View Full Version : How do you follow up Tebow? Peyton says it’s ‘impossible’
Denver Native (Carol)
08-28-2013, 09:54 PM
Cute - FOX Sports asking Peyton questions
http://msn.foxsports.com/lacesout/how-do-you-follow-up-tebow-peyton-says-its-impossible/
MOtorboat
08-28-2013, 10:01 PM
Fox Sports 1.
Hard hitting sports channel.
dogfish
08-29-2013, 03:28 AM
he could start by winning a couple of titles. . .
that would probabaly get it done. . . even joel and jaded would have a hard time complaining about that. . .
TXBRONC
08-29-2013, 06:27 AM
he could start by winning a couple of titles. . .
that would probabaly get it done. . . even joel and jaded would have a hard time complaining about that. . .
I could see Jaded being happy but Joel? He won't be happy unless Dick Butkus finds the fountain of youth and joins the Denver Broncos.
Ravage!!!
08-29-2013, 10:45 AM
he could start by winning a couple of titles. . .
that would probabaly get it done. . . even joel and jaded would have a hard time complaining about that. . .
Joel? Is he even a Broncos fan?
he could start by winning a couple of titles. . .
that would probabaly get it done. . . even joel and jaded would have a hard time complaining about that. . .
I could probably settle for one, but at this point there's plenty of room for improvement everywhere that matters. Stats are neat but pointless, and Manning's made a career of proving 14 wins doesn't mean jack once the playoffs start, even as his brother's making a career proving 7 losses are acceptable if NONE are in the playoffs. I can't say which is better, but know who has the most jewelry in a shorter career. Apparently the answer to "how do you follow Tebow?" is "win less playoff games." :(
Yeah, I'm a Broncos fan; that's why I'm not content just making the playoffs and immediately being humiliated on our home field and national television. Ask Norv Turner how good it feels to win a dozen regular season and ZERO postseason games. Ironically, two of his three career playoff wins were against PFM—but then MANY people have been on the happy end of Mannings 9-11 playoff record; the road to the Super Bowl frequently goes not so much through as OVER Peyton Manning. So far it's happened FIVE times, plus a one-and-done against the '99 Titans Super Bowl losing team.
Let's not kid ourselves: Among active players, only Rivers and Romo have had more career-long criticism for rocketing through the regular season only to explode on the playoff launchpad. Granted, Manning's never had a defense worthy of the name, but has the benefit of not one but TWO excellent defensive coaches in Denver. Naetheless, the proof is in the pudding, and he's running out of time to "prove" '06 no fluke.
That's the only reason he's still playing at all, IMHO, which may bode ill for our future even if we win it all this year. Truth is, this may be PFMs last year HOWEVER it ends. With a second Lombardi he'd have nothing left to prove, a body that turns 38 next March and memories of his rookie season, when John Elway went out on top at the same age as the oldest Super Bowl winning QB. If he loses he'll STILL be 38 next year, playing home games in Mile High after growing up in LA, spending his career in a dome and being 0-4 in playoff games when the temperature was <40°. Stay loose, Os.... ;)
I'll leave it there and beat a hasty retreat before the self-appointed Loyalty Officers arrive and send me to the gulag. ;)
I can't believe I just read that.
Denver Native (Carol)
08-29-2013, 04:29 PM
The video is just a cute video - nothing to be taken seriously. The Tebow question was a very small part of the video.
I can't believe I just read that.
That's what I was thinking as I was reading it. I've never seem someone type so many words but not say an effing thing as Joel does. It's insane.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 04:49 PM
The only reason Tebow had more playoff wins is because Manning won enough to get a bye. What a simple, simple fact to remember when writing that drivel.
The only reason Tebow had more playoff wins is because Manning won enough to get a bye. What a simple, simple fact to remember when writing that drivel.
Again, Manning's made a career of winning enough REGULAR season games for a bye but following them with NO postseason wins. Just to reiterate: I'm a Broncos fan, not a CHARGERS fan. ;)
It baffles me people simultaneously say the Broncos were so good (after a 4-12 finish) they CARRIED Tebow to a playoff win, yet PFM couldn't win a single playoff game because we didn't give him enough help.
Ravage!!!
08-29-2013, 04:59 PM
The only reason Tebow had more playoff wins is because Manning won enough to get a bye. What a simple, simple fact to remember when writing that drivel.
Yeah.. A first round bye and getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs is as good as winning the first game of the playoffs and getting to the second round.. It's just stupid what some people will ignore that fact.
As far as King and SeeingRed, I hope your eyes bleed for actually reading one of Joel's posts.. you deserve it! :lol:
BroncoWave
08-29-2013, 05:04 PM
I can't believe I just read that.
I stopped halfway through.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 05:06 PM
Again, Manning's made a career of winning enough REGULAR season games for a bye but following them with NO postseason wins. Just to reiterate: I'm a Broncos fan, not a CHARGERS fan. ;)
It baffles me people simultaneously say the Broncos were so good (after a 4-12 finish) they CARRIED Tebow to a playoff win, yet PFM couldn't win a single playoff game because we didn't give him enough help.
Who has said the second part? I haven't seen anyone claim that. Yes, Manning had the benefit of the same defense Tebow did, and that's why the team was four games better, and Manning was the reason this team actually had a chance to compete in the divisional round. He was also the reason this team went from nearly dead last in scoring to second.
Yeah.. A first round bye and getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs is as good as winning the first game of the playoffs and getting to the second round.. It's just stupid what some people will ignore that fact.
As far as King and SeeingRed, I hope your eyes bleed for actually reading one of Joel's posts.. you deserve it! :lol:
Except winning the wildcard game required beating the #1 passing and #1 overall D, while earning that bye required beating a pitiful AFCW and a bunch of losing teams. Thirteen wins is great, but let's remember: Only TWO of those teams had a winning record—and one of THOSE beat us on our own field when it mattered most. If we're serious title contenders I sure HOPE we can beat a dozen .500 or worse teams.
Who has said the second part? I haven't seen anyone claim that. Yes, Manning had the benefit of the same defense Tebow did, and that's why the team was four games better, and Manning was the reason this team actually had a chance to compete in the divisional round. He was also the reason this team went from nearly dead last in scoring to second.
No one's explicitly said the second part, but the same team went from "it's the QBs fault a great team lost in the divisional round" to "it's NOT the QBs fault a great team lost in the divisional round." I don't follow that at all. A divisional round loss is a divisional round loss. In the 2012 draft we had the #25 overall pick; this year it was #28. Quite an improvement.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 05:13 PM
No one's explicitly said the second part, but the same team went from "it's the QBs fault a great team lost in the divisional round" to "it's NOT the QBs fault a great team lost in the divisional round." I don't follow that at all. A divisional round loss is a divisional round loss. In the 2012 draft we had the #25 overall pick; this year it was #28. Quite an improvement.
Well, I'm never ever going to agree with that. This isn't sabermetrics.
Broncolingus
08-29-2013, 05:19 PM
he could start by winning a couple of titles. . .
Well said, brother...
Well, I'm never ever going to agree with that. This isn't sabermetrics.
It really is, because the only significant difference between the 2011 and 2012 Broncos is the starting QB. Fortunately, the NFL's had sabermetrics since 25 years ago, when The Hidden Game of Footballs did for this sport what co-author Pete Palmers The Hidden Game of Baseball for that one. It's not as well known as the other, despite the 1998 sequel updated for fantasy football, but did inspire Football Outsiders, which maintains arguably the most thorough NFL sabermetrics in existence.
As the book notes, sabermetrics is much harder in pro football because 1) the games fundamental style has changed radically and continuously from the very start, making cross-era comparisons much more difficult than in baseballs relatively static world and 2) a football players performance (especially on the line) is far more interdependent with that of his teammates than a baseball players is. Football has nothing like ERA, and, while a team of poor hitters may reduce their sluggers at bats, what he DOES with each at bat is completely independent of them.
Sabermetrics is still very doable in football though; it just takes a lot more work to normalize each players performance by isolating instances where all the other factors are essentially equal. Changing a single player on a team that's otherwise almost identical is the ultimate example of that, though the NFLs rotating schedules still requires normalization for different levels of opponents (i.e. power ranking.)
Saying PFM's a far better passer than Tebow is stating the glaringly obvious, but that doesn't necessarily translate into championships anymore than the NFL passing title does. If PFM has all that Tebow lacks, it could also be said Tebow has the ONE thing PFM lacks: Manning puts up great numbers and wins many games, but, once again, his "clutch percentage" is in Romo territory. With Tebow, no matter how lopsided the score, it's never over till the final gun; whatever his mechanics and completion percentage, he has a winning record, despite most of his starts coming on a team that was 4-12 and fired their coach the previous year.
If Manning leads us to the Promised Land I really don't care how, or what he did/n't do with Indy (even hanging 40 playoff points on us in consecutive years.) If not, I'll feel lots of vicarious buyers remorse.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 06:14 PM
It's not sabermetrics.
And I'm not reading all that shit, I'm well aware of how sabermetrics can be used in sports, and that it's best used in baseball and can somewhat be used in football. And, actually, if we look at sabermetrics, the actual ******* stats, Tebow gets even worse and Manning gets even better. So, using sabermetrics, this fixation on Manning not winning a playoff game and Tebow winning a game - but getting no further in the playoffs than Manning - meaning the team was no better, becomes even more remarkedly absurd.
ShaneFalco
08-29-2013, 06:19 PM
It baffles me people simultaneously say the Broncos were so good (after a 4-12 finish) they CARRIED Tebow to a playoff win, yet PFM couldn't win a single playoff game because we didn't give him enough help.
:beer:
Talk's cheap, and not just for me. We'll see what, if anything, PFM does next February (a month before he turns 38.) If he delivers, that's all that counts; if not, well, the same. If I wanted a team that just plows through regular season cream puffs en route to a prompt postseason loss I'd watch college ball (or the Chargers, assuming there's a difference.) Short enough to read?
Joel, you are very good at coming up with what you want to believe and defending it. I will give you that.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 06:22 PM
Talk's cheap, and not just for me. We'll see what, if anything, PFM does next February (a month before he turns 38.) If he delivers, that's all that counts; if not, well, the same. If I wanted a team that just plows through regular season cream puffs en route to a prompt postseason loss I'd watch college ball. Short enough to read?
Lol. Meanwhile, the "better" quarterback in your mind isn't even good enough to be a backup.
Joel, you are very good at coming up with what you want to believe and defending it. I will give you that.
What I want is irrelevant; only what is matters. I sure don't want to believe we have one year, MAYBE two, to win a title before we're likely in rebuild mode. It's probably true whether I or anyone else likes it or not.
Lol. Meanwhile, the "better" quarterback in your mind isn't even good enough to be a backup.
Saying PFM's a far better passer than Tebow is stating the glaringly obvious....
It's not about whether Manning>Tebow; it's (again) glaringly obvious he is, and Tebow's not on the team anymore anyway. It's about whether PFM can win a championship or just lots of regular season games.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 07:38 PM
It's not about whether Manning>Tebow; it's (again) glaringly obvious he is, and Tebow's not on the team anymore anyway. It's about whether PFM can win a championship or just lots of regular season games.
It's pretty obvious that that's not true.
Northman
08-29-2013, 07:43 PM
Lol. Meanwhile, the "better" quarterback in your mind isn't even good enough to be a backup.
And that is the ultimate hilarity of it all.
It's pretty obvious that that's not true.
It's been true since the first time Brady beat Manning in the playoffs.
Northman
08-29-2013, 07:44 PM
It's not about whether Manning>Tebow; it's (again) glaringly obvious he is, and Tebow's not on the team anymore anyway. It's about whether PFM can win a championship or just lots of regular season games.
Well, one thing we do know. Tebow isnt going to do it so might as well go with a guy who actually is a starter.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 07:45 PM
It's been true since the first time Brady beat Manning in the playoffs.
I'm not sure I follow.
If it only matters what happens in the future here, then comparing him to Tebow and harkening back to something that happened 10 years ago doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm not sure I follow.
If it only matters what happens in the future here, then comparing him to Tebow and harkening back to something that happened 10 years ago doesn't make a lot of sense.
The future is unknown; we can only extrapolate it based on the past and present. If the future and Manning bring another championship, all is well; if not, not. We'll see.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 09:34 PM
The future is unknown; we can only extrapolate it based on the past and present. If the future and Manning bring another championship, all is well; if not, not. We'll see.
How does Tebow come up in this extrapolation, again? Because that's why you originally started posting in this thread, because Tebow made it as far in the playoffs as a quarterback as Manning in two respective seasons.
But that's the ONLY criteria you're using.
Manning has won a Super Bowl and has double-digit wins in every single season except his first, while Tebow sits on the bench as the third string quarterback in New England. So extrapolate that for me, what does that mean?
How does Tebow come up in this extrapolation, again? Because that's why you originally started posting in this thread, because Tebow made it as far in the playoffs as a quarterback as Manning in two respective seasons.
But that's the ONLY criteria you're using.
Manning has won a Super Bowl and has double-digit wins in every single season except his first, while Tebow sits on the bench as the third string quarterback in New England. So extrapolate that for me, what does that mean?
Double digit REGULAR SEASON wins; in the postseason he's 9-11. That's actually a lower winning percentage than Tebow, though obviously a much smaller sample size. But, yes, the only criterion I'm using for post season performance is post season performance. I couldn't care less how many regular season wins we get without a playoff win. For that matter, I couldn't care less about regular season wins if we win a title.
The '96 Broncos were 13-3, had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs and lost their first playoff game to a second year expansion team. The '97 Broncos were a 12-4 wildcard but beat the defending Super Bowl Champs. Which season was more successful? Or the logical extreme: The '07 Pats had the only 16-0 regular season record; the '07 Giants were a 9-7 team forced to play a wildcard game, then a road game against the top seated Cowboys who swept them in the regular season, then the NFCCG at Lambeau. Did NE have a better season than NY? Think Eli wanted to switch places with Brady?
Simple Jaded
08-29-2013, 09:57 PM
he could start by winning a couple of titles. . .
that would probabaly get it done. . . even joel and jaded would have a hard time complaining about that. . .
Say what? They coulda signed Cooper Manning to replace Tebow and I'd still be doing cartwheels. Anybody struggling with the Peyton Manning signing is an idiot.
Cooper Manning couldn't pass a physical; that's why he left football.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 10:01 PM
Double digit REGULAR SEASON wins; in the postseason he's 9-11. That's actually a lower winning percentage than Tebow, though obviously a much smaller sample size. But, yes, the only criterion I'm using for post season performance is post season performance. I couldn't care less how many regular season wins we get without a playoff win. For that matter, I couldn't care less about regular season wins if we win a title.
The '96 Broncos were 13-3, had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs and lost their first playoff game to a second year expansion team. The '97 Broncos were a 12-4 wildcard but beat the defending Super Bowl Champs. Which season was more successful? Or the logical extreme: The '07 Pats had the only 16-0 regular season record; the '07 Giants were a 9-7 team forced to play a wildcard game, then a road game against the top seated Cowboys who swept them in the regular season, then the NFCCG at Lambeau. Did NE have a better season than NY? Think Eli wanted to switch places with Brady?
LOLZ!
Tebow's 1-1 record is "better" than Manning's postseason record. Nice. Love that style.
Post-season performance:
28/42, 290 Yards, 3 Touchdowns, 2 INTs, 1 fumble, 3 sacks, 35 points.
9/26, 129 yards, 0 Touchdowns, 0 INTs, 1 fumble, 5 sacks, 10 points.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 10:04 PM
Wow. Didn't realize how bad that was. 34 percent. That's downright pathetic.
Simple Jaded
08-29-2013, 10:06 PM
Cooper Manning couldn't pass a physical; that's why he left football.
That's my point!
LOLZ!
Tebow's 1-1 record is "better" than Manning's postseason record. Nice. Love that style.
Post-season performance:
28/42, 290 Yards, 3 Touchdowns, 2 INTs, 1 fumble, 3 sacks, 35 points.
9/26, 129 yards, 0 Touchdowns, 0 INTs, 1 fumble, 5 sacks, 10 points.
Wins are the only stat that matters, and Manning has a losing playoff record, worse than Tebows .500. That was the knock on Manning when Tebow was an unknown HS senior. If Manning delivers a title, great; otherwise $20 million/year is a lot to spend for the same playoff results. If losing to the Conference Champion makes Tebow a bad QB I'm not sure what it does to Manning: He's done it six times.
*shrugs* I prefer ugly wins to pretty losses; I'm old enough to have had more than my fill of the latter.
MOtorboat
08-29-2013, 10:27 PM
Wins are the only stat that matters, and Manning has a losing playoff record, worse than Tebows .500. That was the knock on Manning when Tebow was an unknown HS senior. If Manning delivers a title, great; otherwise $20 million/year is a lot to spend for the same playoff results. If losing to the Conference Champion makes Tebow a bad QB I'm not sure what it does to Manning: He's done it six times.
*shrugs* I prefer ugly wins to pretty losses; I'm old enough to have had more than my fill of the latter.
After a four-paragraph diatribe about sabermetrics? Really?
Simple Jaded
08-29-2013, 10:29 PM
I could probably settle for one, but at this point there's plenty of room for improvement everywhere that matters. Stats are neat but pointless, and Manning's made a career of proving 14 wins doesn't mean jack once the playoffs start, even as his brother's making a career proving 7 losses are acceptable if NONE are in the playoffs. I can't say which is better, but know who has the most jewelry in a shorter career. Apparently the answer to "how do you follow Tebow?" is "win less playoff games." :(
Yeah, I'm a Broncos fan; that's why I'm not content just making the playoffs and immediately being humiliated on our home field and national television. Ask Norv Turner how good it feels to win a dozen regular season and ZERO postseason games. Ironically, two of his three career playoff wins were against PFM—but then MANY people have been on the happy end of Mannings 9-11 playoff record; the road to the Super Bowl frequently goes not so much through as OVER Peyton Manning. So far it's happened FIVE times, plus a one-and-done against the '99 Titans Super Bowl losing team.
Let's not kid ourselves: Among active players, only Rivers and Romo have had more career-long criticism for rocketing through the regular season only to explode on the playoff launchpad. Granted, Manning's never had a defense worthy of the name, but has the benefit of not one but TWO excellent defensive coaches in Denver. Naetheless, the proof is in the pudding, and he's running out of time to "prove" '06 no fluke.
That's the only reason he's still playing at all, IMHO, which may bode ill for our future even if we win it all this year. Truth is, this may be PFMs last year HOWEVER it ends. With a second Lombardi he'd have nothing left to prove, a body that turns 38 next March and memories of his rookie season, when John Elway went out on top at the same age as the oldest Super Bowl winning QB. If he loses he'll STILL be 38 next year, playing home games in Mile High after growing up in LA, spending his career in a dome and being 0-4 in playoff games when the temperature was <40°. Stay loose, Os.... ;)
I'll leave it there and beat a hasty retreat before the self-appointed Loyalty Officers arrive and send me to the gulag. ;)
Btw, I like how Manning has to prove to Joel that his SB win wasn't a fluke but Tebow's short and pathetic effort was more than enough to prove that the Broncos didn't need Peyton Manning.
Btw, I like how Manning has to prove to Joel that his SB win wasn't a fluke but Tebow's short and pathetic effort was more than enough to prove that the Broncos didn't need Peyton Manning.
You remember that SB? It was almost physically painful watching the Bears hapless offense and Colts equally useless defense fight over which one would lose the championship. I felt awful for the poor Bears D; at one point they forced a turnover only to have Grossman hand it right back to the Colts the very next play. Admittedly the rain helped no one; turnovers were rife that day and it was arguably the greatest Super Bowl comedy of errors since SB V. I'm not sure it proved anything except that Super Bowls should be played in domes.
Yet when all is said and done if that's Mannings only title people will always wonder how much of it was luck (especially those who remember the game.) Manning just doesn't have a good playoff record; he's got all the talent, skill and dedication, but in the playoffs he's more often than not on the wrong side of the scoreboard. I hope that changes in Denver, but if not we wasted our time.
Again, Manning's made a career of winning enough REGULAR season games for a bye but following them with NO postseason wins. Just to reiterate: I'm a Broncos fan, not a CHARGERS fan. ;)
It baffles me people simultaneously say the Broncos were so good (after a 4-12 finish) they CARRIED Tebow to a playoff win, yet PFM couldn't win a single playoff game because we didn't give him enough help.
No, he made a career out of being one of the best quarterbacks ever. He won a Super Bowl. He consistently played on a team with poor defenses, which hurt him in the playoffs. He also ran into and had issues with the Patriots dynasty. He also made it to another Super Bowl.
You remember that SB? It was almost physically painful watching the Bears hapless offense and Colts equally useless defense fight over which one would lose the championship. I felt awful for the poor Bears D; at one point they forced a turnover only to have Grossman hand it right back to the Colts the very next play. Admittedly the rain helped no one; turnovers were rife that day and it was arguably the greatest Super Bowl comedy of errors since SB V. I'm not sure it proved anything except that Super Bowls should be played in domes.
Yet when all is said and done if that's Mannings only title people will always wonder how much of it was luck (especially those who remember the game.) Manning just doesn't have a good playoff record; he's got all the talent, skill and dedication, but in the playoffs he's more often than not on the wrong side of the scoreboard. I hope that changes in Denver, but if not we wasted our time.
Turning your team into a real SB contender is not a waste of time.
silkamilkamonico
08-30-2013, 12:08 AM
Double digit REGULAR SEASON wins; in the postseason he's 9-11. That's actually a lower winning percentage than Tebow, though obviously a much smaller sample size. But, yes, the only criterion I'm using for post season performance is post season performance. I couldn't care less how many regular season wins we get without a playoff win. For that matter, I couldn't care less about regular season wins if we win a title.
The '96 Broncos were 13-3, had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs and lost their first playoff game to a second year expansion team. The '97 Broncos were a 12-4 wildcard but beat the defending Super Bowl Champs. Which season was more successful? Or the logical extreme: The '07 Pats had the only 16-0 regular season record; the '07 Giants were a 9-7 team forced to play a wildcard game, then a road game against the top seated Cowboys who swept them in the regular season, then the NFCCG at Lambeau. Did NE have a better season than NY? Think Eli wanted to switch places with Brady?
im sorry, but this is the dumbest argument ever.
are you intentionally trying to argue that winning a playoff game is just as important as winning the superbowl?
because thats what it looks like. eli manning won the superbowl, tim tebow won a wildcard playoff game, and your trying to create an argument that lumps them together as equal.
Simple Jaded
08-30-2013, 12:29 AM
You remember that SB? It was almost physically painful watching the Bears hapless offense and Colts equally useless defense fight over which one would lose the championship. I felt awful for the poor Bears D; at one point they forced a turnover only to have Grossman hand it right back to the Colts the very next play. Admittedly the rain helped no one; turnovers were rife that day and it was arguably the greatest Super Bowl comedy of errors since SB V. I'm not sure it proved anything except that Super Bowls should be played in domes.
Yet when all is said and done if that's Mannings only title people will always wonder how much of it was luck (especially those who remember the game.) Manning just doesn't have a good playoff record; he's got all the talent, skill and dedication, but in the playoffs he's more often than not on the wrong side of the scoreboard. I hope that changes in Denver, but if not we wasted our time.
You're telling me about football that is physically painful to watch?
Btw, signing Manning greased the skids for Tebow's exit, it was nowhere near a waste of "our time", it was worth every penny before the ink was dry.
im sorry, but this is the dumbest argument ever.
are you intentionally trying to argue that winning a playoff game is just as important as winning the superbowl?
because thats what it looks like. eli manning won the superbowl, tim tebow won a wildcard playoff game, and your trying to create an argument that lumps them together as equal.
Not equal, no; the point is regular season wins only matter to the extent they affect the playoffs, no more. So winning 12 games, or 14 or even 16 doesn't mean jack if the team doesn't perform in the postseason, and winning 9 or even 8 is plenty if it gets them to the playoffs and they win all the games that really matter. No, winning a wildcard game isn't the same as winning the Super Bowl; Eli and all the '07 Giants had a tournament for the ages because their 9-7 team went out and beat, not just one of the "better" teams, but ALL of them. Which made their 9 regular season wins irrelevant.
BroncoNut
08-30-2013, 10:38 AM
That's what I was thinking as I was reading it. I've never seem someone type so many words but not say an effing thing as Joel does. It's insane.
I don't think that's fair. he made some good points.
TXBRONC
08-30-2013, 12:04 PM
It's funny how Tebowites are always quick to bring up the one playoff win and neglect the ass kicking Denver took the following week in New England.
Northman
08-30-2013, 12:08 PM
It's funny how Tebowites are always quick to bring up the one playoff win and neglect the ass kicking Denver took the following week in New England.
Yea, but that wasnt Tebow's fault.
Ravage!!!
08-30-2013, 12:15 PM
Wins are always fun, but personally, I didn't enjoy watching Tebow play. He was so bad, that you could see that our "luck" was just that... luck. I knew it coudln't/wouldn't be sustained, and we would be stuck with a QB that couldn't..... QB. Just as I can see a QB that plays like crap and we win, I can see a QB that plays well if/when we lose. Tebow was just flat out bad. To me, personally, it was embarrassing to have him as our QB.
I think people want to say that he was better than Orton wouldn't be saying that after watching him in seasons AFTER what we enjoyed. We saw the greatest "luck" that a team can enjoy, and after the Bears game.....there was a reason that kind of luck was running out and running out FAST. We would have had a QB that can't even make a 3rd string job, elsewhere, as our starter. That's painful.
rationalfan
08-30-2013, 01:53 PM
damn. you know, these players aren't polarizing; we attach that quality on them.
tebow: you can admit to how fun it was watching him play without stating you think he's a good quarterback.
manning: he's still a great quarterback, even if his postseason record isn't perfect (fact: no one's is).
It's funny how Tebowites are always quick to bring up the one playoff win and neglect the ass kicking Denver took the following week in New England.
Yeah, the Conference Champion pounded us: Again, if that proves a poor QB, where does it leave PFM after doing it SIX times. A playoff stomping at Foxboro makes someone a bad QB? Ruh roh, Peyton....
damn. you know, these players aren't polarizing; we attach that quality on them.
tebow: you can admit to how fun it was watching him play without stating you think he's a good quarterback.
manning: he's still a great quarterback, even if his postseason record isn't perfect (fact: no one's is).
Fact: I'm undefeated in the playoffs. :tongue:
The great ones are judged by the post, not regualr, eason though. Not entirely fair, but how it is: Bradshaw's more famous than Staubach and Tarkenton, even though they were MUCH better.
Northman
08-30-2013, 03:20 PM
damn. you know, these players aren't polarizing; we attach that quality on them.
tebow: you can admit to how fun it was watching him play without stating you think he's a good quarterback.
manning: he's still a great quarterback, even if his postseason record isn't perfect (fact: no one's is).
Depends on the argument one uses to define or debate them with.
rationalfan
08-30-2013, 03:23 PM
The great ones are judged by the post, not regualr, eason though. Not entirely fair, but how it is: Bradshaw's more famous than Staubach and Tarkenton, even though they were MUCH better.
(assuming you meant "past" rather than "post.")
but great minds don't judge someone solely by past action, they simply use it as a factor in forecasting the future.
Ravage!!!
08-30-2013, 03:31 PM
The great ones are judged by the post, not regualr, eason though. Not entirely fair, but how it is: Bradshaw's more famous than Staubach and Tarkenton, even though they were MUCH better.
Nothing here is true. Those that talk football will know Staubach's and Tarkenton's name JUST as much as Bradshaw's. Bradshaw isn't more famous, unless you want to count his celebrity status as a football talking head. Those that actually know football enough to compare the QBs won't purely use the Super Bowl rings to determine who's better, unless they are someone that finds that to be the end-all of all discussions. Which in my opinion is pretty damned short sighted.
Although some will try to use the Super Bowl rings as their "gauge" as to greatness, that usually is only used as a tie-breaker between two great QBs. No one is going to tell you that Brad Johnson is a better QB than Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, or Dan Marino. That would be blind, stupid, and flat out ignorant. Trent Dilfer has as many Super Bowls as Peyton Manning and Roger Staubach. Does that make him as good or better as either one of them? Is he more famous??? :confused:
Manning is already basically in the NFL HoF and will always be known as one of the greatest QBs to ever suit up....period. Doesn't matter what YOU think of his post season play or record. Manning is ALREADY a "great one." Eli has 2 Super Bowl rings. Does anyone believe him to be better than Peyton? Anyone believe that he's more famous than Peyton? Anyone believe Eli to be as good as John Elway... who also only has 2 Super Bowl rings?
Joel, is Terry Bradshaw better than Dan Marino, or Peyton Manning? Don't qualify the answer, it's just a yes or a no.
(assuming you meant "past" rather than "post.")
but great minds don't judge someone solely by past action, they simply use it as a factor in forecasting the future.
No, I meant post. The competition level is uniformly higher in the playoffs, because all the dog teams are gone (which is why Riggins and Davis getting BETTER in the post season is so jaw dropping.) And, yes, I'm just using PFMs postseason past as an indicator of his postseason future, bearing in mind that in Indy the best defensive player on his team was his middle-aged coach.
Nothing here is true. Those that talk football will know Staubach's and Tarkenton's name JUST as much as Bradshaw's. Bradshaw isn't more famous, unless you want to count his celebrity status as a football talking head. Those that actually know football enough to compare the QBs won't purely use the Super Bowl rings to determine who's better, unless they are someone that finds that to be the end-all of all discussions. Which in my opinion is pretty damned short sighted.
Of course Bradshaws broadcasting career reflects his fame, not least because largely an EFFECT rather than CAUSE of it. He's not worthy to carry Staubachs jock, IMHO, but won both their SB meetings thanks to the Steel Curtain, Harris and Stallworth. So Bradshaw does national broadcasts ever fall Sunday and Staubachs last regular TV gig was Rolaids commercials 30 years ago. Fair or not, that's reality.
Although some will try to use the Super Bowl rings as their "gauge" as to greatness, that usually is only used as a tie-breaker between two great QBs. No one is going to tell you that Brad Johnson is a better QB than Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, or Dan Marino. That would be blind, stupid, and flat out ignorant. Trent Dilfer has as many Super Bowls as Peyton Manning and Roger Staubach. Does that make him as good or better as either one of them? Is he more famous??? :confused:
Those questions are very different, and not just because Staubach has as many Super Bowl wins as Dilfer and PFM COMBINED, though that's a good reason that brings up another aspect: Manning has twice as many SB appearances as Dilfer, and Staubach twice as many as Manning; had Staubach supplanted Morton one season earlier he, not Elway, would've been the first QB to start 5 Super Bowls. Dilfers single SB appearance, albeit a win, is paltry by comparison.
That doesn't prove Staubach a far better QB (BEING far better does that,) but makes him more famous. The more a name's in the spotlight the more, better and longer it's remembered—deservedly or not.
Manning is already basically in the NFL HoF and will always be known as one of the greatest QBs to ever suit up....period. Doesn't matter what YOU think of his post season play or record. Manning is ALREADY a "great one." Eli has 2 Super Bowl rings. Does anyone believe him to be better than Peyton? Anyone believe that he's more famous than Peyton? Anyone believe Eli to be as good as John Elway... who also only has 2 Super Bowl rings?
Without those two wins Elway would be remembered like Kelly or Marino, and knew that better than anyone during The Helicopter. Again, my beliefs depend on what IS, not what I WISH.
I BELIEVE Staubach was head and shoulders above Bradshaw, not least because the lack of a David Robinson Rule meant he spent his first four "pro" seasons in the Navy, yet was the NFLs reigning passing champ when he retired after Bradshaw won Staubachs last pro game in the SB 11 years later. I also BELIEVE most folks think that makes Bradshaw better, because what actually HAPPENED was Staubach was 2-2 in SBs and Bradshaw was 4-0, including both head-to-heads. Anytime I debate the topic with Steelers fans they'll always have that trump card; while many other factors mitigate it, none can ever CHANGE it.
Joel, is Terry Bradshaw better than Dan Marino, or Peyton Manning? Don't qualify the answer, it's just a yes or a no.
No. Although I REALLY hate unqualified answers (as you may have noticed, :tongue:) this one's pretty safe. Yet Bradshaw's better known than either of them, both in and out of football. Hell, Theisman's better known than Marino, even though a greatly inferior QB; he won their SB meeting, and, for good or ill, that's the biggest thing people remember.
I like Tebow, great guy, great teammate, hardest worker you will ever find.
That being said it really boggles my mind that there is actually a discussion going on to debate Manning and Tebow.
I like Tebow, great guy, great teammate, hardest worker you will ever find.
That being said it really boggles my mind that there is actually a discussion going on to debate Manning and Tebow.
There's really not; I don't know how many times/ways I must say, "PFM's a much better passer than Tebow," before people accept I mean it. It's "debatable" whether saying it infinitely would do the job. My core point was that Tebow's a much worse passer but better in the clutch. Lots of guys can and do post great stats beating teams like last years Chiefs; ask Tony Romo if that's good enough.
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 04:42 PM
There's really not; I don't know how many times/ways I must say, "PFM's a much better passer than Tebow," before people accept I mean it. It's "debatable" whether saying it infinitely would do the job. My core point was that Tebow's a much worse passer but better in the clutch. Lots of guys can and do post great stats beating teams like last years Chiefs; ask Tony Romo if that's good enough.
Laughable, at best. At best.
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 04:43 PM
Lucky play after lucky play, and then he hits one easy crossing pattern on a 12 yard slant and he's more clutch than Peyton Manning. That's just ******* beyond ridiculous.
Most of Tebows clutchness only came in the regular season. You just told us that the regular season doesn't matter.
Most of Tebows clutchness only came in the regular season. You just told us that the regular season doesn't matter.
He set the playoff yards-per-attempt record against the #1 overall and #1 passing D: That's pretty clutch. The whole second quarter was clutch even if we ignore the OT game winning play. The guy only started (most of) one season; there's a limit to how much postseason clutchness (that's a word now. ;)) Apart from the Steelers game there's just the drubbing by the Conference Champs but, once again, if that disqualifying our current starter's in even more trouble, because it's happened to him SIX times; the Pats alone have done it twice as many.
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 06:17 PM
He set the playoff yards-per-attempt record against the #1 overall and #1 passing D: That's pretty clutch. The whole second quarter was clutch even if we ignore the OT game winning play. The guy only started (most of) one season; there's a limit to how much postseason clutchness (that's a word now. ;)) Apart from the Steelers game there's just the drubbing by the Conference Champs but, once again, if that disqualifying our current starter's in even more trouble, because it's happened to him SIX times; the Pats alone have done it twice as many.
Yeah heaving Hail Marys and hoping Demaryius Thomas comes down with them is real "clutch."
Hilarious.
ShaneFalco
08-30-2013, 06:33 PM
Hilarious that people cant even admit it is clutch. Makes you sound like you have never even played football.
I guess they got used to orton and cutler taking them to the playoffs and being "clutch" year after year....
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 06:36 PM
Hilarious that people cant even admit it is clutch. Makes you sound like you have never even played football.
I guess they got used to orton and cutler taking them to the playoffs and being "clutch" year after year....
8-8 is 8-8. He didn't lead shit into the playoffs. He led a pathetic offense to three straight losses, scoring an average of 6.7 points in the final two games and lucked into the playoffs.
That's reality.
ShaneFalco
08-30-2013, 06:37 PM
#1 Rushing offense. Wildcard win versus #1 Defense. Thats the reality.
You can take your Kyle Orton "avg" stats somewhere else. Because i really dont care. No one who plays or played football, cares about stats, they care about the win. You obviously think its easy for players to play. To just throw 316 yards, set a playoff record. Just easy, dumb, blind, luck......
ShaneFalco
08-30-2013, 06:40 PM
And jeebus, I love this from all the anti tebow crowd.
Saying 8-8! 8-8! hey what was the broncos record that season! "8-8!"
When did Tebow start? "Oh when the team was 1-4". And here you are talking about reality and how its hard to "have a discussion" .....Excuse me while i laugh.
Yeah heaving Hail Marys and hoping Demaryius Thomas comes down with them is real "clutch."
Hilarious.
5/9 for 185 and 1 TD, plus a TD run. Three of those passes, including the beautiful TD over Pro Bowler Ike Taylors fingertips at the side of the endzone, weren't to Thomas. As for 8-8, it's not Tebows fault Orton and the rest of the great team that carried him to the playoffs went 1-4 without him, but he probably had something to with why they went 7-4 and won a playoff game against the leagues top D with him.
If you want to talk football, say the word; following from thread to thread just to harangue me with "prove Karlos Dansby wanted to leave the team he already left three years ago" is weak and merits no response.
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 06:50 PM
5/9 for 185 and 1 TD, plus a TD run. Three of those passes, including the beautiful TD over Pro Bowler Ike Taylors fingertips at the side of the endzone, weren't to Thomas. As for 8-8, it's not Tebows fault Orton and the rest of the great team that carried him to the playoffs went 1-4 without him, but he probably had something to with why they went 7-4 and won a playoff game against the leagues top D with him.
If you ever want to talk football, say the word; following from thread to thread saying, "prove Karlos Dansby wanted to leave the team he left three years ago," just to harangue me is weak and merits no response.
You got me. I was wrong about something.
I apologize.
Now, please continue to tell us how much better and more clutch Tim Tebow is than Peyton Manning...you know, serious football talk.
ShaneFalco
08-30-2013, 06:51 PM
As for 8-8, it's not Tebows fault Orton and the rest of the great team that carried him to the playoffs went 1-4 without him, but he probably had something to with why they went 7-4 and won a playoff game against the leagues top D with him.
.
:salute:
But hey, "Its so hard to have a discussion with the thousands of tebois"
He set the playoff yards-per-attempt record against the #1 overall and #1 passing D: That's pretty clutch. The whole second quarter was clutch even if we ignore the OT game winning play. The guy only started (most of) one season; there's a limit to how much postseason clutchness (that's a word now. ;)) Apart from the Steelers game there's just the drubbing by the Conference Champs but, once again, if that disqualifying our current starter's in even more trouble, because it's happened to him SIX times; the Pats alone have done it twice as many.
So one game.
Thanks for playing.
You got me. I was wrong about something.
I apologize.
Now, please continue to tell us how much better and more clutch Tim Tebow is than Peyton Manning...you know, serious football talk.
The problem isn't the error or its delayed admission, but that you're smart enough to usually avoid it in the first place, if only by fact-checking before responding. Assuming I'm always full of it invariably obviates such precautions; if I say it's sunny, looking at a clock or out the window before swearing it's midnight is needless. Only you can say if you're better than that, but I KNOW I am. Nothing personal—that's the point. ;)
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 07:09 PM
The problem isn't the error or its delayed admission, but that you're smart enough to usually avoid it in the first place, if only by fact-checking before responding. Assuming I'm always full of it invariably obviates such precautions; if I say it's sunny, looking at a clock or out the window before swearing it's midnight is needless. Only you can say if you're better than that, but I KNOW I am. Nothing personal—that's the point. ;)
The point about Dansby still stands.
He did leave for Miami, but went directly back to Arizona when he could.
So one game.
Thanks for playing.
Two games, and Tebow looked as bad as everyone else in the second, just as others played as well in the first. (Most of) one season; Eli "only" managed four clutch performances taking a wildcard team to a title; there are only so many opportunities for a clutch performane in a single postseason. Yet 1-1 in the clutch>9-11 in the clutch; PFM has had far more opportunities, but a lower winning percentage.
His defenses were awful, but the Manning Colts are exhibit A in the argument byes actually hurt top seeds because they come out flat and go one-and-done at home. It remains to be seen how much of that was the bye and how much the Colts, and how much of the latter was on Manning rather than his cellar dweller defenses. What we do know is he has a much better D now, so maybe the answer is imminent....
So his clutchness came out in one game, out of two.
Thanks for playing.
The point about Dansby still stands.
He did leave for Miami, but went directly back to Arizona when he could.
He could've gone back any time willing to take less than top dollar. He left for Miami because they paid a LOT when the Cards wouldn't, but evidently neither thinks him worth it now, because he's back with the team that drafted him. Their history together surely helped, but it's hard to imagine he rejects say, $10 million and 3 years with a title favorite for $2.25 million and 1 year with a team in rebuild mode in the NFC Champs division. If it was just about warm places we're back to "Mile High is COLD in January; PFM grew up in LA, spent his career in a dome and is 0-4 in playoff games <40°." Let's hope there are bigger factors. ;)
It's certainly fair he had strong non-monetary incentives to go home to Arizona, it's irksome and a bit ironic there's no indication we even tried for Dansby, yet signed lesser Cardinals Mikes like Lenon and Bradley. Especially since Bleacher Report lists Bradley and Irving among our six "biggest season disappointments so far." Take it for what it's worth, but: Ouch. :redface:
So his clutchness came out in one game, out of two.
Thanks for playing.
Yes. 50%>45%. Of course, 12/23 (or 13/24)>1/2; again, if Manning leads us to the Promised Land all is well. "If," however, is a small word with a big meaning.
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 08:02 PM
Yes. 50%>45%.
9>1
1>0
154>8
65>47
59,487>2,422
436>12
Stupid argument is stupid.
9>1
1>0
154>8
65>47
59,487>2,422
436>12
Stupid argument is stupid.
Are those other numbers relevant? Playoff winning percentage is HIGHLY relevant if we want to win a Super Bowl. Lots of players—some HoFers—put up lots of great stats without winning many playoff games. Warren Moon went to the playoffs seven straight years yet never won anything but wildcard games; the fault wasn't his, IMHO, but he still retired without a Ring.
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 08:09 PM
Are those other numbers relevant? Playoff winning percentage is HIGHLY relevant if we want to win a Super Bowl. Lots of players—some HoFers—put up lots of great stats without winning many playoff games. Warren Moon went to the playoffs seven straight years yet never won anything but wildcard games; the fault wasn't his, IMHO, but he still retired without a Ring.
Basing your conclusion off of two games versus comparing it 19 games, including two Super Bowls and one Super Bowl Championship, is pretty short sighted.
And yes. It is absolutely relevant when you're talking about one of the greatest of all time and trying to say one of the worst of all time actually stacks up.
Yes. 50%>45%. Of course, 12/23 (or 13/24)>1/2; again, if Manning leads us to the Promised Land all is well. "If," however, is a small word with a big meaning.
So two games versus a QB who has a SB trophy...Gee, I know who I want if we're in the playoffs.
There's no real argument for your position, Joel. I'm sorry.
MOtorboat
08-30-2013, 08:11 PM
So two games versus a QB who has a SB trophy...Gee, I know who I want if we're in the playoffs.
There's no real argument for your position, Joel. I'm sorry.
I'm trying to be nice, but this is asinine, right?
I'm trying to be nice, but this is asinine, right?
From both football and a sheer logical standpoint, it's a non-existent argument.
The clutch argument fails for Joel. Two games of Tebow in the playoffs is too small of a sample size to compare it to Manning. Furthermore, most of Tebow's clutchness occurred in the regular season. Tebow wants no part of regular season comparisons. Even then, if we were to play nice with Joel's argument, it fails on its merits. Tebow was clutch one game and impotent in another. That's fifty percent of the time, for Joel's argument, which is ass. Especially since Manning is 9-11, which is just under fifty percent. The saving grace for Manning, however is that he has a Super Bowl ring. Joel might try to argue mitigating factors; performance of the team is something that greatly impacts how well a QB will do in the playoffs. If Joel goes that route, we get to then argue the fact that the team that killed Manning the most happened to be piling up Lombardi trophies. Manning's Achilles heel was the Patriots. So since we argue mitigating factors, Manning wins in the fact that it was the last modern day dynasty team that was killing him. Furthermore, nine playoff wins in a career isn't exactly a small feat. Another factor is that Manning is only dissapointing in the context of his own greatness. He's one of the best passers ever. He consistently carried teams to massive records. At one point the Colts had eight straight ten plus win seasons -that's off of the top of my head, the number is close though-. He is one of the toughtest QB's to ever play the game. He has four MVP's. By all accounts he's one of the best football players ever. He has an incredible argument for being the best ever. His knowledge of the game is so great that he basically made his own system.
Peyton Manning is a demigod of Professional Football...but back to the point, haha.
So, they have virtually the same winning percentage in the playoffs, one of them has been plagued by poor team performance in his career, the other has for half of his games. So sure, that analogy fits...but only if we're humoring Joel. If we're not, then he doesn't even get this 'false positive' credit for his argument. Therefore, Joel cannot logically claim that Tebow is more clutch in the playoffs.
He certainly cannot make that claim in the regular season, as Manning is in the top five all time for comeback wins, if we're going to talk about clutchness that is.
So therefore Joel is left with nothing. There is no argument for it. Joel gets caught up in the minutia of arguments and losses sight of the actual picture.
Joel, I am a man who spends a lot of time on arguments. I spend a lot of time on rebuttals. I spend a lot of time writing and reading. I don't mean to be rude, but there is literally nothing to support your argument. Please stop arguing it.
From both football and a sheer logical standpoint, it's a non-existent argument.
The clutch argument fails for Joel. Two games of Tebow in the playoffs is too small of a sample size to compare it to Manning. Furthermore, most of Tebow's clutchness occurred in the regular season. Tebow wants no part of regular season comparisons. Even then, if we were to play nice with Joel's argument, it fails on its merits. Tebow was clutch one game and impotent in another. That's fifty percent of the time, for Joel's argument, which is ass. Especially since Manning is 9-11, which is just under fifty percent. The saving grace for Manning, however is that he has a Super Bowl ring. Joel might try to argue mitigating factors; performance of the team is something that greatly impacts how well a QB will do in the playoffs. If Joel goes that route, we get to then argue the fact that the team that killed Manning the most happened to be piling up Lombardi trophies. Manning's Achilles heel was the Patriots. So since we argue mitigating factors, Manning wins in the fact that it was the last modern day dynasty team that was killing him. Furthermore, nine playoff wins in a career isn't exactly a small feat. Another factor is that Manning is only dissapointing in the context of his own greatness. He's one of the best passers ever. He consistently carried teams to massive records. At one point the Colts had eight straight ten plus win seasons -that's off of the top of my head, the number is close though-. He is one of the toughtest QB's to ever play the game. He has four MVP's. By all accounts he's one of the best football players ever. He has an incredible argument for being the best ever. His knowledge of the game is so great that he basically made his own system.
Peyton Manning is a demigod of Professional Football...but back to the point, haha.
50% isn't great but, agreed, it's a small sample size; what's more important is, as also agreed, 50%>45% even if the latter is a larger sample. We can't do anything about the size of the first sample; all we know is the one season Tebow started most of he took a team from 1-4 to .500, a division title and a playoff win, hence the 50% clutchness that beats 45%. The Pats beat Manning twice, but if that doesn't count because they were a SB dynasty it doesn't count when they did it to Tebow once; fair is fair. ;)
Ironically, the pair of Pats losses plus the SB win and loss are the ONLY 4 times in 12 playoff appearances Manning wasn't one-and-done, and HALF the 8 teams who sent him home winless lost the very next game. Only 3 reached the SB (the '99 Titans, '05 Steelers and '12 Ravens,) and one lost it. So losing to 5 SB Champs means nothing except losing tons of playoff games will include a few SB Champs; law of averages.
One-and-done EIGHT TIMES?! That's an odd standard of greatness, especially when a division with Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee practically guaranteed a playoff berth most years.
So, they have virtually the same winning percentage in the playoffs, one of them has been plagued by poor team performance in his career, the other has for half of his games. So sure, that analogy fits...but only if we're humoring Joel. If we're not, then he doesn't even get this 'false positive' credit for his argument. Therefore, Joel cannot logically claim that Tebow is more clutch in the playoffs.
They have NEARLY the same playoff winning percentage, but Tebow's is marginally better. It's neither mathematical nor logical to say, "PFM has slightly smaller playoff win percentage means he is more clutch in the playoffs." Especially with EIGHT one-and-dones in 12 playoff seasons; reaching 3 AFCGs, 2 SBs and ONE SB win in the others may be due more to persistence and the soft AFCS than to greatness.
Denver with Tebow benched was as awful as Indy with Manning benched: They were 4-14 without him and 8-6 with him. Some say Miller fixed it, but we were still 1-4 with Miller until Tebow replaced Orton.
He certainly cannot make that claim in the regular season, as Manning is in the top five all time for comeback wins, if we're going to talk about clutchness that is.
The issue is playoffs, but if we WERE talking season one could ask why a great QB fell so often trailed playing 6 games/year against the Jags, an expansion team and one Bud Adams has been Al-Davising 40 years.
So therefore Joel is left with nothing. There is no argument for it. Joel gets caught up in the minutia of arguments and losses sight of the actual picture.
Joel, I am a man who spends a lot of time on arguments. I spend a lot of time on rebuttals. I spend a lot of time writing and reading. I don't mean to be rude, but there is literally nothing to support your argument. Please stop arguing it.
If we want a Lombardi, playoff performances are not minutiæ, certainly not nothing. Manning got over that hump once in twelve tries (yea) but until/unless he does it in Denver I won't care.
Jsteve01
08-30-2013, 10:40 PM
pow
Northman
08-30-2013, 10:47 PM
He set the playoff yards-per-attempt record against the #1 overall and #1 passing D: That's pretty clutch.
He's so clutch no team wants him as a starter. :lol:
He's so clutch no team wants him as a starter. :lol:
Much as I hate the idea, backing up Brady, absorbing as much knowledge as possible from him and practicing mechanics till his arm goes numb is probably his best shot now. Maybe by the time Brady retires he'll be ready to pull a Steve Young, though the Pats don't currently have the receivers Young did.
As far as no one daring start him, he's in the same boat he was at the start of 2011: Everyone was convinced he was too raw to ever win a game (including me; I wanted Quinn more from necessity than talent.) Then he replaced Orton out of sheer desperation and took a 1-4 team coming off a 4-12 team to a .500 finish and a playoff win against the leagues top D. Say what we like, he's got a winning record as a starter on an awful team; he's made the most of his game opportunities.
Northman
08-30-2013, 10:50 PM
Thats the reality.
Well no.
The reality is he was so good that he was replaced by a terrible Peyton Manning (according to Joel). Tebow was so awesome he couldnt surplant Mark Sanchez in NY. He was so good they cut him and drafted ANOTHER guy to be the starter. He is so good that no other team other than the one who's OC drafted him wanted him. Now he plays third string for that team that has 2 QB's ahead of him. Yes, he is SO good.
Keep it coming. Im dying from laughter here.
I have never seen a more adamant poster in my life. Posting with you might be an exercise in futility.
Northman
08-30-2013, 10:54 PM
Much as I hate the idea, backing up Brady, absorbing as much knowledge as possible from him and practicing mechanics till his arm goes numb is probably his best shot now. Maybe by the time Brady retires he'll be ready to pull a Steve Young, though the Pats don't currently have the receivers Young did.
As far as no one daring start him, he's in the same boat he was at the start of 2011: Everyone was convinced he was too raw to ever win a game (including me; I wanted Quinn more from necessity than talent.) Then he replaced Orton out of sheer desperation and took a 1-4 team coming off a 4-12 team to a .500 finish and a playoff win against the leagues top D. Say what we like, he's got a winning record as a starter on an awful team; he's made the most of his game opportunities.
But he is clutch. He should already be starting going by your logic.
Well no.
The reality is he was so good that he was replaced by a terrible Peyton Manning (according to Joel). Tebow was so awesome he couldnt surplant Mark Sanchez in NY. He was so good they cut him and drafted ANOTHER guy to be the starter. He is so good that no other team other than the one who's OC drafted him wanted him. Now he plays third string for that team that has 2 QB's ahead of him. Yes, he is SO good.
Keep it coming. Im dying from laughter here.
Rex Ryan couldn't find his offense with both hands; that Mark Sanchez was his starter before and after Tebow was there says more of Ryan than of player. He'll be a fine DC somewhere someday.
TXBRONC
08-30-2013, 10:56 PM
Yeah, the Conference Champion pounded us: Again, if that proves a poor QB, where does it leave PFM after doing it SIX times. A playoff stomping at Foxboro makes someone a bad QB? Ruh roh, Peyton....
Fact: I'm undefeated in the playoffs. :tongue:
The great ones are judged by the post, not regualr, eason though. Not entirely fair, but how it is: Bradshaw's more famous than Staubach and Tarkenton, even though they were MUCH better.
You logic is poor. By your measure Manning is leaps and bound better than Tebow. It's not even. Manning more than twice as many playoff wins compared to Tebow and who has the ring? Yeah that's right Manning. Your sucks and it makes you look foolish.
Northman
08-30-2013, 10:56 PM
I have never seen a more adamant poster in my life. Posting with you might be an exercise in futility.
Sadly, i believe that Joel was one of the guys who were actually celebrating the Broncos loss this past season to the Ravens. If you read his posts when we first acquired Manning he was pissed off. I truly believe he would love nothing more than to see Denver fail. He just exudes that type of behavior on here.
But he is clutch. He should already be starting going by your logic.
There's more to championships than clutch play, especially since playoff opponents are often at least as clutch. Believe as you like; again, beliefs needn't reflect reality, it's just better that way.
Northman
08-30-2013, 10:57 PM
Rex Ryan couldn't find his offense with both hands; that Mark Sanchez was his starter before and after Tebow was there says more of Ryan than of player. He'll be a fine DC somewhere someday.
At first yes, but then when they actually went and drafted another guy it tells me they didnt believe in Tebow at all. And well, they would know because they actually see him practice and play first hand.
Northman
08-30-2013, 10:58 PM
There's more to championships than clutch play, especially since playoff games make it very likely opponents will be at least as clutch.
And there is more to great QB's than one miracle season. Which is why we dont see him starting.
TXBRONC
08-30-2013, 10:58 PM
Rex Ryan couldn't find his offense with both hands; that Mark Sanchez was his starter before and after Tebow was there says more of Ryan than of player. He'll be a fine DC somewhere someday.
An no it doesn't only blind as bat Tebowite would say something that foolish.
TXBRONC
08-30-2013, 11:02 PM
There's more to championships than clutch play, especially since playoff opponents are often at least as clutch. Believe as you like; again, beliefs needn't reflect reality, it's just better that way.
If you actually lived reality rather than 1967 you might actually be taken more seriously.
There's more to championships than clutch play, especially since playoff games make it very likely opponents will be at least as clutch. Believe as you like; again, beliefs need not reflect reality, it's just better that way.
The problem is that your reality involves massive leaps in logic, contorted logic, cherry picked logical thinking, ignoring facts and sophistry. Two games for playoff Tebow, twenty for Manning. I even literally told you that we'd do you a FAVOR TO COMPARE THOSE GAMES! Does the term sample size mean anything to you? Have you ever opened a scientific study up? Do you know what research methods are? If you don't, then you should look them up. If you do, you should either A. Get smarter, or B. stop spamming the board.
You logic is poor. By your measure Manning is leaps and bound better than Tebow. It's not even. Manning more than twice as many playoff wins compared to Tebow and who has the ring? Yeah that's right Manning. Your sucks and it makes you look foolish.
Twice as many playoff wins in TWELVE times as many playoff appearances, from a garbage division? Mannings nerve and playoff monkey was questioned even before Troy Polamalu had his coming out party against the Colts in '05, and many people here were among his loudest inquisitors. The SB win the next year muted that a lot, but not completely, and there's no reason Broncos fans widespread vocal doubts should disappear just because he's our QB now. If he delivers another title, all is well; if not we're just right back where we started.
Northman
08-30-2013, 11:05 PM
Twice as many playoff wins in TWELVE times as many playoff appearances, from a garbage division? Mannings nerve and playoff monkey was questioned even before Troy Polamalu had his coming out party against the Colts in '05, and many people here were among his loudest inquisitors. The SB win the next year muted that a lot, but not completely, and there's no reason Broncos fans widespread vocal doubts should disappear just because he's our QB now. If he delivers another title, all is well; if not we're just right back where we started.
But at least you admit we are better off with Manning correct? Because Tebow just wasnt going to get it done longterm.
Joel, during his heyday in the AFC South, the Jaguars fielded several good playoff teams, and the Titans had a few as well, one that even was the number one overall seed. Please stop.
At first yes, but then when they actually went and drafted another guy it tells me they didnt believe in Tebow at all. And well, they would know because they actually see him practice and play first hand.
Sure, but pinning their hopes on Sanchez for four years doesn't exactly shout, "quarterback gurus."
An no it doesn't only blind as bat Tebowite would say something that foolish.
Only Tebow fans question the Jets coaching staffs offensive knowledge? Really?
The problem is that your reality involves massive leaps in logic, contorted logic, cherry picked logical thinking, ignoring facts and sophistry. Two games for playoff Tebow, twenty for Manning. I even literally told you that we'd do you a FAVOR TO COMPARE THOSE GAMES! Does the term sample size mean anything to you? Have you ever opened a scientific study up? Do you know what research methods are? If you don't, then you should look them up. If you do, you should either A. Get smarter, or B. stop spamming the board.
I've repeatedly conceded Tebows playoff sample size is small but, once again, it's the only sample we've got, so it's the only one we can use. It's just as well Manning has a much larger sample though, because it's far more suggestive. EIGHT one-and-dones in twelve seasons. How is TWELVE SEASONS of playoff appearances "cherry-picking"? Carrying off the whole tree isn't cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is saying, "he's made the playoffs twelve times, but let's focus on the one time he got a Lombardi Trophy, or the two times he got a Hunt Trophy; we'll ignore the ten times he got neither, and the eight times he got NOTHING."
TXBRONC
08-30-2013, 11:15 PM
Twice as many playoff wins in TWELVE times as many playoff appearances, from a garbage division? Mannings nerve and playoff monkey was questioned even before Troy Polamalu had his coming out party against the Colts in '05, and many people here were among his loudest inquisitors. The SB win the next year muted that a lot, but not completely, and there's no reason Broncos fans widespread vocal doubts should disappear just because he's our QB now. If he delivers another title, all is well; if not we're just right back where we started.
Here you keep going on about one playoff win that Tebow was fortunate to be apart of yet you nothing else except for pile of empty rhetoric.
It Manning delivers a title you and Chronic will still be whinning.
Typically when the sample size is that small, you go "we can't really use it, because it's so small it's worthless." You, on the other hand say "This sample size is so small that it's effectively worthless...but I'm going to use it because I need it to make my awful argument."
That's sophistry, Joel. Why are you intellectually dishonest? As far as the cherry picking thing goes, how about the fact most of your arguments revolve around incredibly myopic points of view where you only take what you want out of the argument? This is a prime example of cherry picking - taking the bad out of Manning's postseason career, and then when we bring up the SB you say "I don't care until he does it in Denver." That's cherry picking. You don't get to just ignore the damning part of someone's argument because you don't care. If you care about playoff wins and winning, then you take the guy with a .500 record and a SB. Because he wins half of the time - just about, rather - in the playoffs and he won a SB.
Earlier, you tried to go "but the BEars struggled and it was blah blah blah." Hey, Joel, the Niners won a SB against the Bengals because one of our DB's dropped a pick in the endzone on the eventual game winning drives. Now take that bit of information and go around and ask how many Niner fans care? Then ask how many football fans care? No one. A SB win is a SB win. Bradshaw got into the hall being an awful passer because he had four rings. Damn, it's stupid, but that's how it's judged. Earlier you were all like "Tebow was bad but so was everyone else." Then you ignore the flaws of Manning's team and their play in the playoffs. That's cherry picking.
Stop it. Your argument is booty cheeks.
Joel, during his heyday in the AFC South, the Jaguars fielded several good playoff teams, and the Titans had a few as well, one that even was the number one overall seed. Please stop.
The Jags have had 3 winning seasons, 2 playoff appearances and 1 playoff win; severaly good playoff teams?
The Titans were sporadically better, managing 2 more winning seasons and playoff appearances plus 1 more playoff win, but never consistently good. I grew up with them, remember? Bud Adams will never allow them consistent success; like Al Davis, he's clueless at drafting but thinks he's a genius. Far worse, when he stumbles onto a good team he breaks them up if they don't win titles fast enough; he did it to Bum Phillips and Earl Campbell after they lost two AFCCGs to the Steelers, to the Run 'N Shoot in the '90s and to Air McNair; he even did it to Houston when they wouldn't bulldoze the worlds first domed stadium for him.
The Titans are always either very good or very bad, so over the past decade they've had 5 winning seasons, 4 playoff appearances and 2 playoff wins, plus "several" embarrasing seasons. It's been a weak division from the start, which was my knock on the Colts a decade ago and my worry for the Texans now: A dozen AFCS wins don't mean as much as elsewhere.
Now match those years up to Manning's hey day years and I'm sure you'll find that typically the AFC South wasn't just a throw away division. No one bashes the Patriots for being and often playing in a bad division. The NFC South was notorious for teams swapping places and winning it one year and being down and out the next. Unless a division is so bad that an .500 or worse team wins it, it's a division title.
You literally have to go out of your way to disparage everything Manning has done, talk up Tim Tebow and CHERRY PICK!
Typically when the sample size is that small, you go "we can't really use it, because it's so small it's worthless." You, on the other hand say "This sample size is so small that it's effectively worthless...but I'm going to use it because I need it to make my awful argument."
I'm using it because the issue is the playoffs, so we must compare playoff games, and two games isn't great, but better than none.
That's sophistry, Joel. Why are you intellectually dishonest?
I'm not being intellectually dishonest, and resent that serious charge.
As far as the cherry picking thing goes, how about the fact most of your arguments revolve around incredibly myopic points of view where you only take what you want out of the argument?
EIGHT one-and-dones in twelve appearances, compared with just two SB appearances and one win, is NOT cherry-picking: It's the entire 9-11 playoff record of a 15 year starter.
This is a prime example of cherry picking - taking the bad out of Manning's postseason career, and then when we bring up the SB you say "I don't care until he does it in Denver." That's cherry picking. You don't get to just ignore the damning part of someone's argument because you don't care. If you care about playoff wins and winning, then you take the guy with a .500 record and a SB. Because he wins half of the time - just about, rather - in the playoffs and he won a SB.
"Just about" won't cut it, not compared to "exactly." I DON'T care till he does it in Denver, anymore than how many SBs Brady won: They're of no benefit to my team—just the opposite; we share a conference. Is the SB win significant to the debate? Sure, but not the single overriding factor when Manning made the playoffs 11 other years but the SB only one of them. Ignoring 11 years to focus on 1: THAT is cherry-picking.
Earlier, you tried to go "but the BEars struggled and it was blah blah blah." Hey, Joel, the Niners won a SB against the Bengals because one of our DB's dropped a pick in the endzone on the eventual game winning drives. Now take that bit of information and go around and ask how many Niner fans care? Then ask how many football fans care? No one. A SB win is a SB win. Bradshaw got into the hall being an awful passer because he had four rings. Damn, it's stupid, but that's how it's judged.
Where were you when I spent about a page making that exact argument while being told how ludicrous it was to even suggest?
Earlier you were all like "Tebow was bad but so was everyone else." Then you ignore the flaws of Manning's team and their play in the playoffs. That's cherry picking.
I did no such thing; I repeatedly—explicitly—cited the Colts' flaws as such—unprompted—even noting Mannings much better current D greatly improves his title chances. Yet everyone seems to forget Tebows teams were equally bad, all I said the last time the Colts' failings were mentioned: The Colts were awful with Manning benched, and the Broncos just as awful with Tebow benched, so it's a wash.
That leaves us back at 50% playoff winning percentage vs. 45%; awful divisions give teams more chances to convert that lower percentage into a title (the 'Niners would be a good example if they hadn't cruised through the playoffs just as effortlessly until the early '90s.) Yet throwing a box of darts at a board and hitting the bullseye ONCE is an anomaly, not skill; it belongs on a sundae, not in an argument. :tongue:
Now match those years up to Manning's hey day years and I'm sure you'll find that typically the AFC South wasn't just a throw away division. No one bashes the Patriots for being and often playing in a bad division. The NFC South was notorious for teams swapping places and winning it one year and being down and out the next. Unless a division is so bad that an .500 or worse team wins it, it's a division title.
You literally have to go out of your way to disparage everything Manning has done, talk up Tim Tebow and CHERRY PICK!
Why imagine? Look it up: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2002/ There was a ~4 year string at the end of last decade when it wasn't awful ('07 and '09 were especially strong,) but the norm was at least two really bad teams, and the divisions combined record was below .500 almost half the time. Consider what that meant when the Colts were putting up dozen win seasons like clockwork.
You are a bad.
Says the malevolent green eyes staring from the dark. :tongue: From cherry-picking to ad hom; disappointing. :(
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-31-2013, 12:58 AM
You actually said, "just two SB appearances".
You make a good point here and there, but that wasnt one of them.
Simple Jaded
08-31-2013, 01:08 AM
I wonder if fans of every team are having arguments about whether or not their 3rd string QB is better than Peyton Manning.
I wonder if fans of every team are having arguments about whether or not their 3rd string QB is better than Peyton Manning.
Dalton > Peyton Manning.
Simple Jaded
08-31-2013, 01:22 AM
Dalton > Peyton Manning.
Clearly, but John Skelton > Peyton Manning?
dogfish
08-31-2013, 01:35 AM
mods, please move this piece of shit to the black hole where it belongs. . .
:welcome:
sneakers
08-31-2013, 02:12 AM
What the hell is going on in this thread, i read the first page (took me 45 minutes thanks to Joel) and the last page.
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 08:00 AM
Mark Sanchez is 4-2 in the playoffs.
So he's 16 percent more clutch than Tim Tebow.
Northman
08-31-2013, 08:45 AM
Mark Sanchez is 4-2 in the playoffs.
So he's 16 percent more clutch than Tim Tebow.
Ohhh snap!
Pudge
08-31-2013, 09:58 AM
Tebow cut, can we stop the discussion now?
Broncolingus
08-31-2013, 10:06 AM
Tebow cut, can we stop the discussion now?
Skip Bayless will never let that happen...
3405
You actually said, "just two SB appearances".
You make a good point here and there, but that wasnt one of them.
In twelve tries thanks to a weak division though, and only one title. Even guys like Phil Simms did more with less.
BroncoWave
08-31-2013, 10:56 AM
In twelve tries thanks to a weak division though, and only one title. Even guys like Phil Simms did more with less.
I bet you were one of those guys who trashed Elway and called him overrated before he won a title.
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 11:40 AM
In twelve tries thanks to a weak division though, and only one title. Even guys like Phil Simms did more with less.
What about Tebow? Did he benefit from a weak division when he won a division title at 8-8?
Mark Sanchez is 4-2 in the playoffs.
So he's 16 percent more clutch than Tim Tebow.
27%, but he had a better D. He is on the long list of QBs who sent PFM home from the playoffs without a win though. So is another Jet, Chad Pennington (41-0; ouch.) Again, it's a long llist.
What about Tebow? Did he benefit from a weak division when he won a division title at 8-8?
Since the last place team was 7-9, no.
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 11:45 AM
lol
Simple Jaded
08-31-2013, 11:52 AM
I bet you were one of those guys who trashed Elway and called him overrated before he won a title.
Joel hated John Elway long before Elway had the audacity to replace his choice of QB's, true story.
Joel hated John Elway long before Elway had the audacity to replace his choice of QB's, true story.
Quite true, because he BEAT my choice of QBs in The Drive II—but I never called him overrated even before then: He won playoff games. Apart from The Drive II, he won 6 to reach 3 SBs before ever winning a title. I hated lots of guys for proving they WEREN'T overrated by beating my teams in the postseason; Kelly, Montana, even Kosar and Esiason (to a lesser degree.) Elway's 14-7 in the postseason, with 4 comebacks and 5 game winning drives; PFM's 9-11 with a single game winning comeback: Is that really an equal comparison?
There's actually a much easier apples-to-apples playoff comparison for PFM, better than Tebow, Elway or anyone else: His kid brother. Everyone knows the younger Manning's won more SBs, but most people don't realize he's also won nearly as many total PLAYOFF games: 8-3 to Peyton's 9-11. That's in 6 less seasons and less than HALF as many playoffs (5 vs. 12.) Ask Tom Brady which Manning is more clutch.
BroncoWave
08-31-2013, 02:52 PM
Quite true, because he BEAT my choice of QBs in The Drive II—but I never called him overrated even before then: He won playoff games. Apart from The Drive II, he won 6 to reach 3 SBs before ever winning a title. I hated lots of guys for proving they WEREN'T overrated by beating my teams in the postseason; Kelly, Montana, even Kosar and Esiason (to a lesser degree.) Elway's 14-7 in the postseason, with 4 comebacks and 5 game winning drives; PFM's 9-11 with a single game winning comeback: Is that really an equal comparison?
There's actually a much easier apples-to-apples playoff comparison for PFM, better than Tebow, Elway or anyone else: His kid brother. Everyone knows the younger Manning's won more SBs, but most people don't realize he's also won nearly as many total PLAYOFF games: 8-3 to Peyton's 9-11. That's in 6 less seasons and less than HALF as many playoffs (5 vs. 12.) Ask Tom Brady which Manning is more clutch.
14 years into Elway's career he had 3 SB appearances, no victories. 14 years into Manning's he has 2 SB appearances, 1 victory. If you had no problem with Elway's playoff resume at that point, you should have no problem with Manning's. Unless one SB appearance is somehow what separates a winner and a loser in your mind.
14 years into Elway's career he had 3 SB appearances, no victories. 14 years into Manning's he has 2 SB appearances, 1 victory. If you had no problem with Elway's playoff resume at that point, you should have no problem with Manning's. Unless one SB appearance is somehow what separates a winner and a loser in your mind.
14 years in Elway had been one-and-done twice; 14 years in Manning had been one-and-done seven times. Elway followed that with another SB, and won; Manning followed it with another one-and-done. 7-7 only compares to 9-10 if we ignore the fact Mannings crappy division let him reach the playoffs twice as many times as Elways (a division where the Raiders won their second SB in three years Elways rookies season.)
Manning's always had weak season competition and sorely missed it in the playoffs, where he's usually winless. Even last year he only beat TWO winning teams—and one of them won the Mile High playoff rematch.
BroncoWave
08-31-2013, 03:39 PM
14 years in Elway had been one-and-done twice; 14 years in Manning had been one-and-done seven times. Elway followed that with another SB, and won; Manning followed it with another one-and-done. 7-7 only compares to 9-10 if we ignore the fact Mannings crappy division let him reach the playoffs twice as many times as Elways (a division where the Raiders won their second SB in three years Elways rookies season.)
Manning's always had weak season competition and sorely missed it in the playoffs, where he's usually winless. Even last year he only beat TWO winning teams—and one of them won the Mile High playoff rematch.
Manning was in a division with a Titans team that came a yard from winning a SB, and has had several other solid teams. But you remember what you want to, huh?
Slick
08-31-2013, 03:48 PM
I prefer you side of the argument when you leave Tebow out of it, Joel. Great last couple of posts.
Manning was in a division with a Titans team that came a yard from winning a SB, and has had several other solid teams. But you remember what you want to, huh?
That was one of the eight teams who sent PFM home from the playoffs winless, but they weren't in his division till 4 years later. Two years after that Bud Adams did one of his periodic "scatter good teams to the four winds" deals and the Titans went 5-11, then 4-12, and have only had 3 winning seasons in the last 8. 2008 was the only really good year in that run, and one of the few times Indy didn't win the AFCS.
I prefer you side of the argument when you leave Tebow out of it, Joel. Great last couple of posts.
Thanks; Tebow really is secondary to the discussion, whether or not folks wish to believe that. I and many other people have been making all these arguments about PFM for nearly a decade, and if his '06 SB dulled without silencing the criticism the '09 SB loss reignited it. Yeah, as an Oilers fan I hated Elway when he beat them, just as a later Broncos fan I hated PFM when HE beat THEM, and lots of us made all these same criticisms of him. Signing him didn't just magically invalidate them. Either we were talking out our rears when we sneered at the Colts starting QB, or we're doing it now when pretending that never happened.
And then some of us are smart enough to not pin all success and failures on a QB. But hey, what was that pretentious line you wrote about reality? :lol:
And then some of us are smart enough to not pin all success and failures on a QB. But hey, what was that pretentious line you wrote about reality? :lol:
Some of us are, and a good thing, especially in the front office. For the rest... if PFM never wins another title much of the Broncos fanbase is gonna go China Syndrome.:fear:
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 05:04 PM
Joel, I'm going to give you one last chance to recant your idea that the AFC South was a weak division from 2002-2010.
Some of us are, and a good thing, especially in the front office. For the rest... if PFM never wins another title much of the Broncos fanbase is gonna go China Syndrome.:fear:
Why so bad?
Joel, I'm going to give you one last chance to recant your idea that the AFC South was a weak division from 2002-2010.
Noted and declined.
TXBRONC
08-31-2013, 05:19 PM
Joel you need pay better attention to the conversation because Tebow is relative to the conversation. Btw he was cut by the Patriots today. :coffee:
TXBRONC
08-31-2013, 05:23 PM
Why so bad?
Joel is trying transfer his paranoia on to everyone else. He'll have meltdown with Chronic and some other whinny Tebowites the rest of will move on with our lives and just laugh at guys like him.
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 05:31 PM
In twelve tries thanks to a weak division though, and only one title. Even guys like Phil Simms did more with less.
His divisional opponents have a combined .507 winning percentage. That's right, from 1998-2010, his opponents on average finished the season above .500 (8-8).
From 1998-2001, he played in the East.
His first division title in 1999, when there were 8 divisional games, and not 6:
Colts 13-3
Bills 11-5
Patriots 9-7
Jets 8-8
Dolphins 8-8
So 8-8 was last place.
From 1998-2001, he made the playoffs twice in a division where the other opponents were 145-111.
Since then, his divisional opponents have a .471 winning percentage.
For example, since 2002, removing the best team from the division and then computing winning percentages (in parentheses is the team removed):
South (Colts) .470 (203-229)
North (Steelers) .454 (196-235-1)
East (Patriots) .451 (195-237)
West (Chargers) .447 (193-239)
The divisions as a whole
South .542 (312-264)
East .530 (305-271)
North .502 (289-285)
West .488 (281-295)
Where they rink for the entire league:
Bottom 3 combined
NFC South (Saints) .509 (220-211-1)
NFC East (Eagles) .502 (217-215)
AFC South (Colts) .470 (203-229)
AFC North (Steelers) .454 (196-235-1)
AFC East (Patriots) .451 (195-237)
AFC West (Chargers) .447 (193-239)
NFC North (Packers) .428 (185-247)
NFC West (Seahawks) .387 (167-265)
Total
AFC South .542 (312-264)
NFC East .535 (308-267-1)
AFC East .530 (305-271)
NFC South .516 (297-278-1)
AFC North .502 (289-285)
AFC West .488 (281-295)
NFC North .467 (269-307)
NFC West .418 (241-335)
So, it looks like he played in the best division in the AFC, and arguably the second or third best division in the NFL. The numbers absolutely do not support the idea that the only reason he won was a weak division.
I also didn't get into the idea that after 2002, he only played six of 16 games against divisional opponents. Don't confuse dominating a division in those six games with that division being weak. It's not the same thing.
Mr Bojangles
08-31-2013, 06:00 PM
Noted and declined.
Don't let him try to bully you. The AFC South was a virtual doormat and cakewalk for the Colts
Jsteve01
08-31-2013, 06:01 PM
great post Mo.
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 06:04 PM
Don't let him try to bully you. The AFC South was a virtual doormat and cakewalk for the Colts
If I'm a Patriots fan, I keep my mouf shut on this topic.
Jsteve01
08-31-2013, 06:04 PM
Quite true, because he BEAT my choice of QBs in The Drive II—but I never called him overrated even before then: He won playoff games. Apart from The Drive II, he won 6 to reach 3 SBs before ever winning a title. I hated lots of guys for proving they WEREN'T overrated by beating my teams in the postseason; Kelly, Montana, even Kosar and Esiason (to a lesser degree.) Elway's 14-7 in the postseason, with 4 comebacks and 5 game winning drives; PFM's 9-11 with a single game winning comeback: Is that really an equal comparison?
There's actually a much easier apples-to-apples playoff comparison for PFM, better than Tebow, Elway or anyone else: His kid brother. Everyone knows the younger Manning's won more SBs, but most people don't realize he's also won nearly as many total PLAYOFF games: 8-3 to Peyton's 9-11. That's in 6 less seasons and less than HALF as many playoffs (5 vs. 12.) Ask Tom Brady which Manning is more clutch.
Right or you could ask him which team trotted out the better defense. Or perhaps which team could rush 4 all game and generate pressure because they had Strahan, Osi, Kiwi, Tuck and now Paul.
Yes, the AFCE was good when the Colts were there, but that was only 4 years of Peytons 15 (he made the playoffs twice in the AFCE and, if it still needs to be said at this point, didn't win a game either time.)
However, the issue was
Joel, I'm going to give you one last chance to recant your idea that the AFC South was a weak division from 2002-2010. That's not gonna happen. We can't just drop the strongest team though, precisely because they play 6/16 games against each other; 8-8 in the AFCN isn't the same as 8-8 in the AFCS. Comparing the divisions normalized against the Colts requires removing ALL and ONLY Colts games. We can do that, but it's pretty late here so it'll have to wait till tomorrow on my end. In the interim, the regularity with which the Ravens, Steelers, Pats and Jets have made recent Conference Championships suggests we're basically debating whether the AFCS or AFCW is the conferences worst division.
If I'm a Patriots fan, I keep my mouf shut on this topic.
Why? Eli's the only Manning who ever gave them much trouble. The Jags were so good their coach is our DC now, David Carr broke his own sack records after the Texans 2002 creation and Bud Adams will keep doing to the Titans what Al Davis did to the Raiders until he joins him in the afterlife. I don't know why a Great Lakes team is in the AFCS, but they should thank God and Goodell they are.
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 08:09 PM
:moonwalk:
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 08:21 PM
Why? Eli's the only Manning who ever gave them much trouble. The Jags were so good their coach is our DC now, David Carr broke his own sack records after the Texans 2002 creation and Bud Adams will keep doing to the Titans what Al Davis did to the Raiders until he joins him in the afterlife. I don't know why a Great Lakes team is in the AFCS, but they should thank God and Goodell they are.
Other than the fact that you just completely moved the argument (in this case, the argument was about weak divisions, and as I proved you were wrong that the AFC South was weak, and as I proved it was the Patriots who have benefited from a weak division)...you research your opinions, right?
Manning is 8-12 against the Patriots, including the Playoffs. And it's the Patriots. It's not like we're discussing him losing to his "weak" division (proven wrong). They've averaged 12 wins a season since 2001. They aren't slouches.
Of course, all this opining about how the Patriots owned Manning in the playoffs... they've only met three times in the playoffs and one of those was the AFC Championship before Manning WON the Super Bowl, so he's 1-2 in the playoffs against them. Wait? Do you realize Peyton Manning won a Super Bowl?
In fact, they haven't met in the playoffs in SEVEN seasons, and Manning won that game.
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 08:33 PM
Yes, the AFCE was good when the Colts were there, but that was only 4 years of Peytons 15 (he made the playoffs twice in the AFCE and, if it still needs to be said at this point, didn't win a game either time.)
However, the issue was That's not gonna happen. We can't just drop the strongest team though, precisely because they play 6/16 games against each other; 8-8 in the AFCN isn't the same as 8-8 in the AFCS. Comparing the divisions normalized against the Colts requires removing ALL and ONLY Colts games. We can do that, but it's pretty late here so it'll have to wait till tomorrow on my end. In the interim, the regularity with which the Ravens, Steelers, Pats and Jets have made recent Conference Championships suggests we're basically debating whether the AFCS or AFCW is the conferences worst division.
Let us drop the Colts games, then.
203-229
The division was 12-42 against them.
So, now we have 191-187
So, not against the Colts, his division had a .505 winning percentage.
Let us drop the Colts games, then.
203-229
The division was 12-42 against them.
So, now we have 191-187
So, not against the Colts, his division had a .505 winning percentage.
We have to drop Colts games for the whole league; again, I'll deal with it tomorrow. It's certainly suggestive the Colts were 42-12 against their division; that's roughly 4 wins and just 1 loss/year, putting all those 12-4 seasons in a different light, but it's not definitive without checking either 1) all games minus the Colts, 2) all Colts games minus the division or better yet 3) both.
In the mean time: The AFCE was the cream puff division?! Seriously? Setting the Pats aside, the 2002 Jets beat the Colts 41-0 in the wildcard round, two years after the Dolphins beat them 23-17 in the same round. At the other end, the 2009 and 2010 Jets went to the AFCCG, losing the first to the Colts (to Mannings credit) and beating them in the 2010 wildcard (to his detriment in his last Indy start ever.) That's better than the Titans over the decade they single-handedly made the AFCS tough for Indy.
Simple Jaded
08-31-2013, 09:10 PM
11 pages and counting about whether or not Peyton Manning is worthy of Joel's 5th or 6th favorite team?
MOtorboat
08-31-2013, 09:19 PM
We have to drop Colts games for the whole league; again, I'll deal with it tomorrow. It's certainly suggestive the Colts were 42-12 against their division; that's roughly 4 wins and just 1 loss/year, putting all those 12-4 seasons in a different light, but it's not definitive without checking either 1) all games minus the Colts, 2) all Colts games minus the division or better yet 3) both.
In the mean time: The AFCE was the cream puff division?! Seriously? Setting the Pats aside, the 2002 Jets beat the Colts 41-0 in the wildcard round, two years after the Dolphins beat them 23-17 in the same round. At the other end, the 2009 and 2010 Jets went to the AFCCG, losing the first to the Colts (to Mannings credit) and beating them in the 2010 wildcard (to his detriment in his last Indy start ever.) That's better than the Titans over the decade they single-handedly made the AFCS tough for Indy.
Again.
Your proof is three ******* games over the course of 9 seasons?
The Jets made the playoffs five times during that span, the Dolphins once and the Bills zero.
At the same time, Tennessee made the playoffs four times and the Jaguars made the playoffs twice.
So the other three teams in the division both made the playoffs six times. Clearly, and obviously, the other teams in the south had better records overall. I already proved that.
If Peyton REALLY wants to try and follow Tim...he will have to be waived/traded by 3 different teams in 3 seasons.
TXBRONC
08-31-2013, 11:25 PM
If Peyton REALLY wants to try and follow Tim...he will have to be waived/traded by 3 different teams in 3 seasons.
That's good start but be would also have learn airmail and short hop half of his passes.
Simple Jaded
09-01-2013, 12:56 AM
That's good start but be would also have learn airmail and short hop half of his passes.
And modeling underwear.
TXBRONC
09-01-2013, 06:36 AM
And modeling underwear.
Oh and pictures of him with his shirt off in a rain storm.
Simple Jaded
09-01-2013, 11:39 AM
Oh and pictures of him with his shirt off in rain storm.
Eew! And a book of memoirs.
You can't debate with liars.
Mr Bojangles
09-01-2013, 02:19 PM
Again.
Your proof is three ******* games over the course of 9 seasons?
The Jets made the playoffs five times during that span, the Dolphins once and the Bills zero.
At the same time, Tennessee made the playoffs four times and the Jaguars made the playoffs twice.
So the other three teams in the division both made the playoffs six times. Clearly, and obviously, the other teams in the south had better records overall. I already proved that.
6-5..?
Wow, that's freakin' dominance and a half! :rolleyes:
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 02:41 PM
6-5..?
Wow, that's freakin' dominance and a half! :rolleyes:
What?
Jsteve01
09-01-2013, 02:54 PM
Again.
Your proof is three ******* games over the course of 9 seasons?
The Jets made the playoffs five times during that span, the Dolphins once and the Bills zero.
At the same time, Tennessee made the playoffs four times and the Jaguars made the playoffs twice.
So the other three teams in the division both made the playoffs six times. Clearly, and obviously, the other teams in the south had better records overall. I already proved that.
6-5..?
Wow, that's freakin' dominance and a half! :rolleyes: see the problem with your post is it makes no sense
Okay, took a little time, but here we go: Each divisions record against the rest of the NFL 2002-2010, minus Colts games (the Colts don't play themselves, so no one else is penalized/rewarded for playing them: )
AFCE 190-152 (0.556)
AFCN 180-160 (0.529)
AFCS 137-133 (0.507)
AFCW 167-175 (0.488)
NFCE 195-152 (0.561)
NFCN 159-193 (0.451)
NFCS 188-163 (0.536)
NFCW 132-220 (0.375)
Without the Colts the AFCS is 3rd out of 4 in the AFC and 5th out of 8 in the NFL, below average for both. In the AFC, only our division is worse; in the NFL as a whole only ours, the pitiful NFCW and overrated NFCN.
Note that doesn't count 2011, because how the Colts or their division did with Manning on the bench is irrelevant for evaluating the talent he's faced.
You can't debate with liars.
Intellectual dishonesty doesn't require lying, but I'm guilty of neither, and thus resent both accusations. Is this another poorly worded post? :tsk:
CrazyHorse
09-01-2013, 08:13 PM
You follow up Tebow by winning a Super Bowl. You follow up Elway by winning more than one.
BroncoWave
09-01-2013, 08:16 PM
Okay, took a little time, but here we go: Each divisions record against the rest of the NFL 2002-2010, minus Colts games (the Colts don't play themselves, so no one else is penalized/rewarded for playing them: )
AFCE 190-152 (0.556)
AFCN 180-160 (0.529)
AFCS 137-133 (0.507)
AFCW 167-175 (0.488)
NFCE 195-152 (0.561)
NFCN 159-193 (0.451)
NFCS 188-163 (0.536)
NFCW 132-220 (0.375)
Without the Colts the AFCS is 3rd out of 4 in the AFC and 5th out of 8 in the NFL, below average for both. In the AFC, only our division is worse; in the NFL as a whole only ours, the pitiful NFCW and overrated NFCN.
Note that doesn't count 2011, because how the Colts or their division did with Manning on the bench is irrelevant for evaluating the talent he's faced.
LOL this is a horrible analysis. Basically you are counting the records of all 4 teams in the other divisions, which factors in how the best team in that division did. But for the AFC South, you are taking out the record of it's best team and only looking at the other 3. So really, you aren't comparing the competition the Colts face to the competition other teams face at all. You are comparing the records of Ten/Jax/Hou to those of NE/Mia/NY/Buf. Including NE in the AFCE analysis but not including Indy in the AFC South analysis makes your stats irrelevant.
Mo's analysis is much more sound, because it takes out the best team in each division and compares the strength of the teams they have to face week in and week out. Sorry dude, but you have lost this argument.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 08:25 PM
Okay, took a little time, but here we go: Each divisions record against the rest of the NFL 2002-2010, minus Colts games (the Colts don't play themselves, so no one else is penalized/rewarded for playing them: )
AFCE 190-152 (0.556)
AFCN 180-160 (0.529)
AFCS 137-133 (0.507)
AFCW 167-175 (0.488)
NFCE 195-152 (0.561)
NFCN 159-193 (0.451)
NFCS 188-163 (0.536)
NFCW 132-220 (0.375)
Without the Colts the AFCS is 3rd out of 4 in the AFC and 5th out of 8 in the NFL, below average for both. In the AFC, only our division is worse; in the NFL as a whole only ours, the pitiful NFCW and overrated NFCN.
Note that doesn't count 2011, because how the Colts or their division did with Manning on the bench is irrelevant for evaluating the talent he's faced.
I'll let homegirl finish you off.
LOL this is a horrible analysis. Basically you are counting the records of all 4 teams in the other divisions, which factors in how the best team in that division did. But for the AFC South, you are taking out the record of it's best team and only looking at the other 3. So really, you aren't comparing the competition the Colts face to the competition other teams face at all. You are comparing the records of Ten/Jax/Hou to those of NE/Mia/NY/Buf. Including NE in the AFCE analysis but not including Indy in the AFC South analysis makes your stats irrelevant.
Mo's analysis is much more sound, because it takes out the best team in each division and compares the strength of the teams they have to face week in and week out. Sorry dude, but you have lost this argument.
:eightmile:
TXBRONC
09-01-2013, 08:32 PM
Intellectual dishonesty doesn't require lying, but I'm guilty of neither, and thus resent both accusations. Is this another poorly worded post? :tsk:
No Joel you are intellectually dishonest. When pull out the Colts record from their division yet leave the divisions winners in for all other divisions that's dishonest.
Joel, you got called out on it. I showed several times how you were full of bullshit and you ignored it. You're at the very least intellectually dishonest. To me, you're a liar. Resent it all you want, your card got pulled.
LOL this is a horrible analysis. Basically you are counting the records of all 4 teams in the other divisions, which factors in how the best team in that division did. But for the AFC South, you are taking out the record of it's best team and only looking at the other 3. So really, you aren't comparing the competition the Colts face to the competition other teams face at all. You are comparing the records of Ten/Jax/Hou to those of NE/Mia/NY/Buf. Including NE in the AFCE analysis but not including Indy in the AFC South analysis makes your stats irrelevant.
Mo's analysis is much more sound, because it takes out the best team in each division and compares the strength of the teams they have to face week in and week out. Sorry dude, but you have lost this argument.
The AFCS is better with Indy, but since none of Indys divisional games is against Indy that's irrelevant to how much competition they have for the division crown. The only way to gauge that is drop all Colts games, against the AFCS and everyone else. How much sense does it make to say, "all these these non-divisional Colts wins prove the AFCS was a tough division for Indy to play"?
No Joel you are intellectually dishonest. When pull out the Colts record from their division yet leave the divisions winners in for all other divisions that's dishonest.
Because the Colts don't play themselves. Comparing how the rest of the AFCS does against Indy to how the rest of the NFL does against Indy is meaningless until/unless we can compare how Indy does against Indy. It's not just "drop the highest," it's "drop the team whose competition we're evaluating, because they aren't part of their own competition."
Joel, you got called out on it. I showed several times how you were full of bullshit and you ignored it. You're at the very least intellectually dishonest. To me, you're a liar. Resent it all you want, your card got pulled.
You said looking at a decade worth of Mannings games was cherry-picking because we should look at just one season. That's an inverted definition of "cherry-picking," not proof of anyones dishonesty.
BroncoWave
09-01-2013, 08:45 PM
The AFCS is better with Indy, but since none of Indys divisional games is against Indy that's irrelevant to how much competition they have for the division crown. The only way to gauge that is drop all Colts games, against the AFCS and everyone else. How much sense does it make to say, "all these these non-divisional Colts wins prove the AFCS was a tough division for Indy to play"?
LOL you either don't see the enormous flaw in your logic or you are just being dishonest and don't care. If you think those garbage stats you posted are a valid analysis of the Colts' competition compared to other top teams, there's really nothing else that can be said to you here.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 08:48 PM
The AFCS is better with Indy, but since none of Indys divisional games is against Indy that's irrelevant to how much competition they have for the division crown. The only way to gauge that is drop all Colts games, against the AFCS and everyone else. How much sense does it make to say, "all these these non-divisional Colts wins prove the AFCS was a tough division for Indy to play"?
Right.
Which is why I removed the best team from each division. It makes the comparison at least somewhat comparable. You can't just put the winning percentage of the three AFC South teams sans the Colts up against the four other teams of every other division, minus the games they played against the Colts. That's not any sort of gauge as to whether or not the AFC South is a tough division. Hopefully you didn't waste too much time on it, because it's actually kind of absurd.
At this point, please stop. Your Tebow takes are unbelievably stupid, and your Manning takes just keep getting worse.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 08:49 PM
Because the Colts don't play themselves. Comparing how the rest of the AFCS does against Indy to how the rest of the NFL does against Indy is meaningless until/unless we can compare how Indy does against Indy. It's not just "drop the highest," it's "drop the team whose competition we're evaluating, because they aren't part of their own competition."
You said looking at a decade worth of Mannings games was cherry-picking because we should look at just one season. That's an inverted definition of "cherry-picking," not proof of anyones dishonesty.
You took an entire season of Tebow games and only wanted to talk about one, then you took an entire nine seasons of Manning games and only wanted to talk about three...
Yet...
Really? FFS
You take an entire set of data, use only what helps you, act like what hurts your argument does not exist, and then someone shows it to you and you either ignore it or act like it does not matter. That is intellectual dishonesty. You just got called out for doing something similar, again.
You are so full of shit that it isn't funny.
TXBRONC
09-01-2013, 09:07 PM
Because the Colts don't play themselves. Comparing how the rest of the AFCS does against Indy to how the rest of the NFL does against Indy is meaningless until/unless we can compare how Indy does against Indy. It's not just "drop the highest," it's "drop the team whose competition we're evaluating, because they aren't part of their own competition."
You said looking at a decade worth of Mannings games was cherry-picking because we should look at just one season. That's an inverted definition of "cherry-picking," not proof of anyones dishonesty.
The New England Patriots do not play themselves either. You are full of shit.
You took an entire season of Tebow games and only wanted to talk about one, then you took an entire nine seasons of Manning games and only wanted to talk about three...
Yet...
Really? FFS
Joel is a smart guy. However, he forms opinions and then finds facts to support them. He does it opposite the way that you're supposed to. And then he is intellectually dishonesty.
BroncoWave
09-01-2013, 09:12 PM
Joel is a smart guy. However, he forms opinions and then finds facts to support them. He does it opposite the way that you're supposed to. And then he is intellectually dishonesty.
His last few posts are a great example of how you can completely manipulate stats to have them say what you want to. Unfortunately for him, most of us are smart enough to see through BS that is that obvious.
His last few posts are a great example of how you can completely manipulate stats to have them say what you want to. Unfortunately for him, most of us are smart enough to see through BS that is that obvious.
Sophistry is thy middle name, Joel.
Right.
Which is why I removed the best team from each division. It makes the comparison at least somewhat comparable. You can't just put the winning percentage of the three AFC South teams sans the Colts up against the four other teams of every other division, minus the games they played against the Colts. That's not any sort of gauge as to whether or not the AFC South is a tough division. Hopefully you didn't waste too much time on it, because it's actually kind of absurd.
At this point, please stop. Your Tebow takes are unbelievably stupid, and your Manning takes just keep getting worse.
The best teams in the division are part of that divisions competition, a huge part; we'd count the Colts too if they played themselves, but they don't so we don't. Even deciding the "best" team over ten years is arbitrary; do we take the Ravens or Colts in the AFCN? Who do we designate in the NFCW and NFCE, where a different team wins the title nearly every year? Funny how we don't have such problems in the AFCS, where the same team won the division all but two of the nine years we're examining. If we want to know how the league looks without the Colts, we take out the Colts, not the whole top 25% of the league.
You took an entire season of Tebow games and only wanted to talk about one, then you took an entire nine seasons of Manning games and only wanted to talk about three...
Yet...
Really? FFS
I wanted to talk playoffs, which in Tebows case means two games (not one, and the second was pretty horrible.) The only reason nine years of regular season games is relevant is in showing how Indy got to the playoffs so PFM could lay an egg eight times (five if we ignore last season and the Colts two playoff games as an AFCE team.)
You take an entire set of data, use only what helps you, act like what hurts your argument does not exist, and then someone shows it to you and you either ignore it or act like it does not matter. That is intellectual dishonesty. You just got called out for doing something similar, again.
You are so full of shit that it isn't funny.
I ignored nothing; I noted Indys crap D several times before folks decided to throw it in my face like a stunning revelation, and never disputed Manning had quality competition when Indy was in the AFCE. How repeately volunteering data equals knowingly denying it is beyond me, but if you want to call me a liar for not saying something I said repeatedly, it's a free country.
Honestly, this gets REALLY old. Four or five years ago I drowned in high fives for all the same criticisms of PFM; no one seemed to mind in '05, or '06, or '07. But now he's OUR QB and anyone who doesn't build an altar and burn incense to him is a bad fan, bad person, liar and, worst of all, Teboi.
That last part is mind blowing because I despised everything about Tebow since before we drafted him, and hit the ceiling when we did because I was all in for Cutler. Tebow represents everything I loathe about the NCAA and SEC (which is a LOT, believe me.) On top of that, he likes to use my favorite sport to shove my religion down peoples throats for the sake of politics I loathe every bit as much. Pretty much the only thing Tebow's ever done that I liked was win 7 out of 11 games plus a playoff game the season he started for my team.
Whatever. Ya'll believe whatever's most pleasing about me, Tebow, Manning or the Manning in the Moon. Bottom line is we'll either win a title with Manning or not, and I'll only be happy with the former. If lots of stats and no titles are enough to make up for the latter, call Kyle Orton, but don't blame other posters if the Anointed One doesn't deliver.
The New England Patriots do not play themselves either. You are full of shit.
We aren't evaluating the Patriots' competition.
BroncoWave
09-01-2013, 09:24 PM
We aren't evaluating the Patriots' competition.
Do the same exercise with the Patriots that you did with the Colts. Take out any game involving the Pats and just look at every other game. Then see if the AFC East still shows up as the toughest division in the AFC with the South finishing third. This will expose the flaw in your logic of taking one team out of a division and comparing it to all 4 teams in the other divisions.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 09:24 PM
We aren't evaluating the Patriots' competition.
Yes we are.
We're evaluating EVERYONE's competition. If you want to claim that one division is less than another, then you have to compare all the divisions.
The best teams in the division are part of that divisions competition, a huge part
Yup.
And fail.
How do you deny what is plain to see to everyone else? Yup, Manning in the playoffs only matters if we're talking about the woes, guys. That whole SB victory doesn't matter, even though we're talking about his postseason career as a player, only the bad. Hey, if something is inconvenient, just say you don't care about it.
Or, if you need to make a comparison, but the sample size is too small to matter, just say "we have to use it, even though it clearly does not matter." Then make even more absurd arguments. THEN, my friends, just make factually incorrect arguments about a division.
Even though your posts have always been lacking, I used to at least respect the fact that you made them in good faith. Now you're a sophist. Gratz.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 09:26 PM
I ignored nothing; I noted Indys crap D several times before folks decided to throw it in my face like a stunning revelation, and never disputed Manning had quality competition when Indy was in the AFCE. How repeately volunteering data equals knowingly denying it is beyond me, but if you want to call me a liar for not saying something I said repeatedly, it's a free country.
Honestly, this gets REALLY old. Four or five years ago I drowned in high fives for all the same criticisms of PFM; no one seemed to mind in '05, or '06, or '07. But now he's OUR QB and anyone who doesn't build an altar and burn incense to him is a bad fan, bad person, liar and, worst of all, Teboi.
That last part is mind blowing because I despised everything about Tebow since before we drafted him, and hit the ceiling when we did because I was all in for Cutler. Tebow represents everything I loathe about the NCAA and SEC (which is a LOT, believe me.) On top of that, he likes to use my favorite sport to shove my religion down peoples throats for the sake of politics I loathe every bit as much. Pretty much the only thing Tebow's ever done that I liked was win 7 out of 11 games plus a playoff game the season he started for my team.
Whatever. Ya'll believe whatever's most pleasing about me, Tebow, Manning or the Manning in the Moon. Bottom line is we'll either win a title with Manning or not, and I'll only be happy with the former. If lots of stats and no titles are enough to make up for the latter, call Kyle Orton, but don't blame other posters if the Anointed One doesn't deliver.
You were wrong then too. Regardless of how many hi-fives you got.
Joel is a smart guy. However, he forms opinions and then finds facts to support them. He does it opposite the way that you're supposed to. And then he is intellectually dishonesty.
Noting one fact, or a few, while noting they don't outbalance all others, is not fitting data to a curve. Claiming one or two conceded facts single-handedly demolish an entire argument is cherry-picking; your allegation against me is backward, completely. It's a team trailed by 30 points, scored a TD and after the refs recorded it a fan stood up shouting, "Those liars only say we're losing because they ignored our TD111"
I won't say you're dishonest, because that requires knowing intent, but I DO say your allegation is factually false. Because it is.
Noting one fact, or a few, while noting they don't outbalance all others, is not fitting data to a curve. Claiming one or two conceded facts single-handedly demolish an entire argument is cherry-picking; your allegation against me is backward, completely. It's a team trailed by 30 points, scored a TD and after the refs recorded it a fan stood up shouting, "Those liars only say we're losing because they ignored our TD111"
I won't say you're dishonest, because that requires knowing intent, but I DO say your allegation is factually false. Because it is.
But you didn't make those arguments, dumbass. You just act like they don't matter. So when you argue about someone being bad in the playoffs, you don't just get to ignore WINNING A SUPER BOWL. Then to mitigate that, you make these arguments like "but, but, but, but, but, but, the bears weren't even that gud!" The entire board saw your awful arguments against signing Manning in the first place, which made your team a Sb contender, and those were awful. Then we saw you make the worst arguments for Tebow ever. Then I saw you argue that Von Miller should be a ******* MLB, and we all remember the Champ Bailey stuff.
In a nutshell, you're at the very least completely retarded when it comes to football. You know nothing about it, you've been proven to be full of shit in this thread. I actually feel bad that I used to defend you.
TXBRONC
09-01-2013, 09:36 PM
We aren't evaluating the Patriots' competition.
Well yes we are. You're trying manipulate outcome by taking one team out of the metric. You either take out all the division winners or you leave them all in otherwise you're full shit and intellectually dishonest.
How do you deny what is plain to see to everyone else? Yup, Manning in the playoffs only matters if we're talking about the woes, guys. That whole SB victory doesn't matter, even though we're talking about his postseason career as a player, only the bad. Hey, if something is inconvenient, just say you don't care about it.
When did I say the SB win (or loss) didn't matter? I said EIGHT one-and-dones>1 SB win, or 2 SB appearances. Because 8>2. Focusing on A SB win in TEN playoff seasons, ignoring all the rest: What's that called?
Or, if you need to make a comparison, but the sample size is too small to matter, just say "we have to use it, even though it clearly does not matter." Then make even more absurd arguments. THEN, my friends, just make factually incorrect arguments about a division.
When talking playoffs we talk playoffs. There are only so many in one season, which is all that Tebow's started (not even all of that one.) We can't hang our hat on a sample that small, but it's all we've got, so we either use it or skip the comparison. As noted when that objection was raised, PFMs much larger 20 playoff game sample is the really alarming one unless we only count the one that earned a SB Ring. When someone has a losing record in TWENTY playoff games, focusing on one SB win, or even 2 SB appearances—to the exclusion of TEN other seasons and EIGHT one-and-dones—is CHERRY-PICKING.
Even though your posts have always been lacking, I used to at least respect the fact that you made them in good faith. Now you're a sophist. Gratz.
So you excused my poor writing and logic for the sake of my perceived honesty, but now call me a liar for not saying things I was the first (and second and third) to say in this thread. Way to take the high road. ;)
BroncoWave
09-01-2013, 09:45 PM
I'll say it again Joel. Do the same exercise with the Pats you did with the Colts. Take out every Pats game and count the rest. Then see if the AFCE still shows as the AFC's toughest division and if the AFCS still finishes third. Doing this exercise will show the flaw in your logic.
But you didn't make those arguments, dumbass. You just act like they don't matter. So when you argue about someone being bad in the playoffs, you don't just get to ignore WINNING A SUPER BOWL. Then to mitigate that, you make these arguments like "but, but, but, but, but, but, the bears weren't even that gud!" The entire board saw your awful arguments against signing Manning in the first place, which made your team a Sb contender, and those were awful. Then we saw you make the worst arguments for Tebow ever. Then I saw you argue that Von Miller should be a ******* MLB, and we all remember the Champ Bailey stuff.
In a nutshell, you're at the very least completely retarded when it comes to football. You know nothing about it, you've been proven to be full of shit in this thread. I actually feel bad that I used to defend you.
My first post in the thread, page 1:
Granted, Manning's never had a defense worthy of the name, but has the benefit of not one but TWO excellent defensive coaches in Denver. Naetheless, the proof is in the pudding, and he's running out of time to "prove" '06 no fluke.
If you check page 1, you'll find that was this threads first mention of both Indys crappy D and SB win (though neither is exactly secret.) Now, you can keep falsely calling me a liar for ignoring and denying both, but the accusation's factually untrue and the factual evidence is before your eyes, which precludes the excuse of ignorance: Where does that leave the accusation?
NightTrainLayne
09-01-2013, 09:52 PM
There's more to championships than clutch play, especially since playoff opponents are often at least as clutch. Believe as you like; again, beliefs needn't reflect reality, it's just better that way.
I believe in Peyton Manning. Sure, it's an more an irrational superstition when compared to the rock solid science behind Tebow's excellence, but that's where my faith lies.
I'll "believe" as I like.
Wait, we either use the sample size that's inconclusive and worthless, or we don't use the thing that's inconclus.......
Yeah, yeah, I think uhh...yup. Sounds about right.....
As far as you ignoring the SB, you literally said "As far as his SB, until he does it as a Bronco, it doesn't matter." Gee, Joel, that was right after you were talking about the issues he had in the SB. So, I, for what at least feels like the 35th time, declare that saying that that winning a SB is something doesn't matter, and acting like the only part of his legacy that matters is the one and done's, is cherry picking. And it is.
As far as the issues, sorry kid, I'm in the clear. Because I argued that a lot of those losses were not just on him, as is his SB victory. Which, is actually true. Then you started to spit drivel about...well actually your posts are just drivel.
This is it in a nutshell - He is one of the best passing QB's ever. He has shown that he can win a SB. He is a top five QB right now. He lost a lot of playoff games on teams with no defense. He has also played poorly in the playoffs. He's on your team. As soon as he got on your team he made them a SB contender. Signing him was not a waste of time.
So stop being such a ******* dumbass.
My first post in the thread, page 1:
If you check page 1, you'll find that was this threads first mention of both Indys crappy D and SB win (though neither is exactly secret.) Now, you can keep falsely calling me a liar for ignoring and denying both, but the accusation's factually untrue and the factual evidence is before your eyes, which precludes the excuse of ignorance: Where does that leave the accusation?
So then you ignored it latter on in the thread. Sweet argument, Joel.
Everything I said stands.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 09:57 PM
When talking playoffs we talk playoffs. There are only so many in one season, which is all that Tebow's started (not even all of that one.) We can't hang our hat on a sample that small, but it's all we've got, so we either use it or skip the comparison. As noted when that objection was raised, PFMs much larger 20 playoff game sample is the really alarming one unless we only count the one that earned a SB Ring. When someone has a losing record in TWENTY playoff games, focusing on one SB win, or even 2 SB appearances—to the exclusion of TEN other seasons and EIGHT one-and-dones—is CHERRY-PICKING.
These are some of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.
Steve Young 8 6 .571
Jim Kelly 9 8 .529
Peyton Manning 9 11 .450
Dan Marino 8 10 .444
Dan Fouts 3 4 .429
Warren Moon 3 7 .300
Stupid argument is ******* beyond stupid.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 10:00 PM
This is it in a nutshell - He is one of the best passing QB's ever.
No. No. No. No. No.
A quarterback's job is to throw the football, so we won't be putting any asinine qualifiers in there to say he's the best "passing" quarterback. He is one of the top 3 quarterbacks of all time.
I won't let you cater to the idiotic Tebow shit and pull in the "passing" aspect. That's a quarterbacks job. A quarterback's job is not running the football.
I'll say it again Joel. Do the same exercise with the Pats you did with the Colts. Take out every Pats game and count the rest. Then see if the AFCE still shows as the AFC's toughest division and if the AFCS still finishes third. Doing this exercise will show the flaw in your logic.
Except we're not comparing every division minus its best team (and, again, is that the Steelers or Ravens in the AFCN? The Cowboys or Giants in the NFCE? The, well, whoever in the NFCW?) We're not comparing the competition of each division winner, or most frequent division winner. We're comparing Indys competition to everyone elses, which includes (wait for it) EVERYONE ELSE. Not just the runners up: Everyone but Indy, excluded solely because they don't play themselves. We can't normalize Indys competition by taking out Indy and SEVEN other teams. That's not how it works.
No. No. No. No. No.
A quarterback's job is to throw the football, so we won't be putting any asinine qualifiers in there to say he's the best "passing" quarterback. He is one of the top 3 quarterbacks of all time.
[I]I won't let you cater to the idiotic Tebow shit and pull in the "passing" aspect. That's a quarterbacks job. A quarterback's job is not running the football.
The word passing was superfluous. I have failed you.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 10:05 PM
Except we're not comparing every division minus its best team (and, again, is that the Steelers or Ravens in the AFCN? The Cowboys or Giants in the NFCE? The, well, whoever in the NFCW?) We're not comparing the competition of each division winner, or most frequent division winner. We're comparing Indys competition to everyone elses, which includes (wait for it) EVERYONE ELSE. Not just the runners up: Everyone but Indy, excluded solely because they don't play themselves. We can't normalize Indys competition by taking out Indy and SEVEN other teams. That's not how it works.
Yeah. We are. You said they WON THE DIVISION BECAUSE OF WEAK COMPETITION, so then we must assume that the other division winners did not have weak competition to make this statement true.
So then you ignored it latter on in the thread. Sweet argument, Joel.
Everything I said stands.
I'm not digging up each of the MANY times I explicitly cited Indys poor D and Mannings Ring in a 13 page thread; do your own homework if you want to count them all. You said I didn't say two things I DID say, point blank and before anyone else. Your accusation is thus self-evidently false. Persistent false claims when confronted with irrefutable proof of their falsehood are lies. You've got it backward again:
Analyzing twelve playoff tournaments instead of just the one successful one isn't "cherry-picking;" fixating on the one to the exclusion of the other eleven (or ten if we count the SB loss as success) is.
Saying Indys bad D and PFMs SB win don't change the eight one-and-dones isn't dishonestly denying the bad D and SB win, but accusations I denied even in the face of QUOTES to the contrary IS dishonest.
NOTHING you said stands. You called me a liar and I proved the charge false: End of story.
No. No. No. No. No.
A quarterback's job is to throw the football, so we won't be putting any asinine qualifiers in there to say he's the best "passing" quarterback. He is one of the top 3 quarterbacks of all time.
I won't let you cater to the idiotic Tebow shit and pull in the "passing" aspect. That's a quarterbacks job. A quarterback's job is not running the football.
A quarterbacks job is to be a quarterback, which is primarily about passing, but not exclusively. Must we "run" down the list of great QBs whose legs were critical to their success? McNair, Young, Cunningham, Tarkenton? There was this guy from Standford back in the '80s who used to tuck it away and run for first downs when no one was open; think he even did it in a Super Bowl one time.
I'm not digging up each of the MANY times I explicitly cited Indys poor D and Mannings Ring in a 13 page thread; do your own homework if you want to count them all. You said I didn't say two things I DID say, point blank and before anyone else. Your accusation is thus self-evidently false. Persistent false claims when confronted with irrefutable proof of their falsehood are lies. You've got it backward again:
Analyzing twelve playoff tournaments instead of just the one successful one isn't "cherry-picking;" fixating on the one to the exclusion of the other eleven (or ten if we count the SB loss as success) is.
Saying Indys bad D and PFMs SB win don't change the eight one-and-dones isn't dishonestly denying the bad D and SB win, but accusations I denied even in the face of QUOTES to the contrary IS dishonest.
NOTHING you said stands. You called me a liar and I proved the charge false: End of story.
You didn't bring it up to me when we were talking about it. Saying it once at the start of a ******* thread when someone joins in 8 pages later doesn't absolve you of anything.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 10:19 PM
A quarterbacks job is to be a quarterback, which is primarily about passing, but not exclusively. Must we "run" down the list of great QBs whose legs were critical to their success? McNair, Young, Cunningham, Tarkenton? There was this guy from Standford back in the '80s who used to tuck it away and run for first downs when no one was open; think he even did it in a Super Bowl one time.
Ah, yes. But the reason they could run, was because they are the greatest passers in NFL history.
Hawgdriver
09-01-2013, 10:21 PM
Can't believe this thread is over 200 posts. Something to talk about, I guess.
The original video was somewhat amusing, but how is so much squeezed out of so little?
Wait, we either use the sample size that's inconclusive and worthless, or we don't use the thing that's inconclus.......
Yeah, yeah, I think uhh...yup. Sounds about right.....
As far as you ignoring the SB, you literally said "As far as his SB, until he does it as a Bronco, it doesn't matter." Gee, Joel, that was right after you were talking about the issues he had in the SB. So, I, for what at least feels like the 35th time, declare that saying that that winning a SB is something doesn't matter, and acting like the only part of his legacy that matters is the one and done's, is cherry picking. And it is.
As far as the issues, sorry kid, I'm in the clear. Because I argued that a lot of those losses were not just on him, as is his SB victory. Which, is actually true. Then you started to spit drivel about...well actually your posts are just drivel.
This is it in a nutshell - He is one of the best passing QB's ever. He has shown that he can win a SB. He is a top five QB right now. He lost a lot of playoff games on teams with no defense. He has also played poorly in the playoffs. He's on your team. As soon as he got on your team he made them a SB contender. Signing him was not a waste of time.
So stop being such a ******* dumbass.
I "literally" said that, did I? Interesting you didn't quote what I ACTUALLY said:
If we want a Lombardi, playoff performances are not minutiæ, certainly not nothing. Manning got over that hump once in twelve tries (yea) but until/unless he does it in Denver I won't care.
Bold for emphasis: Mannings Colts SB matters (though it doesn't make his eight one-and-dones irrelevant,) but I don't CARE about it any more than I do Bradys 3 SB wins or Roethlisbergers 2. None of them does a darned thing for the Broncos.
If you want to talk issues, fine; it's past time. If you want to call me a liar for not saying things I REPEATEDLY said, that's a grave personal insult with the added offense of being false on its face.
Ah, yes. But the reason they could run, was because they are the greatest passers in NFL history.
Seriously? A great arm creates the ability to run a 4.2 40? If the argument is passing earned them starts that gave them the opportunity to run, fine, but if it's something like "no one would've covered all their receivers downfield if they weren't great passers," that's ridiculous. Either way it doesn't change the fact running was a BIG part of their game IN ADDITION TO PASSING AS THEIR PRIMARY strength. Maybe if I use call caps for these things people won't come along and call me a liar for "deying" or "ignoring" them.
I like how you quoted yourself and it shows that you're full of shit, Joel. You don't/won't care that he won a SB, which is a part of his postseason legacy. But you care about everything else. /credits roll. No, no, no guys, this thing that is incredibly damaging to my argument doesn't matter and I don't care about it!
I will strive to never post with you again.
You didn't bring it up to me when we were talking about it. Saying it once at the start of a ******* thread when someone joins in 8 pages later doesn't absolve you of anything.
Again, I said it repeatedly, but whether you deigned to read it or not, you sure as HELL should've checked before accusing me of lying about it. That how you normally do things? "I didn't see any comment about it on this one page out of eight, therefore he's dishonestly denying and ignoring it; no need to VERIFY that serious charge by checking any other pages before making the accusation."
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 10:32 PM
Seriously? A great arm creates the ability to run a 4.2 40? If the argument is passing earned them starts that gave them the opportunity to run, fine, but if it's something like "no one would've covered all their receivers downfield if they weren't great passers," that's ridiculous. Either way it doesn't change the fact running was a BIG part of their game IN ADDITION TO PASSING AS THEIR PRIMARY strength. Maybe if I use call caps for these things people won't come along and call me a liar for "deying" or "ignoring" them.
We can stop at "4.2 40" because none of them could do that.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 10:33 PM
Yeah. We are. You said they WON THE DIVISION BECAUSE OF WEAK COMPETITION, so then we must assume that the other division winners did not have weak competition to make this statement true.
Come on Joel. You want to debate the merits of arguments...let's do it...
I like how you quoted yourself and it shows that you're full of shit, Joel. You don't/won't care that he won a SB, which is a part of his postseason legacy. But you care about everything else. /credits roll. No, no, no guys, this thing that is incredibly damaging to my argument doesn't matter and I don't care about it!
I will strive to never post with you again.
I don't care what anyone does for teams I dislike, unless they do it TO teams I do like. That's not the same as saying it doesn't matter to their legacy or quality of play: It just doesn't do my team any good. Granted, it often SEEMS like lots of people think PFMs past accomplishments guarantee a Broncos SB, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 10:36 PM
I don't care what anyone does for teams I dislike, unless they do it TO teams I do like. That's not the same as saying it doesn't matter to their legacy or quality of play: It just doesn't do my team any good. Granted, it often SEEMS like lots of people think PFMs past accomplishments guarantee a Broncos SB, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
So, we can't tell the future. What a revelation?
BroncoWave
09-01-2013, 10:38 PM
Granted, it often SEEMS like lots of people think PFMs past accomplishments guarantee a Broncos SB, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Literally no one on the board has ever said that PFM's past guarantees us a Super Bowl. What we all have said is that he gives us a much better CHANCE to win the Super Bowl than Tebow did. That is just a straight up, undebatable fact.
We can stop at "4.2 40" because none of them could do that.
It's called "hyperbole." Running wasn't extraneous to any of the named players; granted he understandably slowed toward the end of his career, but the most famous play of our most famous player was a quarterback run. There's a good argument we wouldn't have won our first title without it. There's more to being a QB than passing; ironically, that's one of the better and more popular arguments in PFMs favor: He's smart as a whip and not only runs but DESIGNED his own offense. That plus his vision and accuracy (which are passing traits) makes up for his arm being more "laser" than "rocket."
This is the part where we all pretend people haven't been saying PFMs range is unremarkable since the Chargers cited it as the reason they preferred Leaf (not that the Colts gave them any choice.)
As far as the merits of the strength of the Colts competition, we can't debate that because we can't agree on the parameters.
MOtorboat
09-01-2013, 10:44 PM
Wait.
Wait. Did you just try to say the Colts made a mistake drafting Manning instead of Ryan Leaf?
Oh, wow.
TXBRONC
09-01-2013, 10:46 PM
I don't care what anyone does for teams I dislike, unless they do it TO teams I do like. That's not the same as saying it doesn't matter to their legacy or quality of play: It just doesn't do my team any good. Granted, it often SEEMS like lots of people think PFMs past accomplishments guarantee a Broncos SB, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Well your perception is making you look like ass. No one that I know of has said with any seriousness that having Manning is a guarantee of Super Bowl victory. A person has to be damn thick in the head not to get it. What most people seem to agreement is that he makes Denver a better football team and a more legitimate contender.
BroncoWave
09-01-2013, 10:46 PM
As far as the merits of the strength of the Colts competition, we can't debate that because we can't agree on the parameters.
No, you can't debate it because your parameters are ****ing stupid and Mo's make sense.
Literally no one on the board has ever said that PFM's past guarantees us a Super Bowl. What we all have said is that he gives us a much better CHANCE to win the Super Bowl than Tebow did. That is just a straight up, undebatable fact.
That's why I said, "seems." I don't dispute he gives us a better chance than Tebow, and never did; what I dispute is how long that will be true, whether the chance is enough and whether that's worth $20 million/year when we have other major holes. That's less of an issue than when we signed him, because we've addressed some of those holes (mainly at DT,) but it hasn't gone away. $20 million of a $120 million salary cap can sign a lot of top players. We got one; I really hope that equals at least one SB before our 37 year old first ballot HoFer retires.
Wait.
Wait. Did you just try to say the Colts made a mistake drafting Manning instead of Ryan Leaf?
Oh, wow.
No, I didn't, but that's probably what you read anyway. Just never mind.... :rolleyes:
Simple Jaded
09-02-2013, 04:24 AM
No, I didn't, but that's probably what you read anyway. Just never mind.... :rolleyes:
If that is how he took your post could you blame him? You are beyond irrational, Joel. Seriously, you hate John Elway, you hate Peyton Manning.......and you drool over Tim Tebow. You act as though the Broncos replaced an All-time Great with the worst passer the league has seen in decades, instead of the other way around. You seem to resent the fact that Broncos fans have faith in Manning.
You might wanna let this thread go, the more you argue the more obvious your agenda becomes, you've gone full retard. Apparently common sense can't be coerced either.
TXBRONC
09-02-2013, 07:15 AM
If that is how he took your post could you blame him? You are beyond irrational, Joel. Seriously, you hate John Elway, you hate Peyton Manning.......and you drool over Tim Tebow. You act as though the Broncos replaced an All-time Great with the worst passer the league has seen in decades, instead of the other way around. You seem to resent the fact that Broncos fans have faith in Manning.
You might wanna let this thread go, the more you argue the more obvious your agenda becomes, you've gone full retard. Apparently common sense can't be coerced either.
I wouldn't want to play five card stud poker with Joel because he would want me to play with three cards while he played with five cards. That would be the only fair thing to do in Joel's mind.
Simple Jaded
09-02-2013, 12:54 PM
I wouldn't want to play five card stud poker with Joel because he would want me to play with three cards while he played with five cards. That would be the only fair thing to do in Joel's mind.
Yeah but in draw he'd be throwing away a pair of Aces to build his hand around that deuce.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.