Bill Polian explosive interview on WFAN (1 Viewer)

[brobe4]

The Mr Bill show in Indy has just heated up last sundays game changed things in Indiana now lets see how he handles this.My quess two years gone see you.He has done a good job, but the hype has been so big and the results just decent.

 

[Pat Patriot]

You want your team leader, your QB, to take the blame WHETHER HE DESERVES IT OR NOT. Tom Brady was about as cool about the loss as I've seen a QB under the spotlight. The guy blamed himself and [correctly] suggested that while the team as a whole fell short, he didn't play at the level he expects of himself or that his teammates have come to expect.

Agreed, Jason. He would have been tons better off to not even talk to the press after the game. Or at least to just say the stock thing like Jason says above. What I find interesting in all this is that if Nick Harper cuts to the right, Manning plays the same exact game and none of this is an issue. He suddenly is the courageous guy that waved off the punt team and then stood in there tough to make the gutsy pass on 4th and 2 and then the long TD to rally his team back into contention.

Same exact performance.

That's why it's best to watch the games yourself vs put a lot of stock in what fans say in the post game discussion. Although I'm interested in it because it interests me how people perceive things.

J

Joe,Are you saying that you think Manning had a good game and did enough to carry his team to victory?

I disagree with you to an extent. If Harper had scored, I think the story would have been the bad call on the interception and how the Colts won on a fluke. I dont think anybody would have been lauding Manning's performance. At that point, the pressure would have been off Manning because it would have moved to Bettis for the fumbloe and Cowher for the conservative offense in the 2nd half. I dont think anyone would have been talking about how well Manning played.

I think Brady, although he played poorly, played much better than Manning while withstanding just as big a rush against the Broncos. The Broncos blitzed every play and knocked the crap out of Brady but he stood in there and made some plays.

If you are Peyton Manning, you can not start the game with 4 consecutive 3 and outs while your team is falling behind 14-0.

Yes Brady was terrific with his 2 interceptions and i believe they also had close to the same completion percentage. Also wasn't Brady pretty bad in the first half only leading his team to 3 points? He was 7-15 or something like that in the first half.

Did I say he played great? NO. He and Manning both were poor. And Manning put up more points so who was worse is debatable. What I was trying to point out is an inherent difference in the way they play the game. Brady was not sacked and took some hellacious hits from the Denver D to get passes off and complete them. On each of Mannings sacks, he basically turned his back on the hit and cushioned himself from the blow. Even with the tremendous rush that the Steelers put on, I dont remember them getting many direct hits to Manning's chest while he was completing passes down the field.Do you disagree with the above?

 

[gilpdawg]

Isn't Polian they guy who got into it with Kiper many years ago at the draft?

I thought that was Tobin.At any rate, I did not catch the interview, but I did catch the game. If Polian says it's the line, is it that hard to believe? I know Manning calls a lot of the protections, but I'm sure that whichever one he called for didn't mean that Tarik Glenn should turn his back on Joey Porter, and then not block anyone, which is what happend on that 4th down play.

Manning has plenty of valid questions about himself that need to be answered, but there was plenty of blame to go around for the Colts. Dungy, Moore, the line, especially Glenn (you, sir, are useless).

It was Bill Tobin. Polian replaced Tobin a couple of years before Dungy came. The Tobin thing was in 94 (Faulk, Dilfer, Trev Alberts draft).

 

[Facenda's Voice]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

 

[brobe4]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

Here in Indy most people I know believe Manning will not win a superbowl.He may prove us wrong which we would love for him to do, but we have see the happy feet and the playing calling enough not to stick are heads in the sand anymore.We will still be rooting for him and are colts, but will not buy into the hype of the colts machine.

 

[Jason Wood]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

Here in Indy most people I know believe Manning will not win a superbowl.He may prove us wrong which we would love for him to do, but we have see the happy feet and the playing calling enough not to stick are heads in the sand anymore.We will still be rooting for him and are colts, but will not buy into the hype of the colts machine.

To be fair local fans are usually toughest on their own. In Philly a great many people believe McNabb can't win the "big game" too. In fact, just two weeks ago WIP [the big sports radio station in Philly] had a poll "would you trade McNabb for the chance to draft Matt Leinart" and more than 70% of the respondents said YES.

 

[brobe4]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

Here in Indy most people I know believe Manning will not win a superbowl.He may prove us wrong which we would love for him to do, but we have see the happy feet and the playing calling enough not to stick are heads in the sand anymore.We will still be rooting for him and are colts, but will not buy into the hype of the colts machine.

To be fair local fans are usually toughest on their own. In Philly a great many people believe McNabb can't win the "big game" too. In fact, just two weeks ago WIP [the big sports radio station in Philly] had a poll "would you trade McNabb for the chance to draft Matt Leinart" and more than 70% of the respondents said YES.

After 8 years or more they may be right. Fans always want there team to be champs. I know the teams I root for the odds are not good Colts,cubs oh my.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

Here in Indy most people I know believe Manning will not win a superbowl.He may prove us wrong which we would love for him to do, but we have see the happy feet and the playing calling enough not to stick are heads in the sand anymore.We will still be rooting for him and are colts, but will not buy into the hype of the colts machine.

To be fair local fans are usually toughest on their own. In Philly a great many people believe McNabb can't win the "big game" too. In fact, just two weeks ago WIP [the big sports radio station in Philly] had a poll "would you trade McNabb for the chance to draft Matt Leinart" and more than 70% of the respondents said YES.

Obviously a trade of McNabb for Leinart would be a step back and move towards rebuilding. Do you think Leinart will have a much worse career than McNabb, a similar career to McNabb, or a much better career than McNabb?

 

[houndirish]

As an NFC East guy, I'd love to see Philly part ways with McNabb. I don't like facing him twice a year. If it meant the Eagles got an untested NFL QB that likely takes a minimum of two seasons to groom? All the better.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In fact, just two weeks ago WIP [the big sports radio station in Philly] had a poll "would you trade McNabb for the chance to draft Matt Leinart" and more than 70% of the respondents said YES.

Thanks Jason. This is exactly the kind of mentality I'm talking about. With you on the J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

 

[djcolts]

What bothered me about Manning's performance can be summed up on the last 3rd and 2. Why in the world was there not a play to try to get a few yards to get the 1st down - instead of trying a low percentage pass. The Colts still have 2 TOs left, and with a simple completion for short yardage they would have had 20+ seconds left with a TO, and 4 fresh downs.If you want a difference between Brady and Manning - that play was it in a nutshell - Brady would have gotten a 1st down because he would have run a play to get it. That 3rd down was inexcusable in my book, and demonstrated the problem the Colts offfense had all game long.

 

[TheLaw]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

But the fact that the INT was overturned played a huge role in Mannings statistics. 1) Obviously there should have been an INT; 2) He would have had less yards (arguably the colts may not have even gotten the ball back); 3) the overturned pick itself seemed to have the Pitt D flustered for a bit allowing that scoring drive; 4) I doubt the perception is different for the average fan, as the INT call would have tainted this game to an extreme and people would be saying it WAS fixed and Manning needed all the help he could get. 5) Had Harper cut to the outside, Ben may have still gotten him as Ben actually was running towards the sideline and some how contorted his body and dove when making the tackle.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

But the fact that the INT was overturned played a huge role in Mannings statistics. 1) Obviously there should have been an INT; 2) He would have had less yards (arguably the colts may not have even gotten the ball back); 3) the overturned pick itself seemed to have the Pitt D flustered for a bit allowing that scoring drive; 4) I doubt the perception is different for the average fan, as the INT call would have tainted this game to an extreme and people would be saying it WAS fixed and Manning needed all the help he could get. 5) Had Harper cut to the outside, Ben may have still gotten him as Ben actually was running towards the sideline and some how contorted his body and dove when making the tackle.

Hi law,Sure, anything is possible to speculate on what possibly could have happened. Indy held the Steelers to 4 plays and a punt after the score though so it's pretty clear they could have gotten the ball back. Maybe again and they onside kick. Again, that's gets very speculutive real fast.

I like Ben Roethlisberger a lot but I don't think there is any way in the world he catches Harper if he cuts to the right. He nearly blew a knee falling down to make the tackle he did. I think it was Miller that mighth have had the better shot. But either way, Harper could have easily scored there or Vanderjagt makes the FG like he usually does and I do believe we'd be having a totally different discussion about how Manning played and it would have been the exact same game from him.

J

 

[Jason Wood]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

Here in Indy most people I know believe Manning will not win a superbowl.He may prove us wrong which we would love for him to do, but we have see the happy feet and the playing calling enough not to stick are heads in the sand anymore.We will still be rooting for him and are colts, but will not buy into the hype of the colts machine.

To be fair local fans are usually toughest on their own. In Philly a great many people believe McNabb can't win the "big game" too. In fact, just two weeks ago WIP [the big sports radio station in Philly] had a poll "would you trade McNabb for the chance to draft Matt Leinart" and more than 70% of the respondents said YES.

Obviously a trade of McNabb for Leinart would be a step back and move towards rebuilding. Do you think Leinart will have a much worse career than McNabb, a similar career to McNabb, or a much better career than McNabb?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Assuming McNabb is healthy, he's a 5-time Pro Bowler who is among the five or six best QBs in the league, period. Is he in the class of Manning or Brady? Of course not, at least he's not done enough to warrant that consideration.But would I trade a guy who a) is the heart and soul of the team, b) has a mastery of Andy Reid's complex offense, and c) absolutely is capable of winning the Super Bowl for a young promising QB who may or may not be good/great/terrible? Of course not, that's stupidity.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

Here in Indy most people I know believe Manning will not win a superbowl.He may prove us wrong which we would love for him to do, but we have see the happy feet and the playing calling enough not to stick are heads in the sand anymore.We will still be rooting for him and are colts, but will not buy into the hype of the colts machine.

To be fair local fans are usually toughest on their own. In Philly a great many people believe McNabb can't win the "big game" too. In fact, just two weeks ago WIP [the big sports radio station in Philly] had a poll "would you trade McNabb for the chance to draft Matt Leinart" and more than 70% of the respondents said YES.

Obviously a trade of McNabb for Leinart would be a step back and move towards rebuilding. Do you think Leinart will have a much worse career than McNabb, a similar career to McNabb, or a much better career than McNabb?

If I'm Matt Leinart and you offered me the choice of having Donovan McNabb's career for sure vs rolling the dice and see how it played out, I'd be a raving idiot to not take McNabb's career. I think the upside to what Lienart can do is have a McNabb type career. The very upside.The more I think about it, Leinart should do double back flips if he can turn out as good as McNabb has. Maybe triple.

J

 

[Kub]

Joe,

While the comparison to Alex Smith was the attention getter, Jimmy Johnson actually had some serious critiques of the Colts offense. If you have the time to spare, it is well worth the listen: Link to Mike and the MadDog audio clips

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe,

While the comparison to Alex Smith was the attention getter, Jimmy Johnson actually had some serious critiques of the Colts offense. If you have the time to spare, it is well worth the listen: Link to Mike and the MadDog audio clips

Thanks Kub,I may check that out if I have time. But honestly, once he says something that stupid on the topic, I have a hard time putting much stock in anything else he says on the subject.

I do like Jimmy Johnson though. His "Turning the Thing Around" book is very good.

J

 

[ICON211]

If I was Polian, I just sit silent until they ask a more professioanl question.  Why go off the deep end?

Polian was put in a position...and it's not his fault he was put there...that would have a lot of us pulling out our hair and acting like jerks in the national media.He did what he was paid to: put together a hell of a team. But in doing so, he unwittingly drafted the QB who became the NFL's (and media's) darling, their chosen one, their symbol of all that is good and wholesome and successful in the world of sports. And because of that, expectations are unnaturally high. When other talented teams come up short a few times, it's the headline of the local sports page. When Manning and the Colts do it, it's national front page news.

And as always happens in pro sports, blame trickles up. The Colts as a whole can escape the spotlight, but it falls squarely on Manning, Dungy, and Polian, and the media guys come looking for answers. Why, oh why isn't it working right?

And he'd be perfectly justified in saying to them, "It is working right. I built a damn fine team and we had a damn fine season." But that doesn't cut it when your team is led by a media darling. So Polian, for having had the good sense to lock up his Golden Boy for a long time, is subject to incredible pressure and scrutiny that others in his position probably wouldn't face. I can't say I blame him for going a little bit loony.

I also can't say the meltdown isn't kind of fun to watch.

Starting 13-0 in dominating fashion then going one and done in the playoffs is not acceptable. Asking a team that was 14-2 to win a playoff game is not having unnaturally high expectations.

 

[TheLaw]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

But the fact that the INT was overturned played a huge role in Mannings statistics. 1) Obviously there should have been an INT; 2) He would have had less yards (arguably the colts may not have even gotten the ball back); 3) the overturned pick itself seemed to have the Pitt D flustered for a bit allowing that scoring drive; 4) I doubt the perception is different for the average fan, as the INT call would have tainted this game to an extreme and people would be saying it WAS fixed and Manning needed all the help he could get. 5) Had Harper cut to the outside, Ben may have still gotten him as Ben actually was running towards the sideline and some how contorted his body and dove when making the tackle.

Hi law,Sure, anything is possible to speculate on what possibly could have happened. Indy held the Steelers to 4 plays and a punt after the score though so it's pretty clear they could have gotten the ball back. Maybe again and they onside kick. Again, that's gets very speculutive real fast.

I like Ben Roethlisberger a lot but I don't think there is any way in the world he catches Harper if he cuts to the right. He nearly blew a knee falling down to make the tackle he did. I think it was Miller that mighth have had the better shot. But either way, Harper could have easily scored there or Vanderjagt makes the FG like he usually does and I do believe we'd be having a totally different discussion about how Manning played and it would have been the exact same game from him.

J

Agree to disagree. That pick gives the Steelers the ball at the 50 with 5:33 left in the game. The Steelers have all the momentum at that point, instead of the Colts. Manning's numbers would have been 18/34 for 237 1TD and 1INT. Instead of an 80 yard TD drive and 2pt conversion, he actually killed the team with an INT. The INT happened, you cant really say he played well . . . he was lucky to have that drive at all.

As for the tackle, I know he nearly blew a knew making the tackle . . . I thought Harper was going to run through it . . . Ben was actually running towards the sideline at first so I'm not so sure he doesnt still slow him down prior to Miller or Fanaca or whomever was there.

 

[ICON211]

I think that the criticism of the Oline is fair. I even thought I read that while Peyton was in front of the cameras talking about the Oline, the linemen were in the locker room talking about how poorly they played.

I don't see the big deal. As has been said 499 times since Sunday, why do we get mad when players use cliched answers and then get similarly mad when they tell the truth?

Leaders take the blame if they deserve it or not. I didn't hear Peyton take any of the blame whatsoever and he deserved plenty. All the great QBs throughout history take responsibility for losses and do not throw their teammates under the bus. Manning is not a leader and never will be. He is a very talented QB with no leadership ability and that equals a 3-6 playoff record.

 

[saintfool]

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

I have to think that, if Wayne and/or James leave through FA, the offense might be very different than it has been. Harrison is still very effective but seems less vital to the offense somehow. If the Colts re-tool the offense to a more conventional style (because of rookies or less blue-chip FA talent replacements) then Manning may not feel like he has to win the game.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Agree to disagree.

That's cool, law. That's what this board is for. Thanks for the good discussion.J

 

[harrycarey]

You want your team leader, your QB, to take the blame WHETHER HE DESERVES IT OR NOT. Tom Brady was about as cool about the loss as I've seen a QB under the spotlight. The guy blamed himself and [correctly] suggested that while the team as a whole fell short, he didn't play at the level he expects of himself or that his teammates have come to expect.

Agreed, Jason. He would have been tons better off to not even talk to the press after the game. Or at least to just say the stock thing like Jason says above. What I find interesting in all this is that if Nick Harper cuts to the right, Manning plays the same exact game and none of this is an issue. He suddenly is the courageous guy that waved off the punt team and then stood in there tough to make the gutsy pass on 4th and 2 and then the long TD to rally his team back into contention.

Same exact performance.

That's why it's best to watch the games yourself vs put a lot of stock in what fans say in the post game discussion. Although I'm interested in it because it interests me how people perceive things.

J

Joe,Are you saying that you think Manning had a good game and did enough to carry his team to victory?

I disagree with you to an extent. If Harper had scored, I think the story would have been the bad call on the interception and how the Colts won on a fluke. I dont think anybody would have been lauding Manning's performance. At that point, the pressure would have been off Manning because it would have moved to Bettis for the fumbloe and Cowher for the conservative offense in the 2nd half. I dont think anyone would have been talking about how well Manning played.

I think Brady, although he played poorly, played much better than Manning while withstanding just as big a rush against the Broncos. The Broncos blitzed every play and knocked the crap out of Brady but he stood in there and made some plays.

If you are Peyton Manning, you can not start the game with 4 consecutive 3 and outs while your team is falling behind 14-0.

Yes Brady was terrific with his 2 interceptions and i believe they also had close to the same completion percentage. Also wasn't Brady pretty bad in the first half only leading his team to 3 points? He was 7-15 or something like that in the first half.

Did I say he played great? NO. He and Manning both were poor. And Manning put up more points so who was worse is debatable. What I was trying to point out is an inherent difference in the way they play the game. Brady was not sacked and took some hellacious hits from the Denver D to get passes off and complete them. On each of Mannings sacks, he basically turned his back on the hit and cushioned himself from the blow. Even with the tremendous rush that the Steelers put on, I dont remember them getting many direct hits to Manning's chest while he was completing passes down the field.Do you disagree with the above?

The blitzes they faced were different i believe. The broncos were showing right away for the most part and sending the house which gives the qb one option because a wr will adjust his route and be open so Brady knew if he stood in there for a second or 2 he had a target to hit.. Pittsburgh was blitzing 5 or 6 it seemed.. often delayed and sending that many leaves people in coverage. Also on the sacks were "manning turned his back and cushioned his fall he first rolled out or backed out to buy more time and perhaps didn't want to force anything. I can see how your point can be made and maybe i didn't explain these thoughts well enough but i think there is some validity to the types of blitzes faced. (during the Pats game phil simms or whoever was doing the game kept saying that the broncos blitzes dictated where the qb would through the ball because they were sending so many that there would be a hole open.

 

[RBM]

I think that the criticism of the Oline is fair. I even thought I read that while Peyton was in front of the cameras talking about the Oline, the linemen were in the locker room talking about how poorly they played.

I don't see the big deal. As has been said 499 times since Sunday, why do we get mad when players use cliched answers and then get similarly mad when they tell the truth?

Leaders take the blame if they deserve it or not. I didn't hear Peyton take any of the blame whatsoever and he deserved plenty. All the great QBs throughout history take responsibility for losses and do not throw their teammates under the bus. Manning is not a leader and never will be. He is a very talented QB with no leadership ability and that equals a 3-6 playoff record.

Exactly. Im sure the o-line couldve taken a shot at Peyton, because Im sure everybody in that locker room knew he played poorly. When you're a good teammate, stick to critiquing your own play.

 

[Green Apple Splatter]

Polian doesn't take any crap from anyone. Way to go Bill

 

[nygiants56]

It looks like things could get real ugly in Indy this offseason. If they don't get this finger-pointing fixed before next year it could be a long season for the Colts.

yep!!lets face it, they play the eaisest division in football, where they are 20-4 since realignment..hard to miss the playoffs with these 6 easy wins every year!!!

 

[ICON211]

Polian doesn't take any crap from anyone. Way to go Bill

Except from his QB who he is afraid to say one remotely negative thing about.

 

[Jason Wood]

Polian doesn't take any crap from anyone.  Way to go Bill 

Except from his QB who he is afraid to say one remotely negative thing about.

Exactly...a GM shouldn't be afraid to cast a critical review of a failed season, and no one, himself included, should fall short of that criticism. Polian didn't have to say "Peyton sucked" obviously but he CERTAINLY comes of as disingenous by suggesting that at 13-0 the team really wasn't as good as many believed in the first place.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It looks like things could get real ugly in Indy this offseason.  If they don't get this finger-pointing fixed before next year it could be a long season for the Colts.

yep!!lets face it, they play the eaisest division in football, where they are 20-4 since realignment..hard to miss the playoffs with these 6 easy wins every year!!!

Hi nyg,Granted Houston's awful and Tennessee is down but having 12-4 Jacksonville makes this the "easiest division in football"?

Easier than New England's with Miami, Buffalo and the Jets?

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Question on Polian saying his 13-0 team wasn't as good as people thought - Why is this hard to believe?Obviously, he's right - they weren't as good as people thought. And at the time, people were saying this was an all time great team at 13-0. That obviously wasn't the case.I heard him on the radio about the time they were 10-0 and he was pretty open saying the team definitely had a weakness but he laughed saying he wasn't going to talk about it and expose what it was.Why is it hard to think in this day and age when everything has to be the greatest or worst ever that it was any different with the 13-0 Colts?J

 

[djcolts]

Polian doesn't take any crap from anyone.  Way to go Bill 

Except from his QB who he is afraid to say one remotely negative thing about.

Exactly...a GM shouldn't be afraid to cast a critical review of a failed season, and no one, himself included, should fall short of that criticism. Polian didn't have to say "Peyton sucked" obviously but he CERTAINLY comes of as disingenous by suggesting that at 13-0 the team really wasn't as good as many believed in the first place.

Listening to the Bill Polian show week after week - it is clear to me that he goes out of his way to criticize Edge and out of his way to deflect Peyton's mistakes.

 

[Wadsworth]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

Hi Wads,Yes. Sure there will always be criticism. But I think if they'd won, the talk would be how he was clutch in coming up with two long touchdown drives in the 4th quarter and producing points when it counted in the 4th quarter when the game was on the line.

I think that's pretty clear. Of course he could have done even more and scored even more points. But two 4th quarter TDs under pressure are facts. And I think that's what the talk would be.

J

 

[Green Apple Splatter]

I'm sure those offensive linemen are highly motivated to keep Peyton's tush off the carpet now.

Get rid of the OL who want to be somewhere else.

 

[djcolts]

Indianapolis Star's Bob Kravitz's report card

F

PASS OFFENSE

Hey, don't tell me about statistics. Don't give me 22-for-38 for 290 yards. Means nothing. Peyton Manning was awful, and even if he was right about his offensive line's miserable performance Sunday, he was out of line in the postgame news conference when he laid some of the blame at their door. I like the guy and admire what he's done, but it's impossible to defend him from the long-held criticisms. At a point in the game when legends are forged, when a John Elway leads a drive or a Tom Brady pulls a rabbit out of a hat, Manning was found wanting.

I agree with Kravitz - it hurts me to say it, but I have to call a spade a spade.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Thanks Jason for clarifying.  JJ was making the comparison of Veteran to Rookie using Alex Smith as the rookie.  Obviously a stretch on JJ's part.

Yep...but JJ's earlier comments were in stark contrast to Polian's viewpoints. And unlike Mike and the Mad Dog [who Polian dismissed as guys who don't understand the game of football], JJ CLEARLY understands football. Bottom line, JJ confirmed what many of us saw with our own eyes, Manning simply didn't play well relative to expectations. Certainly they Colts didn't lose solely because of Manning, but he darn sure played a role in the loss.

YES he did, but so did the coaches for not preparing for the 3-4 defense. They had no clue as to what protection and coverages to do when presented with it. (Manning included because he calls the protection). It has already happened with Baltimore (lucky to win), NE (history is evident), and now Pittsburgh. This isn't rocket science. My feeling is that if Manning solves this puzzle he will win one.

Here in Indy most people I know believe Manning will not win a superbowl.He may prove us wrong which we would love for him to do, but we have see the happy feet and the playing calling enough not to stick are heads in the sand anymore.We will still be rooting for him and are colts, but will not buy into the hype of the colts machine.

To be fair local fans are usually toughest on their own. In Philly a great many people believe McNabb can't win the "big game" too. In fact, just two weeks ago WIP [the big sports radio station in Philly] had a poll "would you trade McNabb for the chance to draft Matt Leinart" and more than 70% of the respondents said YES.

Obviously a trade of McNabb for Leinart would be a step back and move towards rebuilding. Do you think Leinart will have a much worse career than McNabb, a similar career to McNabb, or a much better career than McNabb?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Assuming McNabb is healthy, he's a 5-time Pro Bowler who is among the five or six best QBs in the league, period. Is he in the class of Manning or Brady? Of course not, at least he's not done enough to warrant that consideration.But would I trade a guy who a) is the heart and soul of the team, b) has a mastery of Andy Reid's complex offense, and c) absolutely is capable of winning the Super Bowl for a young promising QB who may or may not be good/great/terrible? Of course not, that's stupidity.

Jason,I dont disagree with you. I was just posing the question. I think it is obvious that some of the shine since last year has come off of Matt Leinart. Also, many here in Philadelphia feel that McNabb will not be able to get over the hump and lead the Eagles to a championship.

I think the bolded statement above should be WAS. The McNabb/TO feud really divided the Eagle team last year. McNabb has not helped himself with his retort to the leader of the Philly NAACP "Its funny how anyone who crosses me gets fired (Limbaugh and TO)." Those comments did not go over well here in Philly.

There is a reason that 70% of the respondents to that poll chose Leinart (besides stupidity), McNabb is not very popular here right now with the fans and reputedly with his some of his teammates.

 

[harrycarey]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

So you didn't see anything clutch about him waving off the punt team and converting a fourth down in his own territory or getting his team in position to tie the game after being down 21-3 to start the 4th? They are in a dome so if you get the ball to the 28 yard line you think you are in good shape field goal wise and take some shots down field.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

Hi Wads,Yes. Sure there will always be criticism. But I think if they'd won, the talk would be how he was clutch in coming up with two long touchdown drives in the 4th quarter and producing points when it counted in the 4th quarter when the game was on the line.

I think that's pretty clear. Of course he could have done even more and scored even more points. But two 4th quarter TDs under pressure are facts. And I think that's what the talk would be.

J

Joe,I know you like Manning but in your scenario, you dont think ALL of the talk would have been about the REF's non-interception call? Hell, the Steelers still won and people have been talking about that call for 4 days. If the Colts would have STOLEN that game from the Steelers, the talk would not have been about how CLUTCH Manning was.

 

[Jason Wood]

It looks like things could get real ugly in Indy this offseason.  If they don't get this finger-pointing fixed before next year it could be a long season for the Colts.

yep!!lets face it, they play the eaisest division in football, where they are 20-4 since realignment..hard to miss the playoffs with these 6 easy wins every year!!!

Hi nyg,Granted Houston's awful and Tennessee is down but having 12-4 Jacksonville makes this the "easiest division in football"?

Easier than New England's with Miami, Buffalo and the Jets?

J

Last year the NFC East was the "easiest division in football" and that belief played a big part in the consensus view that Philly would run rough shod over the rest of the NFC this year. Last year Philly went 6-0 in the NFC East and all three other teams finished 6-10. This year the NFC East "doormats" went 11-5, 10-6 and 9-7 while the Eagles went 0-6 in the division.

Things change in the NFL in a HURRY.

Frankly, I would think the NFC North and NFC West have a much better case to be labeled the worst divisions in football heading into 2006, but that's a debate for another time.

 

[ICON211]

Joe,

I know you like Manning but in your scenario, you dont think ALL of the talk would have been about the REF's non-interception call? Hell, the Steelers still won and people have been talking about that call for 4 days. If the Colts would have STOLEN that game from the Steelers, the talk would not have been about how CLUTCH Manning was.

The Colts and Manning would be viewed as thieves not heroes, and rightly so had they won that game.

 

[houndirish]

It looks like things could get real ugly in Indy this offseason.  If they don't get this finger-pointing fixed before next year it could be a long season for the Colts.

yep!!lets face it, they play the eaisest division in football, where they are 20-4 since realignment..hard to miss the playoffs with these 6 easy wins every year!!!

Hi nyg,Granted Houston's awful and Tennessee is down but having 12-4 Jacksonville makes this the "easiest division in football"?

Easier than New England's with Miami, Buffalo and the Jets?

J

How can anybody NOT pick the NFC West as the worst division in football. Seems like forever since there's been two good teams in that division. Dating back to the Niners dynasty there's one big dog and a lot of puppies. Last year (04) there wasn't even a big dog!

 

[houndirish]

It looks like things could get real ugly in Indy this offseason.  If they don't get this finger-pointing fixed before next year it could be a long season for the Colts.

yep!!lets face it, they play the eaisest division in football, where they are 20-4 since realignment..hard to miss the playoffs with these 6 easy wins every year!!!

Hi nyg,Granted Houston's awful and Tennessee is down but having 12-4 Jacksonville makes this the "easiest division in football"?

Easier than New England's with Miami, Buffalo and the Jets?

J

Last year the NFC East was the "easiest division in football" and that belief played a big part in the consensus view that Philly would run rough shod over the rest of the NFC this year. Last year Philly went 6-0 in the NFC East and all three other teams finished 6-10. This year the NFC East "doormats" went 11-5, 10-6 and 9-7 while the Eagles went 0-6 in the division.

Things change in the NFL in a HURRY.

Frankly, I would think the NFC North and NFC West have a much better case to be labeled the worst divisions in football heading into 2006, but that's a debate for another time.

Once again I point towards the NFC West as the easy division. In '04 they didn't have a single team finish above .500. The East may have been top heavy but at least it had one dominant team. The West had nothing.

 

[Wadsworth]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

So you didn't see anything clutch about him waving off the punt team and converting a fourth down in his own territory or getting his team in position to tie the game after being down 21-3 to start the 4th? They are in a dome so if you get the ball to the 28 yard line you think you are in good shape field goal wise and take some shots down field.

I keep hearing that Dungy made that 4th down call and that peyton was just doing what they told him to do in his headset. If Dungy did call for a punt and peyton ignored it then there would be a lot more to tall about. If you want to hang your season on a 46 yard field goal to tie when you only need 2 yards for a first down and have times out left then more power to you. Peyton went for it deep and missed, is that clutch? He took his shot at being the hero and missed. And he's still clutch?

He threw an INT when down 11 points in the 4th. He took a sack on 4th down which should have ended the game. How bad does he have to play to not be "clutch"?

 

[djcolts]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

So you didn't see anything clutch about him waving off the punt team and converting a fourth down in his own territory or getting his team in position to tie the game after being down 21-3 to start the 4th? They are in a dome so if you get the ball to the 28 yard line you think you are in good shape field goal wise and take some shots down field.

I keep hearing that Dungy made that 4th down call and that peyton was just doing what they told him to do in his headset. If Dungy did call for a punt and peyton ignored it then there would be a lot more to tall about. If you want to hang your season on a 46 yard field goal to tie when you only need 2 yards for a first down and have times out left then more power to you. Peyton went for it deep and missed, is that clutch? He took his shot at being the hero and missed. And he's still clutch?

He threw an INT when down 11 points in the 4th. He took a sack on 4th down which should have ended the game. How bad does he have to play to not be "clutch"?

Wadsworth is right. I'd go as far as to say that Manning's peformance on Sunday was as bad as his 4 INT performance at NE two years ago - in spite of the stats. He was THAT bad.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

So you didn't see anything clutch about him waving off the punt team and converting a fourth down in his own territory or getting his team in position to tie the game after being down 21-3 to start the 4th? They are in a dome so if you get the ball to the 28 yard line you think you are in good shape field goal wise and take some shots down field.

I keep hearing that Dungy made that 4th down call and that peyton was just doing what they told him to do in his headset. If Dungy did call for a punt and peyton ignored it then there would be a lot more to tall about. If you want to hang your season on a 46 yard field goal to tie when you only need 2 yards for a first down and have times out left then more power to you. Peyton went for it deep and missed, is that clutch? He took his shot at being the hero and missed. And he's still clutch?

He threw an INT when down 11 points in the 4th. He took a sack on 4th down which should have ended the game. How bad does he have to play to not be "clutch"?

Hi wads,You're missing what I'm writing. I realize you can't see anything clutch about his play. I happen to. Clutch was leading his team on team on a 73 yard TD drive in the 4th quarter. Clutch was leading his team on an 80 yard TD drive in the 4th quarter. Clutch was converting 4th and 2 from his own 36 with :06 left in the 3rd quarter with a 13 yard pass to Stokley. Clutch was converting 3rd and 1 from midfield with a 20 yard pass to Harrison. You can choose to ignore those if you like. I just happened to watch the game and see it.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying he played a great game or that his overall performance was clutch. He didn't and it wasn't. He was 22 of 38 with 290 yards and a TD. Absolutely not great. And he absolutely could have done a lot more to help his team win. I'm just saying that if they'd won, the talk would be about the good things he did, and I'd absolutely call two big 4th quarter TDs and waving off the punt team and converting with a pass on 4th and 2 clutch things.

J

 

[harrycarey]

Joe didnt really answer my question but it appears that he feels Manning played well and would have been praised as a courageous performance

Yes. Absolutely.He obviously wasn't great. And he obviously could have done things that would have helped his team win. He'll be the first to agree with that. But two 4th quarter long TD drives with 22 of 38 for 290 yards with 1 TD and no interceptions (should have been 1) did not lose the game.

If Harper cuts right or Vanderjagt makes that 46 yard FG and Indy won in OT, the talk would absolutely be how he came up clutch in the 4th Quarter calling off the punt team and making the clutch 4th down pass conversion and leading his team to two touchdowns on drives of 72 and 80 yards and showing how he handled the pressure when the game was on the line yada yada.

It would have been the same exact performance from him and the perception from the average fan would be totally different based on Nick Harper making one cut. That's what I find fascinating.

If it's and buts were candy and nuts though is how the saying goes.

J

Hey Joe,Wow.. If the colts won that game on the Harper return or in OT after a FG, any talk of Manning's play would have been at best page 6 on the sports page. The first 5 pages would be filled with talk of the Bettis fumble, Troy's INT, who shot JFK and is he an NFL ref now...

Manning had two chances to be a hero. On one the colts turned it over on downs with peyton going fetal on two sacks, one of them on fourth down when he had nothing to lose by throwing up a prayer and didn't even get a pass off. Did it never cross his mind that the Steeler might blitz and his O-line might not pick it up? He went fetal on fourth down at his own two yard line when a turnover on down should have meant the end of the season for the colts. That's coming up clutch?

By the grace of some football Gods the colts did get the ball back. He got another chance to be a hero. He had plenty of time with the time outs they had remaining the best the colts offense could manage was a 46 yard FG try for a tie.

I didn't see anything clutch about his play. There is no excuse for a QB going fetal and taking a sack on fourth down in that situation. I understand that he didn't have much time but don't you think with the success the Steelers were having with the blitz he should have considered what he'd do if someone came untouched at him. At least get the ball in the air. Even an incomplete pass keeps the ball off the 2 yard line on the turnover on downs and with the time outs you might hold Pitt to a FG.

So you didn't see anything clutch about him waving off the punt team and converting a fourth down in his own territory or getting his team in position to tie the game after being down 21-3 to start the 4th? They are in a dome so if you get the ball to the 28 yard line you think you are in good shape field goal wise and take some shots down field.

I keep hearing that Dungy made that 4th down call and that peyton was just doing what they told him to do in his headset. If Dungy did call for a punt and peyton ignored it then there would be a lot more to tall about. If you want to hang your season on a 46 yard field goal to tie when you only need 2 yards for a first down and have times out left then more power to you. Peyton went for it deep and missed, is that clutch? He took his shot at being the hero and missed. And he's still clutch?

He threw an INT when down 11 points in the 4th. He took a sack on 4th down which should have ended the game. How bad does he have to play to not be "clutch"?

Hi wads,You're missing what I'm writing. I realize you can't see anything clutch about his play. I happen to. Clutch was leading his team on team on a 73 yard TD drive in the 4th quarter. Clutch was leading his team on an 80 yard TD drive in the 4th quarter. Clutch was converting 4th and 2 from his own 36 with :06 left in the 3rd quarter with a 13 yard pass to Stokley. Clutch was converting 3rd and 1 from midfield with a 20 yard pass to Harrison. You can choose to ignore those if you like. I just happened to watch the game and see it.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying he played a great game or that his overall performance was clutch. He didn't and it wasn't. He was 22 of 38 with 290 yards and a TD. Absolutely not great. And he absolutely could have done a lot more to help his team win. I'm just saying that if they'd won, the talk would be about the good things he did, and I'd absolutely call two big 4th quarter TDs and waving off the punt team and converting with a pass on 4th and 2 clutch things.

J

but remember Joe.. Peyton Manning can do nothing right and Tom Brady can do nothing wrong according to most posters. I still can't figure out how a qb rating of 90 can be made into one of the worst performances ever by some people. I know numbers aren't everything but I thought the 4th quarter comeback from down 21-3, waving off the punt team, etc was what people defined clutch as. If the colts had run the ball on the last drive on 2nd and 2 or third and 2 or thrown little dump offs people would be saying he is afraid to make a mistake and too conservative.

 

[Wadsworth]

Just so I'm clear, did Dungy call for the punt and peyton waved them off?Or was it that Dungy wanted to go on 4th down and was sending in the play and the punt team ran out on the field out of habit only to be waved off by manning because he knew they were going for it from his headset?Converting the 4th down was a big play to be sure. But I keep hearing about manning waving off the punt team when I thought it was stated that Dungy made the call.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just so I'm clear, did Dungy call for the punt and peyton waved them off?

Or was it that Dungy wanted to go on 4th down and was sending in the play and the punt team ran out on the field out of habit only to be waved off by manning because he knew they were going for it from his headset?

Converting the 4th down was a big play to be sure. But I keep hearing about manning waving off the punt team when I thought it was stated that Dungy made the call.

Hi wads,I don't know. I know Manning waved them off. I saw that. When asked about it after the game, Dungy said he was planning to go for it already.

J

 

[Pat Patriot]

Joe,I think you are completely underestimating the #### storm that would have resulted from the non-interception call if the Colts had won. That bad call would have tainted EVERYTHING that Manning did after it. They would not be glorifying Manning. They would not be killing him as bad but he would be getting bashed as the pretty boy of the NFL and he can only succeed if the NFL changes the rules and helps him out.That call was THAT big.