PDA

View Full Version : Paige: Manning greatest regular season QB?



rationalfan
09-04-2013, 10:54 AM
I haven't seen this posted here, yet. It's obviously relevant, and pretty timely given some of the debates around here.


http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_23991897/man-who-would-be-king

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 11:19 AM
Considering he's been to two Super Bowls and has won 1, I don't think that's a fair label. Fan's of Tom Brady... want to say that because despite the fact that Brady has more rings, Manning is still considered to be a better QB. That rubs them the wrong way, and they retaliate with the "yeah, but....."

To some, winning the Super Bowl is the single biggest measuring stick to greatness. That's a shame, because they are missing so much more. Any person can look in a stat book and look at the column on the right side and determine the "best" if that is all you wish to go by. A six year old can do that. But those that know football, and understand football, and can truly appreciate the position that is being played and HOW it is played.... can judge a player by more than a single number in stat sheet's column.

It was a sham when they said that about Elway, it is a sham when they say that about Marino, and its a sham when it's said about Peyton Manning.

MasterShake
09-04-2013, 11:27 AM
Its hard to look at QB's in the process of their career (even late) and make those kinds of declarations. I think Elway had a pretty pedestrian playoff record before the 2 Super Bowl runs bumped up his numbers, and in the end its the Super Bowls that made him legendary outside of Denver. If Manning manages to take it all this year again his reputation will be cemented.

Northman
09-04-2013, 11:32 AM
In some ways i think he does need to at the very least make another SB to shake that legacy. To me, he is the best cerebral QB ive seen play. But his 2 SB appearances are a bit shrouded by his postseason success which is one of the reasons i will continue to favor Brady over him in the current age. I think with whatever time is left for Peyton he needs to do more damage in the postseason and at the very least get Denver back to the dance to shred some of that postseason weight.

Mr Bojangles
09-04-2013, 11:47 AM
I haven't seen this posted here, yet. It's obviously relevant, and pretty timely given some of the debates around here.


http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_23991897/man-who-would-be-king

Woody is absolutely correct....or at least his question is a valid one. And for all his effort, there is no disguising the fact that Peyton positively bristles at the notion, even though he can't possibly deny the truth of it all.

Ty Law picked him four times in a huge PO defeat in Foxboro, Porter pick-sixed him to deny him another Title, and then we have last season's bitter OT defeat following another ill-conceived Manning throw, just to name a few which come immediately to mind. I can't think of another QB who has stepped on his own pecker so often and so consistently in post-season play. He is almost a tragic figure, in that regard, and worthy of pity if you are an admirer.

He will need another SB win to even get back into the GOAT discussion and that may not be enough if Brady wins his fourth, though he does probably have the greatest regular season QB title sewn up.

Mr Bojangles
09-04-2013, 12:00 PM
Considering he's been to two Super Bowls and has won 1, I don't think that's a fair label. Fan's of Tom Brady... want to say that because despite the fact that Brady has more rings, Manning is still considered to be a better QB. That rubs them the wrong way, and they retaliate with the "yeah, but....."

To some, winning the Super Bowl is the single biggest measuring stick to greatness. That's a shame, because they are missing so much more. Any person can look in a stat book and look at the column on the right side and determine the "best" if that is all you wish to go by. A six year old can do that. But those that know football, and understand football, and can truly appreciate the position that is being played and HOW it is played.... can judge a player by more than a single number in stat sheet's column.
It was a sham when they said that about Elway, it is a sham when they say that about Marino, and its a sham when it's said about Peyton Manning.

The fact is, Peyton has directly contributed to all of his post season losses, by performing below his regular season standards and throwing picks. That's pretty much a given. So it's not a question of simply not winning more titles....it's a question of how he personally contributed to the losses which NE fans are pointing to, and NOT the number of rings, per se.

The Pats have lost two SBs to the Giants because their D could not stop NY......but not because Brady handed the game away with game-clinching brain farts. That's the difference from a NE fan's perspective.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 12:56 PM
The fact is, Peyton has directly contributed to all of his post season losses, by performing below his regular season standards and throwing picks. That's pretty much a given. So it's not a question of simply not winning more titles....it's a question of how he personally contributed to the losses which NE fans are pointing to, and NOT the number of rings, per se.

The Pats have lost two SBs to the Giants because their D could not stop NY......but not because Brady handed the game away with game-clinching brain farts. That's the difference from a NE fan's perspective.

yeah.. :lol: This isn't biased in the least!! :lol:

This is why you can't be taken seriously when you post.

CrazyHorse
09-04-2013, 02:03 PM
Woody is absolutely correct....or at least his question is a valid one. And for all his effort, there is no disguising the fact that Peyton positively bristles at the notion, even though he can't possibly deny the truth of it all.

Ty Law picked him four times in a huge PO defeat in Foxboro, Porter pick-sixed him to deny him another Title, and then we have last season's bitter OT defeat following another ill-conceived Manning throw, just to name a few which come immediately to mind. I can't think of another QB who has stepped on his own pecker so often and so consistently in post-season play. He is almost a tragic figure, in that regard, and worthy of pity if you are an admirer.

He will need another SB win to even get back into the GOAT discussion and that may not be enough if Brady wins his fourth, though he does probably have the greatest regular season QB title sewn up.

Brett Favre?

This is suggested reading for everyone.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/peyton-mannings-9-11-playoff-record-is-call-for-help/20868/

vandammage13
09-04-2013, 03:17 PM
yeah.. :lol: This isn't biased in the least!! :lol:

This is why you can't be taken seriously when you post.

It might be biased, but they are some pretty legitimate points...Both Pat's losses Brady had his team in position to win and played pretty well overall.

Many of Peyton's playoff woes have been accompanied by underperformance or timely mistakes that you would expect from Brett Favre.

That being said, I do adhere to the school of thought that many of those Indy teams weren't really that good and probably wouldn't have found themselves sniffing .500 were it not for Peyton...Pats still managed to win 11 games w/out Brady.

rationalfan
09-04-2013, 03:24 PM
i think you guys are missing one of woody's key points: the difference between the perception of manning now and the perception of elway prior to his two SB wins isn't much different. obviously, no one thinks of elway that way now.

it's easy to react immediately, but it's hard to realize that reaction isn't always right.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 03:36 PM
It might be biased, but they are some pretty legitimate points...Both Pat's losses Brady had his team in position to win and played pretty well overall.

Many of Peyton's playoff woes have been accompanied by underperformance or timely mistakes that you would expect from Brett Favre.

That being said, I do adhere to the school of thought that many of those Indy teams weren't really that good and probably wouldn't have found themselves sniffing .500 were it not for Peyton...Pats still managed to win 11 games w/out Brady.

No. That is the EXCUSES given and a VERY closed mind as to exactly what happened during all those games. It's absolutely RIDICULOUS to say that Manning had a hand in his losses, yet Brady was just a bad observer of the things that "happened to him" during BOTH his losses to Eli.

It's funny that you just said that Brady "had his team in position to win" in a paragraph that agrees with someone that is saying that Peyton had a hand in the playoff losses. Remind me again, wasn't the Broncos in a "position to win" before our DBs gave up a ridiculously stupid TD to Baltimore?? :confused:

Jingles observation is absolutely not legitimate. It's an opinion, and a very biased one.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 03:39 PM
i think you guys are missing one of woody's key points: the difference between the perception of manning now and the perception of elway prior to his two SB wins isn't much different. obviously, no one thinks of elway that way now.

it's easy to react immediately, but it's hard to realize that reaction isn't always right.

I've been saying, that ALLLL the ridiculous "perceptions" immediately change after a single game. "Tampa Bay can't win the Super Bowl"..until they do. This guy can't win in windy weather.... until he does. This QB will never win a play off game... until he takes his team and wins one.

It's all exaggerated hyperbole that people like throw around as if these observations of the past make them facts. It's no different than someone looking at the dark of night and stating "the world is dark"....well, until the sun rises.

BroncoWave
09-04-2013, 03:45 PM
Considering he's been to two Super Bowls and has won 1, I don't think that's a fair label. Fan's of Tom Brady... want to say that because despite the fact that Brady has more rings, Manning is still considered to be a better QB. That rubs them the wrong way, and they retaliate with the "yeah, but....."

To some, winning the Super Bowl is the single biggest measuring stick to greatness. That's a shame, because they are missing so much more. Any person can look in a stat book and look at the column on the right side and determine the "best" if that is all you wish to go by. A six year old can do that. But those that know football, and understand football, and can truly appreciate the position that is being played and HOW it is played.... can judge a player by more than a single number in stat sheet's column.

It was a sham when they said that about Elway, it is a sham when they say that about Marino, and its a sham when it's said about Peyton Manning.

Completely agree. Peyton Manning is easily a top 5 QB of all time be it regular season, playoffs, or preseason. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is just wrong.

Northman
09-04-2013, 03:51 PM
i think you guys are missing one of woody's key points: the difference between the perception of manning now and the perception of elway prior to his two SB wins isn't much different. obviously, no one thinks of elway that way now.

it's easy to react immediately, but it's hard to realize that reaction isn't always right.

I dont think we missed the point (at least i didnt). Even before Denver got the 2 SB wins i always considered him a HOF. When i look at the careers for John and Peyton they are vastly different for me. John basically carried his teams to the SB very early on and while he played pretty poorly in the big games he also did a lot of the most unthinkable things when thought they were dead in the water. I know Manning has comebacks in his career but none of them shine the way they do for John. Even when we allowed the Ravens to tie up the game last year i never had the feeling that we would win. Had that been John, i would of felt totally different and you have to ask yourself why that is. Unfortunately, as smart as Manning is and although he is a competitor i dont have nearly the confidence in him to get it done when we really need him too and a lot of that stems from his work in the postseason when the games really matter.

BroncoWave
09-04-2013, 03:55 PM
I dont think we missed the point (at least i didnt). Even before Denver got the 2 SB wins i always considered him a HOF. When i look at the careers for John and Peyton they are vastly different for me. John basically carried his teams to the SB very early on and while he played pretty poorly in the big games he also did a lot of the most unthinkable things when thought they were dead in the water. I know Manning has comebacks in his career but none of them shine the way they do for John. Even when we allowed the Ravens to tie up the game last year i never had the feeling that we would win. Had that been John, i would of felt totally different and you have to ask yourself why that is. Unfortunately, as smart as Manning is and although he is a competitor i dont have nearly the confidence in him to get it done when we really need him too and a lot of that stems from his work in the postseason when the games really matter.

Manning has more 4th quarter/OT comeback wins than Elway. I'm not necessarily saying that makes him better, but he does have more comeback wins. Elway's probably stick out to you more because his were all with the Broncos and Manning's were for another team.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 03:55 PM
Even when we allowed the Ravens to tie up the game last year i never had the feeling that we would win. Had that been John, i would of felt totally different and you have to ask yourself why that is.

Now that, is a GREAT point! :salute:

vandammage13
09-04-2013, 04:16 PM
No. That is the EXCUSES given and a VERY closed mind as to exactly what happened during all those games. It's absolutely RIDICULOUS to say that Manning had a hand in his losses, yet Brady was just a bad observer of the things that "happened to him" during BOTH his losses to Eli.

It's funny that you just said that Brady "had his team in position to win" in a paragraph that agrees with someone that is saying that Peyton had a hand in the playoff losses. Remind me again, wasn't the Broncos in a "position to win" before our DBs gave up a ridiculously stupid TD to Baltimore?? :confused:

Jingles observation is absolutely not legitimate. It's an opinion, and a very biased one.

Yes the Broncos were in a position to win...I was more pointing to his time in Indy. But since you brought it up, although we were in a position to win, Manning had a hand in some plays where it shouldn't even have been a 1 possession game to put on the defense.

To what Jingles said on this singular occasion would you specifically label as not legitimate? What he said is debatable, but they are indeed legitimate points to be made.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 04:18 PM
Yes the Broncos were in a position to win...I was more pointing to his time in Indy. But since you brought it up, although we were in a position to win, Manning had a hand in some plays where it shouldn't even have been a 1 possession game to put on the defense.

To what Jingles said on this singular occasion would you specifically label as not legitimate? What he said is debatable, but they are indeed legitimate points to be made.

I see.. but Brady didn't in his Super Bowl losses?

rationalfan
09-04-2013, 04:19 PM
i don't think peyton's circumstances were much different than elway's during the first half of each of their careers. each was surrounded with spots of talent and carried their teams to more victories than many people expected. the difference, to me, is that manning played for coaches who allowed manning to exploit the passing game, elway didn't.

Northman
09-04-2013, 04:21 PM
Manning has more 4th quarter/OT comeback wins than Elway. I'm not necessarily saying that makes him better, but he does have more comeback wins. Elway's probably stick out to you more because his were all with the Broncos and Manning's were for another team.

Nah, not really. While i didnt watch a crapload of Indy games i still paid attention. I know that Manning has a lot of records but i think the reason why John's stand out more is because some of the biggest and best ones took place in the postseason. The only one that comes to mind in the postseason with Peyton is the game in Indy against the Pats and i think that was when they went to the SB the first time. Outside of that i cant think of him doing it that often in the postseason.

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 04:22 PM
i don't think peyton's circumstances were much different than elway's during the first half of each of their careers. each was surrounded with spots of talent and carried their teams to more victories than many people expected. the difference, to me, is that manning played for coaches who allowed manning to exploit the passing game, elway didn't.

I actually feel that Manning was held back by having Dungy as a coach.

I don't think its a coincidence that two different coaches, on two different teams, took Dungy's team to the Super Bowl the very year after he left.

Mr Bojangles
09-04-2013, 04:23 PM
No. That is the EXCUSES given and a VERY closed mind as to exactly what happened during all those games. It's absolutely RIDICULOUS to say that Manning had a hand in his losses, yet Brady was just a bad observer of the things that "happened to him" during BOTH his losses to Eli.

It's funny that you just said that Brady "had his team in position to win" in a paragraph that agrees with someone that is saying that Peyton had a hand in the playoff losses. Remind me again, wasn't the Broncos in a "position to win" before our DBs gave up a ridiculously stupid TD to Baltimore?? :confused:

Jingles observation is absolutely not legitimate. It's an opinion, and a very biased one.

No, it's not biased, at all.... you just can't see straight.

It's RIDICULOUS or biased, in your view, to say that Manning had a hand in those losses? The guy threw the pick that swept the Saints to the SB Title...but you don't think that was important to the games outcome? And I'm biased for suggesting it was? LOL

Sure, last year you can claim that if the Denver secondary didn't allow that ridiculous TD to tie the game, Manning would have won. That could be said about a hundred different plays during any game, too. But that's not the issue. Having tied the game, Manning ended up making a terrible pass that DIRECTLY cost Denver the game. And you want to argue that? LOL.

If he didn't throw that pick, the Broncos MAY HAVE won, right? But he DID throw that pick and it cost them the game....right? But I'm biased and RIDICULOUS for mentioning it? Get real.

And yes, Brady was on the sidelines, the game taken out of his hands. He didn't come back in and throw the game-changing pick. If he had, I wouldn't be making a fool of myself arguing that he had had no hand in the loss!

vandammage13
09-04-2013, 04:23 PM
I see.. but Brady didn't in his Super Bowl losses?

Well, I guess you do have a point that Brady does indeed play a hand in his losses as well...I'll concede that I wouldn't hold too tight to that side of the argument.

But we have seen Brady come through more often than Peyton in those spots, I think

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 04:30 PM
No, it's not biased, at all.... you just can't see straight.

It's RIDICULOUS or biased, in your view, to say that Manning had a hand in those losses? The guy threw the pick that swept the Saints to the SB Title...but you don't think that was important to the games outcome? And I'm biased for suggesting it was? LOL

Sure, last year you can claim that if the Denver secondary didn't allow that ridiculous TD to tie the game, Manning would have won. That could be said about a hundred different plays during any game, too. But that's not the issue. Having tied the game, Manning ended up making a terrible pass that DIRECTLY cost Denver the game. And you want to argue that? LOL.

If he didn't throw that pick, the Broncos MAY HAVE won, right? But he DID throw that pick and it cost them the game....right? But I'm biased and RIDICULOUS for mentioning it? Get real.

And yes, Brady was on the sidelines, the game taken out of his hands. He didn't come back in and throw the game-changing pick. If he had, I wouldn't be making a fool of myself arguing that he had had no hand in the loss!

I see. So you want to say that none of Brady's PRIOR plays during the game had a hand in the Patriots losing, yet Manning's prior plays to the DBs letting a flyer land in the receivers hands... did.

You want to point out that Brady laughed at the idea of ONLY scoring 17 points against the Giants, and yet could barely mange 17 ooints, or is that the defenses fault as well?

This is the exact hypocrisy that I was talking about. It's ridiculous at the turns someone will make to try to make their guy "faultless" while their rival has all the problems.

I mean, who has had the biggest CHOKE job in the NFL history... Manning and the Broncos/Colts.... or the Patriots led by Brady?

Ravage!!!
09-04-2013, 04:37 PM
Well, I guess you do have a point that Brady does indeed play a hand in his losses as well...I'll concede that I wouldn't hold too tight to that side of the argument.

But we have seen Brady come through more often than Peyton in those spots, I think

Well.. I've been using Brady as an example purely because of Jingles. I've also pointed out that people want to gripe about a particular team not winning at certain Temperatures (like they did about Denver going to Miami) and how they coudlnt' win.... until they did. East coast teams never win in November (or whatever) when traveling to the west coast... until one did.

It's just always exaggerated statements that are based on nothing other than stats that meaningless (literally) stats that come out of some "almanac" that no on really pays attntion to. They are just "fun facts" that don't really have anything to do with football, but have been the results thus people think they corrolate.

"lightning never strikes the same place twice".... Until the same tree gets hit twice. If Manning were to go to another Super Bowl.. and win.. he would have won 2 out of 3 and NONE of these stupid discussions would even be talked about. But because he's only won 1 out of 2, then its somehow relevant and a discussion topic.

Another thing that is overlooked, is that had Manning not had SOOOO Much unbelievable success during the regular season and getting his team to the playoffs EVERY year for a decade.... then he wouldn't be judged against his own success.

vandammage13
09-04-2013, 04:40 PM
I see. So you want to say that none of Brady's PRIOR plays during the game had a hand in the Patriots losing, yet Manning's prior plays to the DBs letting a flyer land in the receivers hands... did.

You want to point out that Brady laughed at the idea of ONLY scoring 17 points against the Giants, and yet could barely mange 17 ooints, or is that the defenses fault as well?

This is the exact hypocrisy that I was talking about. It's ridiculous at the turns someone will make to try to make their guy "faultless" while their rival has all the problems.

I mean, who has had the biggest CHOKE job in the NFL history... Manning and the Broncos/Colts.... or the Patriots led by Brady?

Your point is valid...

The reason people have this perception, right or wrong, is pretty simple and no more complicated than this: Brady built up cred by winning early and often at the beginning of his career, giving him the benefit of the doubt because he already proved himself...Manning's perception problem is he routinely took 12-14 win Indy teams to one and done appearances in the playoffs...it was even a knock on him as far back as his Tennessee Volunteer days...last year did not help change that perception...

Anything you say will do little to nothing in changing that perception until Manning proves otherwise...Similar to my plights on a different topic.

The fact is both QBs are pretty damn good and any team would give their left nut to have either.

Mr Bojangles
09-04-2013, 04:41 PM
Nah, not really. While i didnt watch a crapload of Indy games i still paid attention. I know that Manning has a lot of records but i think the reason why John's stand out more is because some of the biggest and best ones took place in the postseason. The only one that comes to mind in the postseason with Peyton is the game in Indy against the Pats and i think that was when they went to the SB the first time. Outside of that i cant think of him doing it that often in the postseason.

Well, I did follow his performances, especially in the POs, and I can tell you the reason you can't think of any others is because there were no others. Even the year (2006) you are referring to, when they came back from a 23-3 deficit against NE, Peyton Manning was pretty much a "no-show" (in all the other playoff games the Colts had that year) and just along for the ride. First of all, the Colts run defense that entire season was a sieve, until the post season when that unit picked it up a notch, while Peyton's game, as usual, dropped significantly. The previous week, against the Ravens, he led the Colts to exactly zero TDs....I'm not sure that had ever happened in any regular season game he played. In the SB itself, the Colts absolutely struggled against Rex Grossman-led Bears and even most Colts fans/Manning ballwashers agreed that Dominic Rhodes was the de facto SB MVP....not Manning who must have benefitted by the 'pity vote'.

Woody Paige's question, though hard for Manning to swallow, is a legitimate one, and anyone who doubts it should start by looking up his stats, regular season vs. playoffs.

Mr Bojangles
09-04-2013, 05:05 PM
I see. So you want to say that none of Brady's PRIOR plays during the game had a hand in the Patriots losing, yet Manning's prior plays to the DBs letting a flyer land in the receivers hands... did. I didn't say that, at all! In fact, I said there were a 100 different plays in any game that could be pointed to as decisive moments in a loss, or win. But that's not the point. When the game was tied, and all-even, when either team could win it, BASED ON HOW THEY PERFORMED IN THOSE CLOSING MOMENTS, Peyton Manning has repeatedly laid an egg. I'm not judging his overall play, or ignoring any good things he may do....but when the rubber hits the road, he has come up short time after time. How you could argue that one simple truth is beyond me.

You want to point out that Brady laughed at the idea of ONLY scoring 17 points against the Giants, and yet could barely mange 17 ooints, or is that the defenses fault as well? I didn't say Brady played lights out, or that he should get a pass because he didn't produce as many points as he had all season, on average, did I? NO. But the issue here, which you seem somehow incapable of grasping, is that he DID NOT HAND THE GAME to the Giants with a pick. He left the field with the victory resting in the hands of his defense. The Broncos, and the Colts before them, had left the game in Manning's hands, and he blew it. Not exactly a subtle or difficult distinction to grasp.

This is the exact hypocrisy that I was talking about. It's ridiculous at the turns someone will make to try to make their guy "faultless" while their rival has all the problems.

I mean, who has had the biggest CHOKE job in the NFL history... Manning and the Broncos/Colts.... or the Patriots led by Brady?

That's a simple question, Archie.... The guy who made the bone-headed play which turned the tide against his team and gift-wrapped the victory for his opponent! And since we're talking about Peyton, you should have made CHOKE a plural.

rationalfan
09-04-2013, 05:25 PM
I actually feel that Manning was held back by having Dungy as a coach.

really? elaborate, please. because it always appeared that dungy allowed manning to control the offense on the field. far from what reeves allowed elway.

Joel
09-04-2013, 06:11 PM
That's like asking the greatest primary season presidential candidate. Some will say FDR, some William Jennings Bryan and others Harold Stassen, but the correct answer is "who cares?"

vandammage13
09-04-2013, 06:22 PM
really? elaborate, please. because it always appeared that dungy allowed manning to control the offense on the field. far from what reeves allowed elway.

Yeah I remember when the Colts hired Dungy from Tampa that it was agreed he would not touch Tom Moore's offense.

Dungy was universally regarded as a great head coach but the Colts brass wanted to ensure that their offensive machine did not devolve into "Buc Ball".

Mr Bojangles
09-04-2013, 06:24 PM
really? elaborate, please. because it always appeared that dungy allowed manning to control the offense on the field. far from what reeves allowed elway.

Excellent point!

Joel
09-04-2013, 06:54 PM
In some ways i think he does need to at the very least make another SB to shake that legacy. To me, he is the best cerebral QB ive seen play. But his 2 SB appearances are a bit shrouded by his postseason success which is one of the reasons i will continue to favor Brady over him in the current age. I think with whatever time is left for Peyton he needs to do more damage in the postseason and at the very least get Denver back to the dance to shred some of that postseason weight.
I honestly believe this the only reason he's still playing, and why this may be his last season however it ends. Winning it all will leave him with nothing left to prove (how many starting QBs won SBs with DIFFERENT teams?) and he can go out on top like Elway. Losing will leave him a 38 year old Louisiana native who played home games in a dome most of his career and is 0-4 in playoff games <40° (unless he wins one this year.) Either way he'll be the same age next year as Elway was when he became the oldest starting QB to win a SB.


Brett Favre?
That's the comparison I always favor, for the same reasons many others do: Both won many regular and LOST many postseason games largely by their own efforts.

Okay, Favre was an ironman, and oldest QB to win ANY playoff game (40.) That's a great accomplishment, but I grinned throughout the '95 NFCCG and '97 SB, knowing he was always good for one or two costly picks in close games. Looking at his face on the sideline after Denver answered the Packs opening score in SB XXXII it felt like he knew it, too. Anytime Favre helped build a 20 point lead on someone there was little chance he'd blow it, but in the close games where teams need a star champion to step up and make the game winning play, he more often than not made it for the WRONG TEAM.

If PFM weren't a Bronco many of us would still be saying that about him just as we did when he was a Colt, but if changing jerseys gained him a much better D it didn't make him a different player. It's not a question of ability, but of mental toughness, the "Hey, isn't that John Candy?" clutch factor. That's not to say PFM doesn't have it, but he's rarely SHOWN it, and often shown evidence of an opposite, Romolike, quality.


Manning has more 4th quarter/OT comeback wins than Elway.
In the REGULAR season, yes, though the difference is close (1 more comeback, 3 more game winning drives.) In the POSTSEASON it's not close at all:

Elway 4 Comebacks (1 in a title run) 5 Game Winning Drives (2 in the same title run, including the last possession of SB XXXII)
Manning 1 Comeback 1 Game Winning Drive http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

The greatest QB in nearly a century of NFL play has ONE playoff comeback? In TWELVE playoff seasons? Like Bojangles said, the reason no one remembers any other PFM playoff comebacks is there ARE none.

Paiges article is very good, with very good points. Fortunately for him, a veteran Broncos beat reporter can make them without being accused of insincerity for stating hopes PFM forever ends all doubts this year. ;)

Poet
09-04-2013, 10:50 PM
The fact is, Peyton has directly contributed to all of his post season losses, by performing below his regular season standards and throwing picks. That's pretty much a given. So it's not a question of simply not winning more titles....it's a question of how he personally contributed to the losses which NE fans are pointing to, and NOT the number of rings, per se.

The Pats have lost two SBs to the Giants because their D could not stop NY......but not because Brady handed the game away with game-clinching brain farts. That's the difference from a NE fan's perspective.

The Patriots lost the SB's because Tom Brady couldn't get it done versus the Giants. Remember the "we're only going to score seventeen points," gaffe by Brady? Come on son, don't spin that trash.

Poet
09-04-2013, 10:52 PM
In short, Ravage dominated this thread, Joel is still a piece of shit.

MOtorboat
09-04-2013, 11:01 PM
I honestly believe this the only reason he's still playing, and why this may be his last season however it ends. Winning it all will leave him with nothing left to prove (how many starting QBs won SBs with DIFFERENT teams?) and he can go out on top like Elway. Losing will leave him a 38 year old Louisiana native who played home games in a dome most of his career and is 0-4 in playoff games <40° (unless he wins one this year.) Either way he'll be the same age next year as Elway was when he became the oldest starting QB to win a SB.


That's the comparison I always favor, for the same reasons many others do: Both won many regular and LOST many postseason games largely by their own efforts.

Okay, Favre was an ironman, and oldest QB to win ANY playoff game (40.) That's a great accomplishment, but I grinned throughout the '95 NFCCG and '97 SB, knowing he was always good for one or two costly picks in close games. Looking at his face on the sideline after Denver answered the Packs opening score in SB XXXII it felt like he knew it, too. Anytime Favre helped build a 20 point lead on someone there was little chance he'd blow it, but in the close games where teams need a star champion to step up and make the game winning play, he more often than not made it for the WRONG TEAM.

If PFM weren't a Bronco many of us would still be saying that about him just as we did when he was a Colt, but if changing jerseys gained him a much better D it didn't make him a different player. It's not a question of ability, but of mental toughness, the "Hey, isn't that John Candy?" clutch factor. That's not to say PFM doesn't have it, but he's rarely SHOWN it, and often shown evidence of an opposite, Romolike, quality.


In the REGULAR season, yes, though the difference is close (1 more comeback, 3 more game winning drives.) In the POSTSEASON it's not close at all:

Elway 4 Comebacks (1 in a title run) 5 Game Winning Drives (2 in the same title run, including the last possession of SB XXXII)
Manning 1 Comeback 1 Game Winning Drive http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

The greatest QB in nearly a century of NFL play has ONE playoff comeback? In TWELVE playoff seasons? Like Bojangles said, the reason no one remembers any other PFM playoff comebacks is there ARE none.

Paiges article is very good, with very good points. Fortunately for him, a veteran Broncos beat reporter can make them without being accused of insincerity for stating hopes PFM forever ends all doubts this year. ;)

So, in nine wins he's only had to come back once. That means he dominated the other eight games. Meaning, he didn't HAVE TO COME BACK.

I think the irony here is that you can't comprehend that a great quarterback doesn't always win in the playoffs. That doesn't mean they aren't great. It just means it didn't happen that day.

Now, tell me how Bernie Kosar did in the playoffs.

:clutch:

Joel
09-04-2013, 11:04 PM
In short, Ravage dominated this thread, Joel is still a piece of shit.
Did he dominate Woody Paige, too? Paige made all the same points. They aren't exactly news even if some treat them as something unprecedented.

As for cussing at me, safe to say that was an INTENTIONAL attack? What can I say except: Next time you call someone a liar make sure you can prove it, and VERY sure they can't DISPROVE it. Seriously, "I didn't check if you said what I accused you of denying" has got to be the lamest "excuse" (to use the term loosely) ever. The burden of an accusations proof lies with the accuser, counselor.

Joel
09-04-2013, 11:16 PM
So, in nine wins he's only had to come back once. That means he dominated the other eight games. Meaning, he didn't HAVE TO COME BACK.

I think the irony here is that you can't comprehend that a great quarterback doesn't always win in the playoffs. That doesn't mean they aren't great. It just means it didn't happen that day.

Now, tell me how Bernie Kosar did in the playoffs.

:clutch:
Equal number of comebacks/game winning drives in a THIRD as many games. But, dear heaven, I hope we're aspiring to a better standard than Kosar.

No, great QBs don't always win in the playoffs—but most win more than they lose. A better comparison here might be Warren Moon, a great QB who made the playoffs 7 years straight but had a career playoff record of 3-7. No SB appearances, but even with no running game and a boom/bust D he managed as many comebacks as Manning and one MORE game winning drive.

"In 9 wins he's only had to come back once"? That really how we're spinning this? Should we also say, "In 11 losses he's NEVER come back once"? Just as accurate. Isn't it more informative to say, "Peyton Manning has won all 8 playoff games his team led on their final possession, and come back to win 1 of the 12 times they trailed"? It inspires little confidence, but it's not "let's ignore the wins" or "let's ignore the losses."

I'm out; perhaps this thread should be about Peyton Manning, or perhaps it should be about Woody Paige, but it DEFINITELY should not be about ANYONE else.

MOtorboat
09-04-2013, 11:19 PM
Equal number of comebacks/game winning drives in a THIRD as many games. But, dear heaven, I hope we're aspiring to a better standard than Kosar.

No, great QBs don't always win in the playoffs—but most win more than they lose. A better comparison here might be Warren Moon, a great QB who made the playoffs 7 years straight but had a career playoff record of 3-7. No SB appearances, but even with no running game and a boom/bust D he managed as many comebacks as Manning and one MORE game winning drive.

"In 9 wins he's only had to come back once"? That really how we're spinning this? Should we also say, "In 11 losses he's NEVER come back once"? Just as accurate. Isn't it more informative to say, "Peyton Manning has won all 8 playoff games his team led on their final possession, and come back to win 1 of the 12 times they trailed"? It inspires little confidence, but it's not "let's ignore the wins" or "let's ignore the losses."

It's just astounding how anti-Manning you are. It truly is.

I didn't spin anything. He won nine games. He came back once. He lost 11.

He's got two Super Bowl appearances and he's won one.

He has only not won double digit wins in a season twice in 13 years. It's just ludicrous the lengths you go to discount one of the greats of all time and the lengths you go to prop up one of the worst.

MOtorboat
09-04-2013, 11:21 PM
Think about this for a second.

You actually have made the argument that four free agents who have made almost zero impact on their team's win-loss record would have been better than signing Manning.

Think about that.

Poet
09-04-2013, 11:31 PM
He also didn't know who those four free agent's would be, or if there would be four worth signing in that offseason.

Between Joel writing that trash and Jangles going on about how the mighty Giants offense was the reason the Patriots lost to them twice, I can honestly say that...Jangles is more of a Broncos fan than Joel.

MOtorboat
09-04-2013, 11:40 PM
An interesting passage from a link saluted by Joel (which DESTROYS his argument):


Unique team outcomes will never earn Manning proper playoff respect

As you now see, Manning has experienced just about everything in the playoffs, and it usually is something bad for his team. The combination of rare events is the reason for a 9-11 record despite the fact they are not getting 9-11 quarterback play.

In the eight one-and-done games in particular, Manning has completed 58.3 percent of his passes for 2,075 yards (6.87 YPA), 10 TD, 6 INT and a 82.0 passer rating. The staggering number of drops (over 30 in the equivalent of half a season) and tipped-ball interceptions do those numbers little justice. One loss was by 41 points, and the other seven by 26 points combined.

While the stats may not be world-class numbers, they are clearly not the mark of a 0-8 quarterback. Yet for Manning, that has been the result.

Manning has high-quality playoff stats, but they have not led to wins.

In the regular season Manning wins 82.6 percent of his games when he has a passer rating of at least 85.0 (it is 77.8 percent in the 85.0-110.0 range).
In the playoffs Manning is 5-6 (.455) with a passer rating of at least 85.0. He has been at least 88.3 in each of his last five playoff losses.
The six losses are as many as Joe Montana (12-3), Tom Brady (10-2) and Brett Favre (11-1) have combined. The only other quarterbacks with a losing record (min. four games) are Warren Moon (2-4) and Ken Anderson (2-3).

If that is not bizarre enough, there is the fact that even when Manning and his entire offense avoids turnovers, he still loses at a most historic rate.

In the regular season Manning’s teams are 40-2 (.952) when they have zero giveaways on offense. That is the best record in the league since 1998.
In the playoffs Manning’s Colts were 1-5 (.167) when they had zero giveaways on offense. The rest of the league is 50-5 (.909), and that even includes two games where neither team had a giveaway.
When your defense allows a fourth-quarter comeback 60 percent of the time (6-4), you have a real problem. It is one thing to let Drew Brees do it, but when it’s Jay Fiedler, Billy Volek, Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco? That is completely unacceptable.

Manning’s had a lead in the final 0:40 of the fourth quarter and lost four playoff games.

The only four times Manning’s teams have held off comeback attempts, they led to three straight wins and a Super Bowl in 2006, and a Super Bowl appearance in 2009 after holding off the Jets.

My only conclusion is that Joel knows he's wrong.

Poet
09-04-2013, 11:41 PM
Shots fired. Mo's the shooter.

zbeg
09-05-2013, 06:27 AM
I think this is a really good "how much do you really understand football" litmus test. If you think isolating a quarterback's play and treat it as the sole person that's driving a team's success, well...I have a pretty good indication how well you pass/fail that test.

Ravage!!!
09-05-2013, 11:28 AM
That's a simple question, Archie.... The guy who made the bone-headed play which turned the tide against his team and gift-wrapped the victory for his opponent! And since we're talking about Peyton, you should have made CHOKE a plural.

yes.. you tried to say that it was Manning's fault for keeping the game within 1 score of the Ravens...but want to blame everyone else except Brady when he did the same thing vs Eli in the Biggest CHOKE job in NFL history. He was only able to score 10 points, didn't take the lead until near the end when Eli took the team down the field and beat the Patriots. But none of that is on Brady. After all, you are just being realistic :coffee:

Mr Bojangles
09-05-2013, 11:48 AM
The Patriots lost the SB's because Tom Brady couldn't get it done versus the Giants. Remember the "we're only going to score seventeen points," gaffe by Brady? Come on son, don't spin that trash.

If you actually believe that it was Brady's fault they didn't win those 2 SBs, then you and Ravage deserve each other!

And this misconception that Brady was scoffing at the idea (brought up by the reporter, if you recall) that NE would only score 17 points, then you need to go back and watch that exchange again.

Poet
09-05-2013, 11:50 AM
If you actually believe that it was Brady's fault they didn't win those 2 SBs, then you and Ravage deserve each other!

And this misconception that Brady was scoffing at the idea (brought up by the reporter, if you recall) that NE would only score 17 points, then you need to go back and watch that exchange again.

You are terrible. Brady was running an incredibly talented and gifted offense and his offense didn't show up. What do you not understand?

Ravage!!!
09-05-2013, 11:51 AM
i don't think peyton's circumstances were much different than elway's during the first half of each of their careers. each was surrounded with spots of talent and carried their teams to more victories than many people expected. the difference, to me, is that manning played for coaches who allowed manning to exploit the passing game, elway didn't.


really? elaborate, please. because it always appeared that dungy allowed manning to control the offense on the field. far from what reeves allowed elway.

Perhaps he did, but did he do what was best for his team completely on all levels? The Tampa Bay Bucs fired Dungy because of his failures in the playaoffs. What happens the 1st season they hire Gruden? He takes that very same team and wins the Super Bowl. Was it just a coincidence that Dungy couldn't do more with the same team that Dungy wasn't able to accomplish more with, or was it the coaching that held the Bucs back?

Then to Indy. He had the best QB in the NFL... never finished with a record with less than 10 wins during his 7 year tenure, and still finishes with a losing record in the playoffs.

To continue your comparison of John Elway and Peyton Manning, Reeves didn't just hold his QB back, but seemed to have held the entire team back. Reeves was a good enough coach to take HIS teams to 4 Super Bowls (3 in Denver, 1 in Atlanta)...losing them all. Dungy, while having a 2-4 playoff record in TB couldn't get his team over the hump that Chucky could. Elway didn't win until Reeves was gone and was coached by Shanahan. Coincidence?

Dungy took the Colts to 1 Super Bowl, and beat a Chicago team led by Rex Grossman. The year Dungy leaves Indy.....Caldweell is able to take the same Indy team to the Super Bowl. Dungy had coached 2 more years after winning the SB, and went 1-n-done in both the following seasons. Caldwell gets team back to the Super Bowl the first year coaching after Dungy leaves. Just like Gruden did.

Dungy had a 7-6 playoff record while in Indy.... and a 2-4 playoff record in TB... ending with a 9-10 playoff record as a coach. TWO different coaches, on TWO different teams, took the team that was coached prior by Dungy (the very year Dungy left those teams).... to the Super Bowl.

Coincidence? I personally don't think it is. I think we have seen through the years that it not only takes a great QB, but a great QB with great coaching. I firmly believe that had Manning had better coaching, much like Brady has had, he absolutely would have gone to more SUper Bowls.

Mr Bojangles
09-05-2013, 11:53 AM
An interesting passage from a link saluted by Joel (which DESTROYS his argument):



My only conclusion is that Joel knows he's wrong.

Funny, but my only conclusion was that you seem to think you know everything.

Ravage!!!
09-05-2013, 11:56 AM
If you actually believe that it was Brady's fault they didn't win those 2 SBs, then you and Ravage deserve each other!

And this misconception that Brady was scoffing at the idea (brought up by the reporter, if you recall) that NE would only score 17 points, then you need to go back and watch that exchange again.

Actually.. you do. He chuckled, and said "We are only going to score 17 points?? ok" while chuckling with the reporters. YOur blinders are on.

Also, I didn't say it was Brady's fault. I'm saying the SAME things about Brady that you are saying about Manning. You want to say that the losses by Manning's team are Manning's fault, yet given the same circusmstances..... none of Brady's losses are his fault. You are extremely hypocrically bias, and its embarrassing for you.

Mr Bojangles
09-05-2013, 11:56 AM
Perhaps he did, but did he do what was best for his team completely on all levels? The Tampa Bay Bucs fired Dungy because of his failures in the playaoffs. What happens the 1st season they hire Gruden? He takes that very same team and wins the Super Bowl. Was it just a coincidence that Dungy couldn't do more with the same team that Dungy wasn't able to accomplish more with, or was it the coaching that held the Bucs back?

Then to Indy. He had the best QB in the NFL... never finished with a record with less than 10 wins during his 7 year tenure, and still finishes with a losing record in the playoffs.

To continue your comparison of John Elway and Peyton Manning, Reeves didn't just hold his QB back, but seemed to have held the entire team back. Reeves was a good enough coach to take HIS teams to 4 Super Bowls (3 in Denver, 1 in Atlanta)...losing them all. Dungy, while having a 2-4 playoff record in TB couldn't get his team over the hump that Chucky could. Elway didn't win until Reeves was gone and was coached by Shanahan. Coincidence?

Dungy took the Colts to 1 Super Bowl, and beat a Chicago team led by Rex Grossman. The year Dungy leaves Indy.....Caldweell is able to take the same Indy team to the Super Bowl. Dungy had coached 2 more years after winning the SB, and went 1-n-done in both the following seasons. Caldwell gets team back to the Super Bowl the first year coaching after Dungy leaves. Just like Gruden did.

Dungy had a 7-6 playoff record while in Indy.... and a 2-4 playoff record in TB... ending with a 9-10 playoff record as a coach. TWO different coaches, on TWO different teams, took the team that was coached prior by Dungy (the very year Dungy left those teams).... to the Super Bowl.

Coincidence? I personally don't think it is. I think we have seen through the years that it not only takes a great QB, but a great QB with great coaching. I firmly believe that had Manning had better coaching, much like Brady has had, he absolutely would have gone to more SUper Bowls.

HaHA..Yeah, right! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Dungy threw a single pick in any PO game while he was with Indy.

Mr Bojangles
09-05-2013, 11:58 AM
Actually.. you do. He chuckled, and said "We are only going to score 17 points?? ok" while chuckling with the reporters. YOur blinders are on.

Also, I didn't say it was Brady's fault. I'm saying the SAME things about Brady that you are saying about Manning. You want to say that the losses by Manning's team are Manning's fault, yet given the same circusmstances..... none of Brady's losses are his fault. You are extremely hypocrically bias, and its embarrassing for you.

I've already explained the difference in circumstances that we are talking about here....Sorry you weren't able to process them.

Why don't you go back and answer the couple of questions I posed so we get a feel for where your thought process diverges away from logical?

chazoe60
09-05-2013, 12:00 PM
I didn't say Brady played lights out, or that he should get a pass because he didn't produce as many points as he had all season, on average, did I? NO. But the issue here, which you seem somehow incapable of grasping, is that he DID NOT HAND THE GAME to the Giants with a pick. He left the field with the victory resting in the hands of his defense. The Broncos, and the Colts before them, had left the game in Manning's hands, and he blew it. Not exactly a subtle or difficult distinction to grasp.

How is that different than when Peyton left the game with a 7 point lead and Rahim Moore shitting his pants for all to see? I don't see your point other than Peyton had a seven point lead so our defense's blunder led to a tie while Brady could only muster a 4 point lead(or whatever it was) so his defense's blunder led to being behind. So somehow that makes Brady better?

Poet
09-05-2013, 12:01 PM
Tom Brady, Mr. Clutch, Mr. Superbowl gets passes for his offenses playing like dog shit in two SB's against the Giants, because of his defense. That's a mitigating factor, Jangs. If you want to argue that, it's fine, but when you start to act like only your boy gets to use mitigating factors, it's comical.

I disagree with Ravage on Tony Dungy, but he and I have had that conversation before.

Ravage!!!
09-05-2013, 12:02 PM
How is that different than when Peyton left the game with a 7 point lead and Rahim Moore shitting his pants for all to see? I don't see your point other than Peyton had a seven point lead so our defense's blunder led to a tie while Brady could only muster a 4 point lead(or whatever it was) so his defense's blunder led to being behind. So somehow that makes Brady better?

Exactly. :salute:

Poet
09-05-2013, 12:03 PM
Something that J posters that brings out the dumb. Jangles and Joel...

Ravage!!!
09-05-2013, 12:07 PM
Something that J posters that brings out the dumb. Jangles and Joel...

Isn't there a kids song called joe jangle hinglemeyer schmidt?

chazoe60
09-05-2013, 12:12 PM
Isn't there a kids song called joe jangle hinglemeyer schmidt?

It's John Jacob Jinglheimer Schmidt

Poet
09-05-2013, 12:15 PM
Isn't there a kids song called joe jangle hinglemeyer schmidt?

Oh god, I forgot about that.

Ravage!!!
09-05-2013, 12:15 PM
It's John Jacob Jinglheimer Schmidt

Well, I'm changing it. Joe Jangle.... they belong together.

MOtorboat
09-05-2013, 12:19 PM
Funny, but my only conclusion was that you seem to think you know everything.

I didn't write that, if that is what you're implying.

Mr Bojangles
09-05-2013, 03:34 PM
How is that different than when Peyton left the game with a 7 point lead and Rahim Moore shitting his pants for all to see? I don't see your point other than Peyton had a seven point lead so our defense's blunder led to a tie while Brady could only muster a 4 point lead(or whatever it was) so his defense's blunder led to being behind. So somehow that makes Brady better?

How is that different, you ask...?

Simple... That play did not end the game. You have to move past that point in the game in thinking about this, Chaz. You see, Peyton had to re-enter the game in OT. It was neither won nor lost at THAT point, but there is no disputing the fact that the game was then in Peyton's hands, to either win, lose or be no factor (say the RB fumbles and it's recovered by Baltimore). Feel free to assign blame or praise, as you desire, for any and all plays that came before it. That is a different argument. But for the purposes of this discussion you have focus on the point when the game was tied, Denver again had the ball, and it was up to him to do something with it. He threw the pick.

That is 180 degrees away from Brady's situation. He led the Pats to the go ahead score and took a seat, since he doesn't play defense!

If this difference isn't as obvious as the nose on your face, you have a problem. Let me put it another way....If Moore's gaff had put the Raven's ahead, instead of tied, there would be no debate about Manning blowing the game, as he would have played no role in it. If some other Bronco had fumbled the ball away in OT, there would be no debate about Manning blowing the game, as he would have played no role in it. Just as Brady had no role in the Giants' final drive. But the Ravage is off his rocker to suggest that Manning had no hand in the loss because it was he who threw the pick that sealed the Raven's win.

Poet
09-05-2013, 03:37 PM
Yup, being inept an entire game is superior. :lol:

Mr Bojangles
09-05-2013, 03:44 PM
Yup, being inept an entire game is superior. :lol:

Who played a better game is not the discussion, King. That's another argument.

My points are in response to Ravages statement that Manning had no hand in that loss. Period. That's a ridiculous POV and I'm surprised that you and Chaz would agree with it.

Poet
09-05-2013, 03:47 PM
Who played a better game is not the discussion, King. That's another argument.

My points are in response to Ravages statement that Manning had no hand in that loss. Period. That's a ridiculous POV and I'm surprised that you and Chaz would agree with it.

You are a bad.