SB stumbling blocks & then send him a nice complement to cushion the blow? Translation: Peyton Manning is so beloved by the masses that if anybody dares point out a minor flaw they go from a fan to a pariah in under 15 seconds. It's not popular to say that, but it's the truth & I respect Jules for have the courage to say something truthful & unpopular in INDY & Denver at the same time. JMO. 

 

Yes, you are free to disagree with me too. That's fine by me. No need to dip this wanna be record producer & film critic in a chocolate cat mold either, but you can try a Chewbacca Star Wars mold made out of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups if you want. 

I agree with Jules 99% of the time, even stuck up for her when she said it would better for the Pats to beat the Texans when people were bashing that opinion on her Thread. As it turns it out Jules and I were both right, Texans losing still gives us a golden opportunity this week to get complete control of the Division. I am just stunned how the heck anyone can think Brock after only 3 starts can lead anyone to a SB instead of a player like Peyton if the guy is healthy. If Peyton is healthy it is a no brainer who should play IMO. If Tom Brady got injured and his backup played great for 3 or 4 games and Brady got healthy I would say the same thing about Brady, he should be put back in. Brock put up 12 freakin points against the Raiders and the Broncos lost in MileHigh to that mediocre team they normally beat something like 35-10 with Peyton in, so what the heck does someone think the Pats will do to them if Brock plays IN THE PLAYOFFS? Brock is the future but next season he is.

[BloodyChamp]

54 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

The poster I referenced... nevermind...

 

Also my whole point was that yes they are standing by their QB but what I fail to see is how that is beyond logic?  If they were being defiant against something that had actual logical ground to stand on then I'd remain quiet but the post that started this uproar was a piece of trash and should have been the one under the microscope not the 10 other posters who just pointed it out for what it was.  Trash.  In fact before your reference on Colts fans having a fear of critique on Manning literally no one had posted except the OP who is a well known follower of the Broncos and Colts.  So again I fail to see what the big fuss was.  

 

You sure have alot to say to alot of people about something you don't understand aka defensive damage control because I understand it completely (and hate it ).

[southwest1]

36 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Ahem... who gives Manning a general praising oversight other than Colts fans and Colts media?  That's absurd.  The media stopped holding Manning's hand in 2009 when he coughed up that superbowl.  Since then it's never been seen on a game by game basis but a complete oversight of his career negatively.  Even in his 2013 year half the media was singing his praises and the other half still waited for his playoff failure.  He'll he couldn't even get the unanimous MVP vote when there was literally no comparison between him and any other player that year.

 

As a Colts fan I think he's the greatest of all time and I could care less what anyone else says, but it does make good edgy conversation with some posters.  The others I will just reserve my right to pass on by.

Do you remember when Peyton lost the SB to Seattle in 2013 & Manning was unable to articulate what went wrong in that game & Peyton kept saying that we didn't play our best tonight? Now, at the time, I said I can understand why right after a disappointing loss Manning might not wanna discuss his feelings or discuss what went wrong & how Peyton didn't have his finest hour. I was cool with that because his emotions were raw & he was ticked off over losing. 

 

I had no problem with Peyton failing to address what role he played in losing that SB as long as he said something to the effect of guys I know you have a job to do as reporters but I'm not ready to process what just transpired here tonight. And then, some time later, Peyton went on Letterman & said pretty much the same thing we didn't play our best game. Okay, I will admit that just because I didn't like his answer doesn't mean Manning didn't answer Dave's question about the Colts loss. I will give you that one. 

 

However, when a man is getting paid of 20 million a year & he gets praised for winning the AFC Championship Game against NE for getting to the SB, you don't get to skate on your decisions as a QB that lost the game in my book. That's what I find absurd: Acting like an answer to that question is unreasonable or out of bounds. It's not. 

 

I don't care that Manning congratulated Richard Sherman & every single Seahawks player in that locker room. Yes, it was gracious of him, but just admit you didn't play your best ball tonight. To Manning's credit, he has gotten better at admitting when he has a poor game publicly, which I do admire. 

 

This isn't about MVPs or division titles. Just owning up to individual lack luster performances.

[RockThatBlue]

On 12/16/2015 at 0:02 AM, Pagano's Realtor said:

 

A strong play? It's the only play he has. He has spent his whole career building a humble, common man's persona around himself. He can't afford to tarnish that persona at this point in his career when he has very little left to gain. Even when he has played he has been absolutely dreadful. The Broncos probably are better off with Osweiler at this point. What's Peyton supposed to do? What's there to leak? For over a season now we've seen the same level of play from him. He is who he is at this point in his career. His play, if he gets the opportunity, will be what it has been all year.

The Broncos would be foolish to sit Brock.

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I agree with Jules 99% of the time, even stuck up for her when she said it would better for the Pats to beat the Texans when people were bashing that opinion on her Thread. As it turns it out Jules and I were both right, Texans losing still gives us a golden opportunity this week to get complete control of the Division. I am just stunned how the heck anyone can think Brock after only 3 starts can lead anyone to a SB instead of a player like Peyton if the guy is healthy. If Peyton is healthy it is a no brainer who should play IMO. If Tom Brady got injured and his backup played great for 3 or 4 games and Brady got healthy I would say the same thing about Brady, he should be put back in. Brock put up 12 freakin points against the Raiders and the Broncos lost in MileHigh to that mediocre team they normally beat something like 35-10 with Peyton in, so what the heck does someone think the Pats will do to them if Brock plays IN THE PLAYOFFS? Brock is the future but next season he is.

You are right about that Raiders game. I had a good feeling at halftime about it so I starting flipping thru to other games & then I was like holy crap Derek Carr & Jack Del Rio won.

 

Like you say Brock is the future & I can understand how making a QB change after the Steelers game can screw up the cadence on the line, but Kubiak is gonna need Peyton's sharp mind vs the Patriots again, Brock isn't gonna beat Foxboro on a special teams blunder twice. Nobody deep down believes that this year. 

[Shane Bond]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

This line made me sad though: 

 

"Manning's work also included some scout-team repetitions, since he's been ruled out for any participation in Sunday's game at Pittsburgh." 

 

 

A man of 18's credentials reduced to scout team reps? That's not right. Yeah, I know people will say Peyton's on the mend what's the big deal? 18 has earned the right to play & finish on his own terms. 

 

http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Broncos-Injury-Update-Peyton-Manning-returns-to-practice/f52bedc4-41ab-4715-936b-745e90292936

 

If he doesn't play again in Denver this year. He will play again next year in NFL. Trust me.

 

 

[southwest1]

Hypothetical Question: 

 

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Broncos win the SB this year. Does Peyton have to start 1 game in the playoffs to be the 1st QB to win a SB with 2 different franchises?

 

Is it enough to just be on a Championship roster when the confetti falls to achieve this milestone or is it mandatory to be classified as the starting QB? 

 

Okay, that's 2 questions then.  I'm just curious. 

[southwest1]

21 minutes ago, Shane Bond said:

 

If he doesn't play again in Denver this year. He will play again next year in NFL. Trust me.

 

 

You think so? I'm not doubting you Shane or Manning's thirst to win. My concern is 18's age & mounting physical ailments. I've been wrong before so who knows...

 

I just don't want him to stay too long & embarrass himself. The mind is strong but the condition of the body is the question. I wanna remember Manning at his NFL zenith 2004-2009. The man's not immortal. But we'll see I guess. 

[Shane Bond]

35 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

You think so? I'm not doubting you Shane or Manning's thirst to win. My concern is 18's age & mounting physical ailments. I've been wrong before so who knows...

 

I just don't want him to stay too long & embarrass himself. The mind is strong but the condition of the body is the question. I wanna remember Manning at his NFL zenith 2004-2009. The man's not immortal. But we'll see I guess. 

Heard he practiced well today. We will see what Brock can do against Steelers. It can get real ugly if he freezes like a statue with the ball in hands.

[southwest1]

16 minutes ago, Shane Bond said:

Heard he practiced well today. We will see what Brock can do against Steelers. It can get real ugly if he freezes like a statue with the ball in hands.

Yeah, I wanna see what Brock does if the Steelers score quick & often. How will he respond to the challenge of being down early? Good point. 

[amfootball]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Brock put up 12 freakin points against the Raiders and the Broncos lost in MileHigh to that mediocre team they normally beat something like 35-10 with Peyton in, so what the heck does someone think the Pats will do to them if Brock plays IN THE PLAYOFFS? Brock is the future but next season he is.

Manning put up 9 points vs the Raiders when he played them and had two picks. They only won the game because the defense scored the final 7 points for the win.

 

I get your passion for Manning but he has been one of the worst rated QBs all season and has averaged 2 picks a game. His 17 picks still lead the league. Brock is green but gives Denver a better a chance to win on top of being the future of the team.

[Gramz]

FYI  For what it's worth:

Archie says Peyton's foot injury goes back to late August.   

 

Although news of Manning's plantar fascia tear didn't surface until his mid-November benching, his father said Thursday that the injury has been an issue since the summer time.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000603834/article/archie-manning-peytons-foot-injury-goes-back-months

[amfootball]

23 minutes ago, Gramz said:

FYI  For what it's worth:

Archie says Peyton's foot injury goes back to late August.   

 

Although news of Manning's plantar fascia tear didn't surface until his mid-November benching, his father said Thursday that the injury has been an issue since the summer time.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000603834/article/archie-manning-peytons-foot-injury-goes-back-months

That contradicts what Manning said as he said it started bothering him prior to the Colts game and that he tore it during the Colts game. Someone is lying.

[Gramz]

7 minutes ago, amfootball said:

That contradicts what Manning said as he said it started bothering him prior to the Colts game and that he tore it during the Colts game. Someone is lying.

No,   no-one is lying as you suggest.

 

What he and others actually said was:

 

 Manning has battled plantar fasciitis for weeks but is believed to have aggravated the injury against Indianapolis on Nov. 8, resulting in a partial tear of his plantar fascia. Almost always, a partial tear is more painful to play with than a complete tear.

 

This statement was in November and Battled for weeks  could easily  translate to what Archie is saying that it goes back to late August.

[amfootball]

2 minutes ago, Gramz said:

No,   no-one is lying as you suggest.

 

What he and others actually said was:

 

 Manning has battled plantar fasciitis for weeks but is believed to have aggravated the injury against Indianapolis on Nov. 8, resulting in a partial tear of his plantar fascia. Almost always, a partial tear is more painful to play with than a complete tear.

 

This statement was in November and Battled for weeks  could easily  translate to what Archie is saying that it goes back to late August.

I do not read weeks as 3 months!  Seems to me that the PR machine here is in full throttle ... but still begs the question, if true, why Kubiak did not sit him sooner ...

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, amfootball said:

That contradicts what Manning said as he said it started bothering him prior to the Colts game and that he tore it during the Colts game. Someone is lying.

No,  no it doesn't

[Gramz]

Just now, amfootball said:

I do not read 

Full Disclosure,  finally.

[coltsfeva]

On 12/17/2015 at 11:21 PM, chad72 said:

 

I did not plug that logic for those 17 games, you did. You started with the exaggeration of 1-457 or 1-456 in snow games for Peyton. You never said anything about Brady. So we started talking about Peyton in a vacuum to see if there were indeed enough "snow" games to make a significant statistical conclusion on for Peyton and Peyton only.

 

There are enough Peyton-Brady games to conclude that Brady is better most of which were not played with snow. There are enough playoff games to conclude Peyton has not delivered in several of them, that would be Peyton in a vacuum. But there are not enough "pure snow" games to make a statistical observation one way or the other for Peyton. That was what you requested. How is the technicality of that hard for you to understand? If you had said playoff games or cold weather games, you have a bigger sample space, which is what I have been pointing out all along.

 

Besides, AM would be the first to tell you I was out here telling how Peyton is costing games and points with his turnovers objectively. Leave our arguments to us.

Some points to consider:

 

Peyton/Brady are 2-2 against each other in the playoffs.

Brady has had the advantage of having Bill Belicheck as coach for his whole career and better defenses.

One might argue that Peyton had a better group of receivers but how much of that was Peyton making them better?

I don't know if you can truly make the G.O.A.T and objective argument. Even rings do not offer a definitive argument as Bart Starr had 5 and is rarely mentioned in the conversation.

Lastly, SB titles are a TEAM accomplishment. Much depends upon scheme, coaching, surrounding players and home field advantages. 

 

[Gramz]

Not looking to pick a fight, or even argue with anyone here.  Afterall, what a silly thing to argue over.

 

No secret,  Next to Olivia, Archie and Ashley,  I am Peyton's biggest fan.  I have enjoyed his career immensely, and sadly this is the first season since he started in the NFL 18 years ago that I have not made it to a game to see him.  

 

There is still no question in my mind he has been one of the most exciting players to ever take the field.  I admit it's been painful to watch this year,  and I found myself   asking myself   WHY is he still out there?  I was ready for him to retire after watching the game against the Chiefs.

 

Now, call me silly if you want,  I really don't care,   but I do have a glimmer of hope that IF it has been the foot that has been causing him trouble all season,  and  IF he is healing and getting healthy enough to finish the season, and go out in a Blaze of Glory...  Well  I am right there cheering him on.

 

side note:  I have nothing against Brock,  I just don't see him as the Superstar some here do.

 

[oldunclemark]

Denver has not scored a TD on 23 consecutive posessions

[amfootball]

34 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

Some points to consider:

 

Peyton/Brady are 2-2 against each other in the playoffs.

Brady has had the advantage of having Bill Belicheck as coach for his whole career and better defenses.

One might argue that Peyton had a better group of receivers but how much of that was Peyton making them better?

I don't know if you can truly make the G.O.A.T and objective argument. Even rings do not offer a definitive argument as Bart Starr had 5 and is rarely mentioned in the conversation.

Lastly, SB titles are a TEAM accomplishment. Much depends upon scheme, coaching, surrounding players and home field advantages. 

 

GOAT is always subjective. All any player can be is the best of his generation and then the rest is left up for debate.

 

With Brady, he does not just have rings or stats but both. He is the only QB to throw for more than 400 TDs and have multiple rings and he is top 5 or better in every major passing category AND is the leader in all major passing categories in the post-season and Super Bowl. His claim to GOAT is the most solid given his accomplishments. And of course Belichick is a part of that. Historic success is never achieved alone but yet Brady has played QB during a time when the QB is the focal point of the team and its ability to have success more so than anytime in history given the cap/FA. IMO that makes his case very strong.

[oldunclemark]

1 hour ago, amfootball said:

Manning put up 9 points vs the Raiders when he played them and had two picks. They only won the game because the defense scored the final 7 points for the win.

 

 

You must have missed the Green Bay game......and the game against Indy..620 yards passing

'Snow game' .  He played in a dome for 12 years. Colts won in the snow in the playoffs in Baltimore..

Cold. The AFC semifinals 2 years ago...sub-freezing. Broncos won

 

These arguments wouldn't be made if it was Eli Manning. Of course you go back to the starter and not stay with a struggling rookie.   Denver hasn't scored a TD in 6 quarters.....Manning is 48-13 as the staring QB in Denver.

He'll play against Cincinnatti or San Diego.

Nothing else makes sense if you really want Denver to win the Super Bowl

[Surge89]

18 minutes ago, amfootball said:

GOAT is always subjective. All any player can be is the best of his generation and then the rest is left up for debate.

 

With Brady, he does not just have rings or stats but both. He is the only QB to throw for more than 400 TDs and have multiple rings and he is top 5 or better in every major passing category AND is the leader in all major passing categories in the post-season and Super Bowl. His claim to GOAT is the most solid given his accomplishments. And of course Belichick is a part of that. Historic success is never achieved alone but yet Brady has played QB during a time when the QB is the focal point of the team and its ability to have success more so than anytime in history given the cap/FA. IMO that makes his case very strong.

 

Except that he doesn't have all of the stat accolades or else his name would be on every major state passing achievement, like another QB who actually does have those volume stats but I digress.

 

The only thing Brady can do better than the rest of his counterparts imo is be on teams that get lucky and win games.  And he has to cheat on his part.

 

He isn't as mobile as Tarkenton he can't throw like Marino nor Manning, his football IQ apparently isn't as high as his contemporaries either since the receivers dictate the offense and his OC's especially McDaniels are so coveted.  His supposed clutch performances are driving down for field goals because his defenses never let him get behind more than 3 points in the 4th. So what is he known as the GOAT for?  Media over hyping not his QB ability but his uncanny luck to be on a team that wins games.

[coltsfeva]

18 minutes ago, amfootball said:

GOAT is always subjective. All any player can be is the best of his generation and then the rest is left up for debate.

 

With Brady, he does not just have rings or stats but both. He is the only QB to throw for more than 400 TDs and have multiple rings and he is top 5 or better in every major passing category AND is the leader in all major passing categories in the post-season and Super Bowl. His claim to GOAT is the most solid given his accomplishments. And of course Belichick is a part of that. Historic success is never achieved alone but yet Brady has played QB during a time when the QB is the focal point of the team and its ability to have success more so than anytime in history given the cap/FA. IMO that makes his case very strong.

His success is a matter of history and he is certainly in the conversation. Unfortunately for him and Pats fans, in many people's eyes, he is disqualified as there will always be speculation about his character and playing by the rules.

[Surge89]

10 hours ago, BloodyChamp said:

 

You sure have alot to say to alot of people about something you don't understand aka defensive damage control because I understand it completely (and hate it ).

 

Let's be clear. You and Jules have every right to be annoyed about fans being overly defensive and outrageous about Manning. I get it, I see it, I know it happens, but what yall can't do is judge people before they even speak and then try and force said narrative, when it was something as blatant and deceitful as what was posted.  So in other words you're saying because you are tired of hearing it we should then sit by and take a tub of lies and not have any response?   See what I mean? 

 

Trust me if people had come on and tried to start a Brady Manning comparison and use this OP top prove Manning is better I wouldn't bat an eye and probably wouldn't post because it's rediculous. But that isn't the case...

[Surge89]

10 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Do you remember when Peyton lost the SB to Seattle in 2013 & Manning was unable to articulate what went wrong in that game & Peyton kept saying that we didn't play our best tonight? Now, at the time, I said I can understand why right after a disappointing loss Manning might not wanna discuss his feelings or discuss what went wrong & how Peyton didn't have his finest hour. I was cool with that because his emotions were raw & he was ticked off over losing. 

 

I had no problem with Peyton failing to address what role he played in losing that SB as long as he said something to the effect of guys I know you have a job to do as reporters but I'm not ready to process what just transpired here tonight. And then, some time later, Peyton went on Letterman & said pretty much the same thing we didn't play our best game. Okay, I will admit that just because I didn't like his answer doesn't mean Manning didn't answer Dave's question about the Colts loss. I will give you that one. 

 

However, when a man is getting paid of 20 million a year & he gets praised for winning the AFC Championship Game against NE for getting to the SB, you don't get to skate on your decisions as a QB that lost the game in my book. That's what I find absurd: Acting like an answer to that question is unreasonable or out of bounds. It's not. 

 

I don't care that Manning congratulated Richard Sherman & every single Seahawks player in that locker room. Yes, it was gracious of him, but just admit you didn't play your best ball tonight. To Manning's credit, he has gotten better at admitting when he has a poor game publicly, which I do admire. 

 

This isn't about MVPs or division titles. Just owning up to individual lack luster performances.

 

We are bridging into a different subject altogether.  First we spoke of media and now about Manning accepting his bad games.   Which yes I do think he's improving on that to a degree. But everyone has bad games and most don't have a defense to hold their hand while they do have those bad games.

 

I never put the quality of a man come into the perception of a good player because it's apples and oranges.  The only integrity I care about is in reference to the game.  I could care less how they are off the field as long as both play the game fairly. These are competitive men and should be so competitive that it is to a fault.  So they will naturally be reluctant to share their faults and shortcoming because they want to be the best.   And that applies to both Brady and Manning. 

[amfootball]

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

You must have missed the Green Bay game......and the game against Indy..620 yards passing

'Snow game' .  He played in a dome for 12 years. Colts won in the snow in the playoffs in Baltimore..

Cold. The AFC semifinals 2 years ago...sub-freezing. Broncos won

 

These arguments wouldn't be made if it was Eli Manning. Of course you go back to the starter and not stay with a struggling rookie.   Denver hasn't scored a TD in 6 quarters.....Manning is 48-13 as the staring QB in Denver.

He'll play against Cincinnatti or San Diego.

Nothing else makes sense if you really want Denver to win the Super Bowl

None of that is relevant to the poster I was responding to who specifically cited the Raiders game and Brock's performance. I was just pointing out that Manning had a worse performance vs the Raiders this season so that opponent is a poor comparison when trying to make a case for Manning over Brock.

[amfootball]

1 hour ago, Surge89 said:

 

Except that he doesn't have all of the stat accolades or else his name would be on every major state passing achievement, like another QB who actually does have those volume stats but I digress.

 

The only thing Brady can do better than the rest of his counterparts imo is be on teams that get lucky and win games.  And he has to cheat on his part.

 

He isn't as mobile as Tarkenton he can't throw like Marino nor Manning, his football IQ apparently isn't as high as his contemporaries either since the receivers dictate the offense and his OC's especially McDaniels are so coveted.  His supposed clutch performances are driving down for field goals because his defenses never let him get behind more than 3 points in the 4th. So what is he known as the GOAT for?  Media over hyping not his QB ability but his uncanny luck to be on a team that wins games.

Good heavens ....

[chad72]

3 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

Some points to consider:

 

Peyton/Brady are 2-2 against each other in the playoffs.

Brady has had the advantage of having Bill Belicheck as coach for his whole career and better defenses.

One might argue that Peyton had a better group of receivers but how much of that was Peyton making them better?

I don't know if you can truly make the G.O.A.T and objective argument. Even rings do not offer a definitive argument as Bart Starr had 5 and is rarely mentioned in the conversation.

Lastly, SB titles are a TEAM accomplishment. Much depends upon scheme, coaching, surrounding players and home field advantages. 

 

 

I am not arguing anything on the coaching side and the fact that rings are SB accomplishments. Outside coaching and complete teams, the 3 factors I feel separate Brady from Peyton in the playoffs are:

 

1. Arm strength anywhere - indoors or outdoors - you jump a route with Peyton and you get an INT while you jump it with Brady, you most likely get an incompletion

2. Ability to do QB sneaks and use QB runs as necessary in key moments. Peyton rarely did that while Brady routinely did that.

3. Not taking sacks and check downs as much earlier in his career contributing to Ds playing longer yardage routes vs Peyton to stifle our offense in playoff games, also leading to more turnovers in the playoffs.

 

So, if I take coaching out of the picture, Brady having these 3 factors has led to a superior playoff record, IMO.

 

However, I do wonder if Cooper's spinal stenosis was always in the back of Peyton's head as something genetic??? Maybe he felt bad things would happen to his neck or spine if he indulged in too many of those QB sneaks??? Not sure. Eli does not do many of those either. The irony is Peyton did suffer neck issues which, according to Dungy, started with that high low hit from Gregg Williams' Redskins' D in that 2006 game.

[2006Coltsbestever]

When ranking greatest QB's of all-time a lot has to be factored in. Stats, Wins, SB wins, Clutch play, MVP's, etc.. If I was starting a franchise with a crummy team I would take Peyton over Tom because by the eye test I just think Peyton could carry a crappy team to a better record. Much like LeBron could more than Kobe IMO but if you give both great teams Tom gets the nod in the big game because he's more clutch like Kobe is over LeBron. If one just goes by Stats and MVP's Peyton would be ranked higher, if one goes by SB wins then Tom gets it. We will never know but I often wonder how many SB wins Peyton would've had, had Belichick been his Coach his entire career? Tom has had a huge luxury there.

[BloodyChamp]

3 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

Let's be clear. You and Jules have every right to be annoyed about fans being overly defensive and outrageous about Manning. I get it, I see it, I know it happens, but what yall can't do is judge people before they even speak and then try and force said narrative, when it was something as blatant and deceitful as what was posted.  So in other words you're saying because you are tired of hearing it we should then sit by and take a tub of lies and not have any response?   See what I mean? 

 

Trust me if people had come on and tried to start a Brady Manning comparison and use this OP top prove Manning is better I wouldn't bat an eye and probably wouldn't post because it's rediculous. But that isn't the case...

You're forgetting my original intent. I'm more disappointed in the damage control for Peyton than I am simply tired of hearing it. It's not necessary and so much of it is counterproductive. I'm proManning here. That's why I'm against this, not because I'm against him.

[Surge89]

3 hours ago, amfootball said:

Good heavens ....

 

That's the appropriate answer. 

 

It sucks when someone posts the same mindless rambles you put against you doesn't it?

[Surge89]

1 hour ago, BloodyChamp said:

You're forgetting my original intent. I'm more disappointed in the damage control for Peyton than I am simply tired of hearing it. It's not necessary and so much of it is counterproductive. I'm proManning here. That's why I'm against this, not because I'm against him.

 

Understood.

 

Just keeping everything in context and in front of us. :-)

[amfootball]

Peyton did not practice today. I wonder if he had a set back with the foot.

 

James Palmer ‏@JamesPalmerTV 46m46 minutes ago

Peyton Manning not practicing today.

[18Manning]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 0:39 AM, Bogie said:

Peyton has handled things poorly if you ask me. 

 

First off, he refused to help Brock at all. Then rumors popped up trying to give Peyton all the credit for Brock's success vs NE. This kid beat the undefeated Pats in the wind and snow, and he couldn't even get credit for it.

 

Second off, Manning immediately stated he was ready to play for another team next year if he had to. 

 

And finally third, Brock has one bad game, and everyone wants Manning back even though he's played horrendous this year. Manning was on pace for 30 interceptions before he was benched. I know it's hard telling you all this cause you people love the man even when past his prime, but he's not the same lethal quarterback he used to be. He's not Brett Favre, he can barely throw a pass and he's not even 40 yet. Not every QB is going to age as well as Favre did. 

 

I think he needs to just retire. At this point, he'll do nothing but hurt his team, as he did back when he was the starter. Brock has out played him tremendously at this point, and if they go back to Manning, I'll lose what little respect I had for Kubiak to begin with. 

 

 

 

There are a few things I don't agree with 100%, but this in particular I find hard to believe. I don't know Peyton Manning personally, but this does not jive with the image he has projected over the last couple of decades.

 

There are a lot of Peyton Manning fans here, but that does not make us blind to the fact he's getting old and less effective. I have read a few of your posts regarding Peyton Manning. Each post has been similar to this. The image at the bottom of your signature says everything, IMO. You appear to relish in every bit of negative news regarding Peyton whether you know it to be fact or rumor.

[18Manning]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2015 at 8:56 PM, oldunclemark said:

 You have to go with Peyton if you want to win a playoff game

 Jules..under Brock...the Broncos have scored 17, (30 in OT) 17 and 15

Have you really watched those games closely...?  Brock is struggling.

 

But  6 weeks ago in a high pressure showdown...Manning was dominant in a 29-10 win

over undefeated Green Bay. Denver beats the Colts if they get the ball back in the final 6 minutes.

He threw for 62-0 yards I those 2 games ,,.with an injured foot that, reports say. he no longer has

 

 With the entire season on the line, I would not even consider starting a QB who is making his 8th or 9th NFL start over a guy who's played in 3 Super Bowls and is 7-2 this year..

If his name wasn't Peyton Manning, I think you would, too.

 

 

 

I agree. If Peyton Manning is healthy, it's crazy to start Brock with his lack of experience. Besides, as I commented previously, Peyton should be rested and he doesn't have to play an entire season. He only needs to stay healthy through a few games.

[chad72]

There is one more thing. I don't think it is a huge factor but is good for us to know:

 

When Peyton Manning accepted a $4 million pay cut from $19 million to $15 million to play for the Denver Broncos this season, the team gave him a chance to make it back.

If Manning won the AFC Championship Game, he would receive a $2-million bonus. If he were to win Super Bowl 50, he could collect another $2 million. But, there is a catch: Manning must start those games to receive those bonuses.