Thread: Will Peyton Manning Start Another Game in Denver?

I may have a unique position on this topic, but I'm not entirely sure it much matters who starts.

I like both QBs. I still think Manning can play and I think Brock is more than capable of being the QB of our future. I want to see Brock in a larger sample size, especially once there's some more film on him (we will probably see how he responds to Belichick and co.).

Both bring +'s and -'s to the table, be it experience, situational football awareness (with Manning), or some more mobility and a better arm (with Brock). I never found the argument that "Brock can run for his life better than Manning" a very satisfactory way to approach this problem philosophically, but it is true and the o-line isn't going to get much better. The arguments in favor of Manning never had anything to do with his stats this year, but rather what his ceiling is in a different offensive system, and that really boils down to whether you think the struggles have to do with age or other issues. Some think "he is done," others think he can still execute at a high level if things around him are the way he is comfortable with.

I actually think that if Manning is the starter, they should give him his no-huddle rhythm based offense back, and allow him to use his brain. That's what he does well. Since Kubiak has been mostly unwilling to do that in favor of a failed experiment, it's kind of a moot point. Brock can run Kubiak's system better, no doubt. I wish that Kubiak could have admitted that before the season began instead of giving us this story about how we're all trying to reach a compromise. I would have had no problem if they gave the controls to Brock earlier on in a honest fashion.

But, back to the point: in this system, behind this o-line, and with this playcalling, this is a 10-20 point/game offense, regardless of QB. Even if Brock has an excellent stat line, like he did vs. CHI, you end up with 17 points to show for it. That's what it is. The model is efficiency, not making many mistakes, and hoping the run game works that day.

This is all well and good if the defense continues to play stellar, and if the run game works. I get the point of what Kubiak wanted to do, and the whole romanticization of what we did back in 1998, etc. It's all a good postseason recipe. But it's going to fail if the D has a bad day or the run game gets stifled. If you need a must-score TD with two minutes left, or to overcome a 14 point deficit, I'd take Peyton all day. I think Brock can handle that situation, too, but we still have to see more samples with him in different situations. Either way, we won't see that ceiling in this system unless the game starts to get away from us.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

I think manning will be back in about three weeks, plays one more game, gets "injured" again and goes on IR

I also think Brock lights up the pats next week

This game has me worried. Our line stinks, and the Patriots front 7 is really good. It might be a long night.

Brock is starting vs. the Pansies. Just got a text from Channel 4.

Originally Posted by GEM

Brock is starting vs. the Pansies. Just got a text from Channel 4.

Well that was fast...but yep - on NFLN now...

Hmm.

Welp - while I'm glad Manning gets another week to heal, I'm a bit surprised Kubiak and the Broncos decided to announce so quickly. Should have pulled a Belichick and kept them guessing.

I don't think anyone would believe Manning would be even close to ready this week. Besides, our playbook was pretty vanilla against the Bears.

Originally Posted by Northman

Yea, i dont see that happening honestly. I think it will be a tough game to win regardless but putting Manning at more risk with his injury is not a wise thing to do if you are wanting to make a run to the SB. From everything that i have read Manning is going to need weeks of healing to get back to snuff.

That's where I am. He was already hurt too badly to play KC, but three quarters TRYING could only have worsened multiple injuries: I doubt two weeks is enough for a 39-year-old to fully recover from all that, so trying to rush him back for a final meeting with Brady could well make it his final meeting with ANYONE. Maybe it'd be different if this were a must-win game or Oz had been awful @Chicago (though probably not) but Oz was fine and 8-3's not the end of the world. Let Manning heal so we have him when it's do or die.

End of an era, changing of the guard: The FINAL Brady vs. Manning showdown was almost certainly last week. Peyton's gone next year and Brady would be 41 by his next scheduled game against Eli (unless we trade for him.... ) It could happen in the playoffs, but not if Peyton tries to rush it next weekend. Looks like his career ended where it began after all: Not because the Colts cut him, but because they installed fake grass in a retractable roof stadium.

Originally Posted by cmc0605

This is all well and good if the defense continues to play stellar, and if the run game works. I get the point of what Kubiak wanted to do, and the whole romanticization of what we did back in 1998, etc. It's all a good postseason recipe. But it's going to fail if the D has a bad day or the run game gets stifled. If you need a must-score TD with two minutes left, or to overcome a 14 point deficit, I'd take Peyton all day. I think Brock can handle that situation, too, but we still have to see more samples with him in different situations. Either way, we won't see that ceiling in this system unless the game starts to get away from us.

That should be the QBs job in ANY good offense: Not slinging it 40-50 times/game to either bury opponents by 30 pts or GET buried due to Ints, but put the team on his back to lead a comeback and/or throw a game-winning strike the reliable safe ground game and solid D faces a team good enough they can't just overpower it. Accepting high variance risk/reward ratios is foolish unless necessary, but even Franco Harris and the Steel Curtain needed Bradshaw to earn his paycheck every now and then.

Little off topic, but it's not romanticizing our repeat championship teams, only realization that all the above's why we achieved so much more with Elway on his last legs than Elway in his prime: Because we weren't a one-man offense, the same reason our last SB looked depressingly like Elways first three. IF/when Manning's healthy I'd still rather try it with him than a QB getting his first career start midseason; Kubiaks offense isn't dependent on any particular QB talent, just SOME kind of GOOD talent.

Originally Posted by cmc0605

I may have a unique position on this topic, but I'm not entirely sure it much matters who starts.

I like both QBs. I still think Manning can play and I think Brock is more than capable of being the QB of our future. I want to see Brock in a larger sample size, especially once there's some more film on him (we will probably see how he responds to Belichick and co.).

Both bring +'s and -'s to the table, be it experience, situational football awareness (with Manning), or some more mobility and a better arm (with Brock). I never found the argument that "Brock can run for his life better than Manning" a very satisfactory way to approach this problem philosophically, but it is true and the o-line isn't going to get much better. The arguments in favor of Manning never had anything to do with his stats this year, but rather what his ceiling is in a different offensive system, and that really boils down to whether you think the struggles have to do with age or other issues. Some think "he is done," others think he can still execute at a high level if things around him are the way he is comfortable with.

I actually think that if Manning is the starter, they should give him his no-huddle rhythm based offense back, and allow him to use his brain. That's what he does well. Since Kubiak has been mostly unwilling to do that in favor of a failed experiment, it's kind of a moot point. Brock can run Kubiak's system better, no doubt. I wish that Kubiak could have admitted that before the season began instead of giving us this story about how we're all trying to reach a compromise. I would have had no problem if they gave the controls to Brock earlier on in a honest fashion.

But, back to the point: in this system, behind this o-line, and with this playcalling, this is a 10-20 point/game offense, regardless of QB. Even if Brock has an excellent stat line, like he did vs. CHI, you end up with 17 points to show for it. That's what it is. The model is efficiency, not making many mistakes, and hoping the run game works that day.

This is all well and good if the defense continues to play stellar, and if the run game works. I get the point of what Kubiak wanted to do, and the whole romanticization of what we did back in 1998, etc. It's all a good postseason recipe. But it's going to fail if the D has a bad day or the run game gets stifled. If you need a must-score TD with two minutes left, or to overcome a 14 point deficit, I'd take Peyton all day. I think Brock can handle that situation, too, but we still have to see more samples with him in different situations. Either way, we won't see that ceiling in this system unless the game starts to get away from us.

I appreciate this measured and nuanced perspective in a sea of flaming hot takes. The last two paragraphs are spot-on.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Welp - while I'm glad Manning gets another week to heal, I'm a bit surprised Kubiak and the Broncos decided to announce so quickly. Should have pulled a Belichick and kept them guessing.

To be honest i would not doubt it at all if we dont see Manning until the playoffs and even thats a big if. The minimum amount of time to heal an injury like that is 12 weeks, 6 at best but not a good idea.

Originally Posted by Joel

That should be the QBs job in ANY good offense: Not slinging it 40-50 times/game to either bury opponents by 30 pts or GET buried due to Ints, but put the team on his back to lead a comeback and/or throw a game-winning strike the reliable safe ground game and solid D faces a team good enough they can't just overpower it. Accepting high variance risk/reward ratios is foolish unless necessary, but even Franco Harris and the Steel Curtain needed Bradshaw to earn his paycheck every now and then.

Little off topic, but it's not romanticizing our repeat championship teams, only realization that all the above's why we achieved so much more with Elway on his last legs than Elway in his prime: Because we weren't a one-man offense, the same reason our last SB looked depressingly like Elways first three. IF/when Manning's healthy I'd still rather try it with him than a QB getting his first career start midseason; Kubiaks offense isn't dependent on any particular QB talent, just SOME kind of GOOD talent.

I understand Peyton has had a bad season, but historically his 30-40+ points/game performances (along with what other elite QBs have done), do not come at the expense of lots of interceptions and gambles. That's why they are elite. Hoping your team pulls through late in the 4th quarter when you have five minutes left and are within 3 points of the other team (week after week) is much more of a gamble IMO, and exhibits larger variance, than having someone who can consistently go out there and shred defenses.

That is what you get in run-first and horizontal passing game systems. It might work out if the D is great and we're clicking on the run game. We might win the superbowl with 17 points. I get that is the goal, but I'm thinking statistically here...I'd still rather have a high-octane offense than one that runs for the sake of running.

Originally Posted by cmc0605

I may have a unique position on this topic, but I'm not entirely sure it much matters who starts.

I like both QBs. I still think Manning can play and I think Brock is more than capable of being the QB of our future. I want to see Brock in a larger sample size, especially once there's some more film on him (we will probably see how he responds to Belichick and co.).

Both bring +'s and -'s to the table, be it experience, situational football awareness (with Manning), or some more mobility and a better arm (with Brock). I never found the argument that "Brock can run for his life better than Manning" a very satisfactory way to approach this problem philosophically, but it is true and the o-line isn't going to get much better. The arguments in favor of Manning never had anything to do with his stats this year, but rather what his ceiling is in a different offensive system, and that really boils down to whether you think the struggles have to do with age or other issues. Some think "he is done," others think he can still execute at a high level if things around him are the way he is comfortable with.

I actually think that if Manning is the starter, they should give him his no-huddle rhythm based offense back, and allow him to use his brain. That's what he does well. Since Kubiak has been mostly unwilling to do that in favor of a failed experiment, it's kind of a moot point. Brock can run Kubiak's system better, no doubt. I wish that Kubiak could have admitted that before the season began instead of giving us this story about how we're all trying to reach a compromise. I would have had no problem if they gave the controls to Brock earlier on in a honest fashion.

But, back to the point: in this system, behind this o-line, and with this playcalling, this is a 10-20 point/game offense, regardless of QB. Even if Brock has an excellent stat line, like he did vs. CHI, you end up with 17 points to show for it. That's what it is. The model is efficiency, not making many mistakes, and hoping the run game works that day.

This is all well and good if the defense continues to play stellar, and if the run game works. I get the point of what Kubiak wanted to do, and the whole romanticization of what we did back in 1998, etc. It's all a good postseason recipe. But it's going to fail if the D has a bad day or the run game gets stifled. If you need a must-score TD with two minutes left, or to overcome a 14 point deficit, I'd take Peyton all day. I think Brock can handle that situation, too, but we still have to see more samples with him in different situations. Either way, we won't see that ceiling in this system unless the game starts to get away from us.

If not for an unfortunate trip on 4th and goal, we score 24. Keeping in mind this is on the road, in Brock's first start, against the coaching staff that knows him better than any staff in the NFL. I think it's a little unfair to Brock to say this is just a 10-20 ppg offense based on this game.

I see no reason why we couldn't regularly eclipse 20 points with Brock.

Buff can call it a "hot take" all he wants, but I think that unless Brock falls apart, it would be a massive mistake to go back with Peyton. I just don't see any way he gets healthy enough this season to get back to 100%, and he sucked this season when he was at 100%.

If is name was anything other than Peyton Manning, this would not be a debate at all.

Originally Posted by cmc0605

I understand Peyton has had a bad season, but historically his 30-40+ points/game performances (along with what other elite QBs have done), do not come at the expense of lots of interceptions and gambles. That's why they are elite. Hoping your team pulls through late in the 4th quarter when you have five minutes left and are within 3 points of the other team (week after week) is much more of a gamble IMO, and exhibits larger variance, than having someone who can consistently go out there and shred defenses.

That is what you get in run-first and horizontal passing game systems. It might work out if the D is great and we're clicking on the run game. We might win the superbowl with 17 points. I get that is the goal, but I'm thinking statistically here...I'd still rather have a high-octane offense than one that runs for the sake of running.

The orange highlighted text is the downfall of your post.

It's been a while since Manning was capable of that.

Originally Posted by cmc0605

I understand Peyton has had a bad season, but historically his 30-40+ points/game performances (along with what other elite QBs have done), do not come at the expense of lots of interceptions and gambles. That's why they are elite. Hoping your team pulls through late in the 4th quarter when you have five minutes left and are within 3 points of the other team (week after week) is much more of a gamble IMO, and exhibits larger variance, than having someone who can consistently go out there and shred defenses.

That is what you get in run-first and horizontal passing game systems. It might work out if the D is great and we're clicking on the run game. We might win the superbowl with 17 points. I get that is the goal, but I'm thinking statistically here...I'd still rather have a high-octane offense than one that runs for the sake of running.

That Peyton Manning that can score 30-40 points per game is dead and gone. He's never coming back. And as I said in my last post, we were a trip on 4th and 1 away from scoring 24, and we did it without the help of defense touchdowns that Peyton got in nearly every one of our wins.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

That Peyton Manning that can score 30-40 points per game is dead and gone. He's never coming back. And as I said in my last post, we were a trip on 4th and 1 away from scoring 24, and we did it without the help of defense touchdowns that Peyton got in nearly every one of our wins.

To me, though, that 4th and 1 was at the heart of the problem as to why Chicago was in it, not a testament to the philosophy.

That 4th and 1 and a pair of 3rd and 1s in the 4th quarter where the play call was essentially a dive damn near lost that game on Sunday. Was it week 1 Manning threw the fade on 4th and 1 to ice the game? Week 3? Whatever week doesn't matter, but sometimes you have to be a lot more aggressive in your play calling on crucial third and fourth downs late in the game with the lead to win the game, rather than survive.

I say that with the full understanding that "no major mistakes" was essentially the philosophy going in to a quarterback's first ever start on the road and that is why the play calls on those short yardage, high-leverage downs was conservative and bland. As Joe pointed out yesterday, the play calling should get more aggressive as Osweiler develops.

We know Manning can do it. He's done it this year. Can he do it when his body is at 75 percent is the question. I would like to see them gamble with Osweiler in a high-leverage, mid-season moment to see if he can too. If he can, then Osweiler is the guy from here on out, IMO, because then you can run the conservative, Kubiak-style offense knowing you have the explosive offense available to you should you need it, without the drama of having to bring in Manning as some sort of closer.

And, yes, before its thrown back at me, this is not the offense I would run in today's football, but I can live with it if it's winning games.