Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

peyton is ranked 50 in top 100

CR91

By CR91
in NFL General

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jules Walk On

Jules

Posted
Posted

Manning could suck a bit next season and still be placed higher on account of Denver's stellar defense. That team made even Tim Tebow look good!

They got torn up by Pats/Packers and Lions. Had issues with the run.

The Broncos D finished the year ranked 20th overall and were hardly in the same league as say the Niners or Ravens even though they played hard at times. However defense at times last year was completely disgusting. Is it strange just to me that the Colts horrible D finished better then both SB teams and the team who finished 15-1?

I was sorta pulling for the Ravens deep down once it got to the final 4. I know.....I felt strange myself and I don't like them. But, I was rooting for a top D to finally get a title once the Packers got eliminated and I was done with serious rooting interests in the playoffs. Everyone wants to see QBs get rings but I was kinda pulling for old Ed Reed and Ray Ray to collect a well deserved trophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jules Walk On

Jules

Posted
Posted

Is it me or is Denver's defense grossly overrated?

Well they are not the Texans D thats for sure.

Overall last season I did develop a slight crush on the Houston D. It alternated between the Houston D and whatever transformations Jim Harbaugh was making with the 49ers. The Bills started as an early season crush that slowly faded as they became the Bills again.

I have not watched any of this list but I guess Aaron Rodgers will be first of course? If he isn't then I don't know who will be. So really I know who is #1 already then......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
That Guy Practice Squad

That Guy

Posted
Posted

I think Peyton belongs, simply because it is the top players of 2012. He didn't play in 2011, but that doesn't mean he is expected to not be Peyton in 2012.

If he plays, he is easily a top 50 player in the NFL, and he is expected to play. You HAVE to put him on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SilentHill Walk On

SilentHill

Posted
Posted

kinds seems weird for a guy who didnt play to crack the list but of course it is peyton. thoughts

I still think he should have won MVP last season. However, the ranking confuses me because of his stat line 0/0 for 0 yards with 0 TD and 0 INT. I mean on the bright side he didn't throw any picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gspdx Team Captain

gspdx

Posted
Posted

They got torn up by Pats/Packers and Lions. Had issues with the run.

The Broncos D finished the year ranked 20th overall and were hardly in the same league as say the Niners or Ravens even though they played hard at times. However defense at times last year was completely disgusting. Is it strange just to me that the Colts horrible D finished better then both SB teams and the team who finished 15-1?

I was sorta pulling for the Ravens deep down once it got to the final 4. I know.....I felt strange myself and I don't like them. But, I was rooting for a top D to finally get a title once the Packers got eliminated and I was done with serious rooting interests in the playoffs. Everyone wants to see QBs get rings but I was kinda pulling for old Ed Reed and Ray Ray to collect a well deserved trophy.

Are you saying offense wins championships?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chad72 Ring of Honor

chad72

Posted
Posted

Are you saying offense wins championships?!

Playoff matchups, and your health and quality of play going into the playoffs is what wins championships. Both sides of the ball have to be balanced in the playoffs, regardless of what happens in the regular season.

Colts never had to play Chargers in our SB winning season, did we?

Steelers never had to play the Pats in their SB winning seasons, did they?

The Giants, if they had to go to New Orleans, in all likelihood, get smoked out of the building in the playoffs last year, IMO. Eli and the Giants have had fits playing at NO, once in 2009 and next in 2011, both ending in lop sided defeats.

Back to the topic, Peyton should not have been considered for the list just based on technicality. But that is just me :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted

Isn't this list for next going into next years season? So Manning deserves the list the same as everyone. He is playing next year. For the wrong team, but that's a different topic.

The list was about the top 100 players that played last year (although manning made the list, I still scratch my head over that one when I think about it)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted

Playoff matchups, and your health and quality of play going into the playoffs is what wins championships. Both sides of the ball have to be balanced in the playoffs, regardless of what happens in the regular season.

Colts never had to play Chargers in our SB winning season, did we?

Steelers never had to play the Pats in their SB winning seasons, did they?

The Giants, if they had to go to New Orleans, in all likelihood, get smoked out of the building in the playoffs last year, IMO. Eli and the Giants have had fits playing at NO, once in 2009 and next in 2011, both ending in lop sided defeats.

Back to the topic, Peyton should not have been considered for the list just based on technicality. But that is just me :).

one thing and then back to topic, if playing one particular team (matchups) mattered so much in regards to who wins in the playoffs then explain to me the Giants winning in Green Bay and San Fran to get to the Super Bowl furthermore did you see the Giants complaining? no they simply walked into each situation and took what they wanted regardless of where they were in there playoff run including in Green Bay as for the Colts one team gave them problems more then any other in the playoffs that would be New England and Ty Law specifically, we weren't good enough it wasn't because we had to play them in New England it was because New England was just better
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gspdx Team Captain

gspdx

Posted
Posted

Playoff matchups, and your health and quality of play going into the playoffs is what wins championships. Both sides of the ball have to be balanced in the playoffs, regardless of what happens in the regular season.

Colts never had to play Chargers in our SB winning season, did we?

Steelers never had to play the Pats in their SB winning seasons, did they?

The Giants, if they had to go to New Orleans, in all likelihood, get smoked out of the building in the playoffs last year, IMO. Eli and the Giants have had fits playing at NO, once in 2009 and next in 2011, both ending in lop sided defeats.

Back to the topic, Peyton should not have been considered for the list just based on technicality. But that is just me :).

I was just stirring the pot.

I hope Peyton has a great year and deserves to be high on that list next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FireJimCaldwell Walk On

FireJimCaldwell

Posted
Posted

I see it but how can anyone rank players based next season that season hasn't been played yet, in my opinion the rankings should be based on last season

Compare it to fantasy football. I don't play it, but if I did, I would draft players I felt would have a big year. It's the same thing as these predict the Colts record threads. Some will say 2-3 wins, Some say 6-8, some say 10+. Someone will be right.

Just like Vegas sets odds on the Super Bowl, based on how they feel the season will play out.

I can see your perspective on the rankings, but at that point it should have been called the top 100 of 2011, and produced and shown soon after the super bowl as opposed to leading up to the new year.

It is just a device to keep people talking about the game & league. Most fans are going to gripe about x being ranked higher or lower than y.

I would be willing to bet that a lot of the players that voted on it were confused about whether it was the best of 2011 or who should be the best of 2012. Chris Johnson had some tweets complaining about Manning being on it and not playing last year. Then again Chris Johnson might not be the best example, a lot of things confuse him.

It is a tool doing its job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fvantagio Walk On

fvantagio

Posted
Posted

The list was about the top 100 players that played last year (although manning made the list, I still scratch my head over that one when I think about it)

I thought it was top 100 of 2012 as in this year. If it was top players of last year (2012) that would mean they would have to only count the players that played in postseason. But because its 2012 that means this up coming year, even though its largely based on performances from last year. Thats my opinion of it anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chad72 Ring of Honor

chad72

Posted
Posted

one thing and then back to topic, if playing one particular team (matchups) mattered so much in regards to who wins in the playoffs then explain to me the Giants winning in Green Bay and San Fran to get to the Super Bowl furthermore did you see the Giants complaining? no they simply walked into each situation and took what they wanted regardless of where they were in there playoff run including in Green Bay as for the Colts one team gave them problems more then any other in the playoffs that would be New England and Ty Law specifically, we weren't good enough it wasn't because we had to play them in New England it was because New England was just better

Who said anything about anyone complaining? Matchups do matter in the playoffs. It does not matter for a period of 10 years but it can matter for a period of 3-4 years when personnel is close to constant, IMO.

Giants played the Packers close at home (35-38) and 49ers close on the road in the regular season (20-27) but NO was not even a contest in the regular season (24-49). When you play a team close, it gives you more confidence the next time you play them, than if you lose in a lop sided fashion. There are certain teams that you do not match up that well. In 2007, the Giants played the Pats close (35-38) and the next time they played the undefeated Pats, they beat them.

For the Colts, it was the Chargers. Misdirection plays with our D, tall WRs, special teams, you name it. Our 2007 & 2008 losses showed that and we are lucky we played the Jets in the AFCCG and not the Chargers, IMO.

For the Steelers, it was the Patriots, LBs cant cover in space when forced to by spreading them out, and the Pats took full advantage of that, more times than not in the regular season, including the playoffs (2001 & 2004).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted

Who said anything about anyone complaining? Matchups do matter in the playoffs. It does not matter for a period of 10 years but it can matter for a period of 3-4 years when personnel is close to constant, IMO.

Giants played the Packers close at home (35-38) and 49ers close on the road in the regular season (20-27) but NO was not even a contest in the regular season (24-49). When you play a team close, it gives you more confidence the next time you play them, than if you lose in a lop sided fashion. There are certain teams that you do not match up that well. In 2007, the Giants played the Pats close (35-38) and the next time they played the undefeated Pats, they beat them.

For the Colts, it was the Chargers. Misdirection plays with our D, tall WRs, special teams, you name it. Our 2007 & 2008 losses showed that and we are lucky we played the Jets in the AFCCG and not the Chargers, IMO.

For the Steelers, it was the Patriots, LBs cant cover in space when forced to by spreading them out, and the Pats took full advantage of that, more times than not in the regular season, including the playoffs (2001 & 2004).

You do know the Giants basically blew the Packers out in their own backyard on the way to the Super Bowl last year right? its about preparation and adjusting and the talent you have, not where you play, its about who shows up on any given sunday and the Packers didn't show up, While I agree there are teams that certain teams dont match up well against those teams are certainly beatable
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chad72 Ring of Honor

chad72

Posted
Posted

You do know the Giants basically blew the Packers out in their own backyard on the way to the Super Bowl last year right? its about preparation and adjusting and the talent you have, not where you play, its about who shows up on any given sunday and the Packers didn't show up, While I agree there are teams that certain teams dont match up well against those teams are certainly beatable

Yes, it is about preparation and adjustments, something our coaching staff came up at the short end of the stick more often :(. But our shorter CBs could not grow suddenly vs the taller Charger WRs, our special teams could not magically make things happen, and neither could the Steelers' LBs play coverage suddenly different than they were capable of while being forced to spread out. There are innate weaknesses in teams that certain other teams exploit real well. Norv Turner exploited our weaknesses well, Pats exploited the Steelers weaknesses well and consistently. A lot of those weaknesses could not be corrected quickly, at least not from what I saw, hence the matchups mattered. In other cases where the weaknesses could be easily corrected, the matchups did not matter as much. How else can I explain why Peyton owned the Ravens for the longest time? :)

In the case of the Giants vs Packers recently, it was such an evenly matched game the first time with evenly matched teams, IMO and if either team had a let down from their A game, it was bound to get lop sided, and it did in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Walk On

Gavin

Posted
Posted

Yes, it is about preparation and adjustments, something our coaching staff came up at the short end of the stick more often :(. But our shorter CBs could not grow suddenly vs the taller Charger WRs, our special teams could not magically make things happen, and neither could the Steelers' LBs play coverage suddenly different than they were capable of while being forced to spread out. There are innate weaknesses in teams that certain other teams exploit real well. Norv Turner exploited our weaknesses well, Pats exploited the Steelers weaknesses well and consistently. A lot of those weaknesses could not be corrected quickly, at least not from what I saw, hence the matchups mattered. In other cases where the weaknesses could be easily corrected, the matchups did not matter as much. How else can I explain why Peyton owned the Ravens for the longest time? :)

In the case of the Giants vs Packers recently, it was such an evenly matched game the first time with evenly matched teams, IMO and if either team had a let down from their A game, it was bound to get lop sided, and it did in the playoffs.

While I understand the thought process behind short Corners vs taller Wide Receivers I saw a guy that would dismiss that theory very fast.....His name Darrelle Revis, hes got excellent instincts to the ball, great technique and not the tallest Corner by any means
Link to comment
Share on other sites
southwest1 Walk On

southwest1

Posted
Posted

Evaluating the top 100 NFL players is always confusing to me.

Are we judging that player's specific performance that season or their impact, reputation, & influence on their home team squad & city alone over a sustained period of time?

Is this a veteran question or a strictly statistical & on the field production to acquire a spot on this list?

Is this fantasy football or more like Canton, Ohio & the Football Hall of Fame?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chad72 Ring of Honor

chad72

Posted
Posted

While I understand the thought process behind short Corners vs taller Wide Receivers I saw a guy that would dismiss that theory very fast.....His name Darrelle Revis, hes got excellent instincts to the ball, great technique and not the tallest Corner by any means

Odds are however small for most teams to land those kinds of CBs. But I do agree, Tim Jennings coached here vs being coached at the Bears, different results, IMO. Coaching, preparation and adjustments are a big part of playoff runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gramz Team Captain

Gramz

Posted
Posted

I havn't read through this entire thread, so excuse me if I am repeating something that has already been said. It was my understanding that the Top 100 list, is a list of how players are expected to perform this year... not necessarily how they performed last year. That being said, I suppose Peyton landing smack dab in the middle makes some sense, even though he did not play last year. Given his past performance and accomplishments, his work ethic and determination to succeed once again, I agree with him being on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldunclemark Walk On

oldunclemark

Posted
Posted

He may not be on the Peyton level but Romo is pretty darn good.

I read there was a Dallas writer who said that Tony was one of the Top-05 QBs in the NFL..

..and the arguement, in part, was that, while he wasnt better than the original Peyton...

....he's better than the comeback Manning..

That's his story and he's sticking to it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
subvet Walk On

subvet

Posted
Posted

I think Peyton belongs, simply because it is the top players of 2012. He didn't play in 2011, but that doesn't mean he is expected to not be Peyton in 2012.

If he plays, he is easily a top 50 player in the NFL, and he is expected to play. You HAVE to put him on the list.

Well the year before he was the top rated active player on the NFL Channels All Time list so a drop to 50 just puts him in position to be the "comeback kid of the year"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FireJimCaldwell Walk On

FireJimCaldwell

Posted
Posted

Sorry, I thought it was based on play last year when he set out the entire season?

It seems many(including players that voted), felt the same way. If anything I doubt they were 100% sure what they were voting on. If it were for 2011, then no he doesn't belong on the list, but if it is for 2012, then I can't see leaving him off and I think the NFL just stuck him in at 50. It's too "perfect". If he was 51, or 49, then it might be legit, but 50th just seems to perfect of a circumstance.

Eli ranked 31, was equally robbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
southwest1 Walk On

southwest1

Posted
Posted

It seems many(including players that voted), felt the same way. If anything I doubt they were 100% sure what they were voting on. If it were for 2011, then no he doesn't belong on the list, but if it is for 2012, then I can't see leaving him off and I think the NFL just stuck him in at 50. It's too "perfect". If he was 51, or 49, then it might be legit, but 50th just seems to perfect of a circumstance.

Eli ranked 31, was equally robbed.

I agree FJC. Seriously, he beat genius Bill Belicheck & Tom Terrific twice & all the voting public could give Eli Manning was #31? Where is the justice in that? Does Eli have to win a 3rd SB against NE to crack the top 20? This is simply ludicrous IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...