What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did Manning choke against the Patriots (1 Viewer)

Did he choke in the playoff game vs. the Pats?

  • Yes, he choked against the Patriots

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, but he has choked in the past

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, it's not choking, it's just getting beaten

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
This was a pure beating. It is that simple. The personnel in the Pats secondary had some players that were there to fill in for injuries but it was the great game plan of the Pat coaching staff that did the job. The third quarter offensive possession of NE was a killer. They chewed up so much clock and they scored. That was a back breaker! From a FF perspective, this will insure that Manning will be coming on strong again next year. That hunger will burn and burn and burn…

 
I was at the game and had an endzone seat, so I got a perspective on the game I've rarely had before (sideline to sideline). From my perspective, the Pats took away the sidelines and dared the Colts to go over the middle. Most of the time, it was a slant to Stokely or an over-the-top screen to Edge. Either way, the middle was open often and the receiver catching the ball got punished. I can't believe the Colts sisn't at least attempt to go deep. They may have tried once, but it was so insignificant it hardly bears mention. Continuously, the Pats rushed three and dropped 8 into coverage. If you're the Colts, aren't you prepared for this? Don't you have an adjustment within the gameplan? You have the athletes to make plays...let them try to make plays.Peyton is a heck of a QB and he probably deserved a better fate last night. His staff didn't adjust and his WRs didn't make enough plays. He didn't choke though, that much is true. Snow or no snow, the Pats were just the better team last night.Screw the comparisons between Brady and Manning or Brady and Aikman or whatever. I mean, how many great QBs actually played for perennial losers? Great QBs and great teams are generally interrelated. What if Brady played for Arizona? Seattle? What is the point of that? How do you rebut? Do you ask 'what if Aikman played for the Lions?' Pointless.Brady is a star on a team that isn't exactly chuck full of them. He's a winner, despite what the stats say. Memo to the naysayers: Deal with it! :boxing:

 
But why have they always won? Maybe it's because Brady is better than Manning (I don't think that's it, but it's possible).If you look at the talent level of the two teams, it's pretty close. It's not like Manning is the greatest player ever and is taking a poor team to play the Patriots. Manning's got a pretty good supporting cast, so he has to take some heat if he never beats the Pats.
If I could pick any QB to score as many points as possible against a bad defense, I'd pick Manning. If I could pick any QB to win a playoff game, I'd pick Brady. Do you agree with the above statements? If not, why not? If so, which is more important? If it's the latter, then why do you think Manning is the better QB?
 
One more thing to add - did anyone see Manning's head hanging down in the third quarter, when they're down by 10 and he's coming off the field shaking his head? It happened several times during the game, but that one stuck out to me because he just seemed like he was doing exactly the opposite of what I'd want a leader to do. Exactly the opposite of what he did in the Chargers game, too.

 
I want to talk about this part: "I'm sure there are plenty of people that simply will blindly say Manning has some mental block that will forever prevent him from winning the big game". I think you're right - I don't think Manning has a mental block per se. I think the problem is he hasn't adjusted to playing against top defenses yet. Maybe he will later. Maybe he won't. But I think there's a real reason this keeps happening.
Hi Bf,I guess this is what I'm talking about on the football thing. He hasn't learned to adjust to top defenses yet? Regular season stats against 3 "pretty good" :rolleyes: defenses:Baltimore: 20-33 / 249 yards / 1 TD / 0 INT / 94.1 ratingNew England 16-29 / 256 yards / 2 TD / 1 INT / 93.5 ratingSan Diego: 27-44 / 383 yards / 2 TD / 1 INT / 95.2 ratingSure, a 93 passer rating is well below his record setting 121.1 rating for the season. But are you saying a 93 passer rating shows he "hasn't adjusted to playing against top defenses yet"?J
 
But why have they always won? Maybe it's because Brady is better than Manning (I don't think that's it, but it's possible).If you look at the talent level of the two teams, it's pretty close. It's not like Manning is the greatest player ever and is taking a poor team to play the Patriots. Manning's got a pretty good supporting cast, so he has to take some heat if he never beats the Pats.
If I could pick any QB to score as many points as possible against a bad defense, I'd pick Manning. If I could pick any QB to win a playoff game, I'd pick Brady. Do you agree with the above statements? If not, why not? If so, which is more important? If it's the latter, then why do you think Manning is the better QB?
I think this game was a battle of the defenses more than anything else and the NEP defense came out on top. They played physicals bumping and jarring the WRs and shutting down EJames.QBs cannot win games alone. Even Terry Bradshaw with 4 rings will tell you it was the iron curtain and the running game.In fact, I would say the Patriots took their playbook against the Rams 01 in which they shut down Holt, Bruce and Faulk and did it again to this high scoring offense.You just bring LBs up and make it into a wrestling match and the high scoring offense is over. They also rushed manning which noone else did during the year.
 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game". But until then, he's just a "choker". As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.' Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
Ok, point taken... Tim Rattay and the Joey Harrington aren't suppoed to win anything this year so they aren't "chokers" under your definition.But next week either Brady or Rothlisberger IS going to lose, guaranteed. Now these are both excellent quarterbacks who's team and fans have come to expect winning out of them. Does that make the loser a "choker"? What about your beloved Michael Vick? If (when) the Falcons get rolled by the Eagles does that make him "choker"?Face it - someone HAS to lose. Because they do does not necessarily mean that they choked. Just that they got outplayed on that particular day. As I said before, there's no doubt that the New England game was Manning's worst of the year, and it came at the worst possible time of the year. But New England played one hell of a game. I challenge you to name ANY quarterback that could have been successful against that defense yesterday.In my mind, the definition of a "choker" is someone who's team does everything it takes to win, but that individual does something to lose the ball game. Doug Brien choked - Manning did not. The Colts as a team didn't play well enough to win that game - Manning included. He did not lose that game all by himself.
 
I want to talk about this part: "I'm sure there are plenty of people that simply will blindly say Manning has some mental block that will forever prevent him from winning the big game". I think you're right - I don't think Manning has a mental block per se. I think the problem is he hasn't adjusted to playing against top defenses yet. Maybe he will later. Maybe he won't. But I think there's a real reason this keeps happening.
Hi Bf,I guess this is what I'm talking about on the football thing. He hasn't learned to adjust to top defenses yet? Regular season stats against 3 "pretty good" :rolleyes: defenses:Baltimore: 20-33 / 249 yards / 1 TD / 0 INT / 94.1 ratingNew England 16-29 / 256 yards / 2 TD / 1 INT / 93.5 ratingSan Diego: 27-44 / 383 yards / 2 TD / 1 INT / 95.2 ratingSure, a 93 passer rating is well below his record setting 121.1 rating for the season. But are you saying a 93 passer rating shows he "hasn't adjusted to playing against top defenses yet"?J
Joe If you're saying that Manning played well in regular season games against good defenses, and loses in postseason games against (some of the same) good defenses (even the Pats who lost their corners since the first matchup), then doesn't that mean it's some combination of:1) he's choking in the playoffs2) the Patriots played up to another level in the playoffs3) the weatherNow this isn't the first time its happened - in fact there's been five times when Manning has had significantly below (his) average stats in the playoffs. He wasn't playing the Patriots all five times, and he wasn't playing in the snow all five times. So what does that leave? ThanksFred
 
I've read most of this, but not all, so I apologize if this point has been made.

When evaluating Manning in this game I think you have to consider the expectations of him. He definitly under performed in this game. When you consider that he personally accounts for a large share of their cap the onus is on him personally to deliver.

He prides himself on being able to beat whatever is shown to him.

He certainly has the talent (his own and teamates) to beat the Pats at least half the time.

Despite that he fails...consistently.

If it is not a choke, then the only reason is that he is not that good. I think he is that good therefore choke. No excuses.

To those that say he didn't choke, he just got beat by a better team that argument doesn't hold much water with me. Players are not paid to just play their best and hope they dont face anyone better then them. They are played to win. Peyton Manning in particular is paid to win as evidenced by the huge investment made in him.

 
What about the great Peyton Manning’s uncanny ability to "audible" at the line of scrimmage when he sees a weakness in the defense. Right? We hear about how prepared he his. We hear he is the hardest working QB in the game. We hear about unique abilitis at the line of scrimmage. We see him jumping, gyrating, and flapping at the line of scrimmage. Yet we didn’t see him score one lousy TD. He couldn’t audible once to a play that gave his great offense team, his great skill players, a chance for a play? Sure he can audible out of a run at the 2 yard line in order to get a TD pass against the Lions…..but when the #$%& goes down what does he do?When you get labeled as the “best” in the regular season, you must expect to get labeled a “bust” in the postseason….. when you consistently fail…

 
I think Manning is a terrific QB and I don't think "choke" is really a fair way to describe his performance yesterday.But it does bother me that people don't seem to understand that while Manning is a great QB he is not good at improvising when things don't go as planned. To me this is the essence of what makes some very good QB's great and keeps others only very good.When all the pressure is on and things don't go right how does he react? If you look at his playoff performances you can see his play has been far from great. Yes he has the misfortune to play the NE D instead of the Indy D but tuff noogy. At some point he has to make it happen and he hasn't as of yet. Manning and Brady both faced key 3rd and goal situations yesterday and both were forced to move out of the pocket. Manning threw the ball to Eugene Wilson who dropped the interception and Indy settled for 3. Brady threw a PERFECT ball to David Givens for the touchdown. IMO that was ballgame and a micrososm of the difference between the 2 qb's. It may have only been 1 game but anyone who takes an honest look at their H2H matchups can see it is a pattern.Manning is on his way to the HOF and may from a pure statistical perspective become the best NFL qb ever. But for all the marbles and all things being equal would you rather have a td machine like Manning or Marino or a make it happen guy like Montana, Favre or dare I say Brady?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Manning and Brady both faced key 3rd and goal situations yesterday and both were forced to move out of the pocket. Manning threw the ball to Eugene Wilson who dropped the interception and Indy settled for 3. Brady threw a PERFECT ball to David Givens for the touchdown. IMO that was ballgame and a micrososm of the difference between the 2 qb's. It may have only been 1 game but anyone who takes an honest look at their H2H matchups can see it is a pattern.
Exactly......thanks for pointing that out.... :thumbup: Just Win Baby
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about the great Peyton Manning’s uncanny ability to "audible" at the line of scrimmage when he sees a weakness in the defense. Right? We hear about how prepared he his. We hear he is the hardest working QB in the game. We hear about unique abilitis at the line of scrimmage. We see him jumping, gyrating, and flapping at the line of scrimmage. Yet we didn’t see him score one lousy TD. He couldn’t audible once to a play that gave his great offense team, his great skill players, a chance for a play? Sure he can audible out of a run at the 2 yard line in order to get a TD pass against the Lions…..but when the #$%& goes down what does he do?When you get labeled as the “best” in the regular season, you must expect to get labeled a “bust” in the postseason….. when you consistently fail…
The real issue here is why didn't the Colts throw down the field.....even ONCE. I don't know the answer to this. Was it because the receivers were covered? Was it visibility due to weather? Was it the consistent pressure being applied via the pass rush?Until those questions are answered, I don't think this question can be answered. Manning only "choked" in my opinion if he had opportunities downfield and somehow was too scared to go for it. I'm not sure those opportunities were there. There's a lot we don't know about what actually took place out there. It was a chess match that I don't fully comprehend.
 
I think Manning is a terrific QB and I don't think "choke" is really a fair way to describe his performance yesterday.

But it does bother me that people don't seem to understand that while Manning is a great QB he is not good at improvising when things don't go as planned. To me this is the essence of what makes some very good QB's great and keeps others only very good.

When all the pressure is on and things don't go right how does he react? If you look at his playoff performances you can see his play has been far from great. Yes he has the misfortune to play the NE D instead of the Indy D but tuff noogy. At some point he has to make it happen and he hasn't as of yet.

Manning and Brady both faced key 3rd and goal situations yesterday and both were forced to move out of the pocket. Manning threw the ball to Eugene Wilson who dropped the interception and Indy settled for 3. Brady threw a PERFECT ball to David Givens for the touchdown. IMO that was ballgame and a micrososm of the difference between the 2 qb's. It may have only been 1 game but anyone who takes an honest look at their H2H matchups can see it is a pattern.

Manning is on his way to the HOF and may from a pure statistical perspective become the best NFL qb ever. But for all the marbles and all things being equal would you rather have a td machine like Manning or Marino or a make it happen guy like Montana, Favre or dare I say Brady?
Awesome post.Part of the QB position requires the intangible of being a great leader. The Patriots respond to Brady and they will themselves to win for him. Deep down the Pats know that Brady will get the job done, because they believe in him.

Did Manning choke? Who knows? All I know was I watched Brady take his team on a pivotal 14 play, 94 yard back-breaking drive, ending in a one yard TD plunge by a Championship QB to clinch yet another huge playoff win.

Brady delivered again in a big way, because he found a way to get it done.

Regardless of the elements, defensive scheme, ability for his defense to make some stops, Manning did not generate any offensive production. Manning is responsible for getting points on the board, regardless of the situation and he did not get the job done while his counterpart did.

The Colts have Edge, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Stokley, Pollard, et al and they only got three points off a team that was playing with a converted WR at DB. Give the Pats credit, but give the Colts the blame, too.

 
If you're saying that Manning played well in regular season games against good defenses, and loses in postseason games against (some of the same) good defenses (even the Pats who lost their corners since the first matchup), then doesn't that mean it's some combination of:1) he's choking in the playoffs2) the Patriots played up to another level in the playoffs3) the weather
Hi bf,If you watched the Belichick post game stuff, he was fairly adamant it was #2 there. I think most people watching the game would agree. As far as what I'm saying, I'm saying exactly what I said above -- I heard someone say something about Manning was only good for scoring points against bad teams and couldn't adjust to good defenses. I just threw out some facts that showed he played awfully darn well this season against three great defenses. That's pretty much it.He didn't play great yesterday only throwing for 238 yards with 0 TDs and 1 INT. If his offense could have had the RB rushing for as many yards as the QB passed for (like Dillon did equaling Brady's yards) I think the game might have been differnent. If Manning could have kept up his nearly 5:1 TD:INT ratio as he did all season, it might have been different. But this is nothing like the 2004 game where Manning played "like a dog" (his words) It also wasn't like his playoff victory last week where he hung 457 yards and 4 TDs with 1 INT on Denver. (Of course that wasn't a "big" game then...)The Pats shut down the rushing game and smothered the passing game. It was a great defensive effort winning the game. That obviously equals "choke" for some people and even if I had the time to argue it, I'd never change folks minds. That's fine. I learned that trying to argue with people 10 years ago that Danny Wuerfell was a better QB than Manning would ever be. :rolleyes: We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Good luck against the Steelers.J
 
But why have they always won? Maybe it's because Brady is better than Manning (I don't think that's it, but it's possible).If you look at the talent level of the two teams, it's pretty close. It's not like Manning is the greatest player ever and is taking a poor team to play the Patriots. Manning's got a pretty good supporting cast, so he has to take some heat if he never beats the Pats.
If I could pick any QB to score as many points as possible against a bad defense, I'd pick Manning. If I could pick any QB to win a playoff game, I'd pick Brady. Do you agree with the above statements? If not, why not? If so, which is more important? If it's the latter, then why do you think Manning is the better QB?
totally agreed.
 
I'll take glee in Manning losing yet again. I could care less whether you define the loss as a choke or not. A loss is a loss and Manning has proved again that he cannot win the big game in less than ideal conditions. Say what you want about dropped balls and fumbles...Manning was playing against a secondary that was missing its player and had to resort to using a WR as a CB.

 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game".  But until then, he's just a "choker".  As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.' Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
Ok, point taken... Tim Rattay and the Joey Harrington aren't suppoed to win anything this year so they aren't "chokers" under your definition.But next week either Brady or Rothlisberger IS going to lose, guaranteed. Now these are both excellent quarterbacks who's team and fans have come to expect winning out of them. Does that make the loser a "choker"? What about your beloved Michael Vick? If (when) the Falcons get rolled by the Eagles does that make him "choker"?Face it - someone HAS to lose. Because they do does not necessarily mean that they choked. Just that they got outplayed on that particular day. As I said before, there's no doubt that the New England game was Manning's worst of the year, and it came at the worst possible time of the year. But New England played one hell of a game. I challenge you to name ANY quarterback that could have been successful against that defense yesterday.In my mind, the definition of a "choker" is someone who's team does everything it takes to win, but that individual does something to lose the ball game. Doug Brien choked - Manning did not. The Colts as a team didn't play well enough to win that game - Manning included. He did not lose that game all by himself.
"Face it - someone HAS to lose. Because they do does not necessarily mean that they choked. "Yes, I totally agree! I don't understand though- You were just saying the exact opposite. You were just saying that there is one winner and that everyone else is a choker. I didn't agree with that. I totally agree with what you're saying now.
 
He certainly has the talent (his own and teamates) to beat the Pats at least half the time.
I think you made a good overall post, so I don't like just singling out the one part I disagree with, but...I think this is totally wrong. I think that the Pats are far and away better than the Colts and have provent that time and time again. I think that if they met in the playoffs, the Pats would win 7 or 8 out of 10.
 
But it does bother me that people don't seem to understand that while Manning is a great QB he is not good at improvising when things don't go as planned. To me this is the essence of what makes some very good QB's great and keeps others only very good.
Exactly. Peyton Manning has a weakness. Just because his weakness is exploited does not mean he choked.
 
Manning and Brady both faced key 3rd and goal situations yesterday and both were forced to move out of the pocket. Manning threw the ball to Eugene Wilson who dropped the interception and Indy settled for 3. Brady threw a PERFECT ball to David Givens for the touchdown. IMO that was ballgame and a micrososm of the difference between the 2 qb's. It may have only been 1 game but anyone who takes an honest look at their H2H matchups can see it is a pattern.
Givens was WIDE open on that play. Cato June is a horrible LB and wouldn't start for any other team in the league (he blew that coverage). That doesn't excuse Manning's throw, and Brady did find him - but I'd be interested to learn if there was a wide open Colts receiver in the end zone on that 3rd and goal play.
 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game". But until then, he's just a "choker". As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.' Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
Ok, point taken... Tim Rattay and the Joey Harrington aren't suppoed to win anything this year so they aren't "chokers" under your definition.But next week either Brady or Rothlisberger IS going to lose, guaranteed. Now these are both excellent quarterbacks who's team and fans have come to expect winning out of them. Does that make the loser a "choker"? What about your beloved Michael Vick? If (when) the Falcons get rolled by the Eagles does that make him "choker"?Face it - someone HAS to lose. Because they do does not necessarily mean that they choked. Just that they got outplayed on that particular day. As I said before, there's no doubt that the New England game was Manning's worst of the year, and it came at the worst possible time of the year. But New England played one hell of a game. I challenge you to name ANY quarterback that could have been successful against that defense yesterday.In my mind, the definition of a "choker" is someone who's team does everything it takes to win, but that individual does something to lose the ball game. Doug Brien choked - Manning did not. The Colts as a team didn't play well enough to win that game - Manning included. He did not lose that game all by himself.
"Face it - someone HAS to lose. Because they do does not necessarily mean that they choked. "Yes, I totally agree! I don't understand though- You were just saying the exact opposite. You were just saying that there is one winner and that everyone else is a choker. I didn't agree with that. I totally agree with what you're saying now.
You expect more from a record setting TWO TIME-BACK TO BACK NFL MVP... That many people expected to WIN the SUPER BOWL!Joey and Rattay....give me a break. I never heard anyone say that they we upper echelon NFL QB’s, let alone MVP candidates.Like I said earlier, you cant have it both ways.....you cant get praise when you succeed and not get criticism when you fail....fail miserably. OK…semantics here: Peyton Manning did not CHOKE….He FAILED MISERBLY in the biggest game of his life, just as he has FAILED MISERBLY in all the biggest games of his life. Does anyone dispute that? Tennessee and Fulmer fans you dispute that? Indy fans? It is what it is.... argue until you are blue in the face.....its an arguement that you can't win, for you cant change history. It's on paper. It's in the archives.Peyton Manning has been hyped more than any QB ever since he left High School and over the last 10 years you would have expected him to have at least won a big game.....He hasn't...and for that he has failed. Or Choked...or whatever you want to call it.Main Entry: fail·urePronunciation: 'fA(&)l-y&rFunction: nounEtymology: alteration of earlier failer, from Anglo-French, from Old French faillir to fail1 a : omission of occurrence or performance; specifically : a failing to perform a duty or expected action b : a state of inability to perform a normal function 2 a : lack of success 3 a : a falling short : DEFICIENCY <a crop failure> b : DETERIORATION, DECAY4 : one that has failedMain Entry: 1chokePronunciation: 'chOkFunction: verb4 : to lose one's composure and fail to perform effectively in a critical situation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He certainly has the talent (his own and teamates) to beat the Pats at least half the time.
I think you made a good overall post, so I don't like just singling out the one part I disagree with, but...I think this is totally wrong. I think that the Pats are far and away better than the Colts and have provent that time and time again. I think that if they met in the playoffs, the Pats would win 7 or 8 out of 10.
You truly think that on a pure talent basis the colts offense does not match up well with the NE defense? To clarify that I am refering to athletic talent such as what you measure at the NFL combine, not the intangibles like adaptability, heart, etc.I think this game illustrates that talent gets you only so far, but it was not a lack of talent that was the colts undoing.
 
I was disappointed in all of the Colts' play yesterday - except for Freeney (he showed up yesterday). That would include Manning.

 
The Patriots certainly outplayed the Colts yesterday. However, what was the Colts offensive gameplan? Did they have one? Everyone praised INDY and Manning last week for being able to isolate Roc Alexander and find Reggie Wayne all day long. You mean through gameplanning, the Colts couldnt isolate any of the Pats so-called weak leaks in the secondary on even a single play?I dont recall Manning throwing a single ball over 15 yards. You dont at least try to get a deep one for a pass interference call? Werent the Refs closing watching the Pats secondary yesterday for calls. Who calls the INDY offense, Tom Moore or Peyton Manning? We are led to believe it is Manning. He didnt call a single play that would have put Wayne, Harrison or Stokely on a POST or STREAK?I think Joe B said it earlier that it is a subtle difference between choking and getting beat by a better team. But I disagree with him in that if you watched this game and you dont think that Manning choked, YOU are the one that doesnt know much about football.Manning didnt have the guts to go deep ONCE in the whole game. The longest pass he threw was the interception to end the game. He had to make a decision to try and put pressure on the PATS or commit to the running game. He did neither. He was indecisive. Being indecisive under pressure is choking. Running it twice and then throwing short on 3rd and 4 is not committing to anything.Brady is decisive. A case in point, and a point made by Phil Simms, when the Pats started their drive on their 6 in the second half, they had a 3rd down. Brady dropped back and pumped to the middle and just threw to the right KNOWING (based on the pre-snap alignment of the D) that Kevin Faulk would be open for the first down. The PATS took that drive to the Endzone to salt the game away.You can choke mentally and physically. Manning did not choke physically, he had no plays that you can point to ala last year and his 4 picks. But I do think he choked mentally by not being up to the challenge. Not once did he challenge the PATS D downfield.I would like to see Ron Jaworski break down the coaches tape to see if they never called a deep pass all game (hard to believe), if the PATS had them covered EVERY single time (again, hard to believe) or Manning just couldnt pull the trigger.Manning choked. And it is a very subtle difference than just getting beat.

 
I've read most of this, but not all, so I apologize if this point has been made.

When evaluating Manning in this game I think you have to consider the expectations of him. He definitly under performed in this game. When you consider that he personally accounts for a large share of their cap the onus is on him personally to deliver.

He prides himself on being able to beat whatever is shown to him.

He certainly has the talent (his own and teamates) to beat the Pats at least half the time.

Despite that he fails...consistently.

If it is not a choke, then the only reason is that he is not that good. I think he is that good therefore choke. No excuses.

To those that say he didn't choke, he just got beat by a better team that argument doesn't hold much water with me. Players are not paid to just play their best and hope they dont face anyone better then them. They are played to win. Peyton Manning in particular is paid to win as evidenced by the huge investment made in him.
Can we please stop making this VERY untrue statement. Manning takes up less cap room than a good many starting QBs in the league. His deal isn't cap prohibitive until the 2008 season. :wall:
 
Manning didnt have the guts to go deep ONCE in the whole game. The longest pass he threw was the interception to end the game. He had to make a decision to try and put pressure on the PATS or commit to the running game. He did neither. He was indecisive. Being indecisive under pressure is choking. Running it twice and then throwing short on 3rd and 4 is not committing to anything.
What I criticize most about Manning's performance yesterday is that it seem to me that he played the game with the main goal being to not throw 4 INTs again.
 
Manning didnt have the guts to go deep ONCE in the whole game. The longest pass he threw was the interception to end the game. He had to make a decision to try and put pressure on the PATS or commit to the running game. He did neither. He was indecisive. Being indecisive under pressure is choking. Running it twice and then throwing short on 3rd and 4 is not committing to anything.
What I criticize most about Manning's performance yesterday is that it seem to me that he played the game with the main goal being to not throw 4 INTs again.
Very good point.
 
Yes, I totally agree! I don't understand though- You were just saying the exact opposite. You were just saying that there is one winner and that everyone else is a choker. I didn't agree with that. I totally agree with what you're saying now.
you missed the "/sarcasm" tags around that statement! :P
 
Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio this morning said what a lot of people stated in this thread: You're the MVP of the league, the best QB in the league, with the best offense in the league, and you don't score a TD (doesn't matter who the defenses is), not ONE TD?

 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game". But until then, he's just a "choker". As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.'

Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
The bolded statement is the one I'm trying to refute here... why was "Manning" the one who was solely responsible for the Colts winning? Wasn't it the whole team's job to win? Or the coaches job to preapre them to win?Hell, for that matter - were they really "supposed" to win? I believe the Vegas odds had the Pats as the favorite. So really, technically, they were supposed to lose.

 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game". But until then, he's just a "choker". As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.'

Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
The bolded statement is the one I'm trying to refute here... why was "Manning" the one who was solely responsible for the Colts winning? Wasn't it the whole team's job to win? Or the coaches job to preapre them to win?Hell, for that matter - were they really "supposed" to win? I believe the Vegas odds had the Pats as the favorite. So really, technically, they were supposed to lose.
I think becasue all anyone can ever do is praise Manning. When the Colts win, he gets the credit. Oh Manning made some incredible reads today blah blah blah. But when they lose it's never Manning's fault.
 
If you're saying that Manning played well in regular season games against good defenses, and loses in postseason games against (some of the same) good defenses (even the Pats who lost their corners since the first matchup), then doesn't that mean it's some combination of:

1) he's choking in the playoffs

2) the Patriots played up to another level in the playoffs

3) the weather
Hi bf,That's fine. I learned that trying to argue with people 10 years ago that Danny Wuerfell was a better QB than Manning would ever be. :rolleyes:

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Good luck against the Steelers.

J
Not to get of topic here, but Danny was a better college QB than Peyton....if of course you consider a "Winning" QB to be better than a "losing QB"Danny Wuerffel won the 1996 Heisman Trophy while quarterbacking the Gators to the national championship. During his four-year career he also led Florida to four SEC titles and two national championship games.

He is the only Heisman Trophy recipient to also receive the Draddy Scholarship Trophy, which is presented by the National Football Foundation and the College Football Hall of Fame to the nation’s top football scholar-athlete.

Peyton win the Heisman....sorry. Peyton win a Championship....sorry.... Peyton beat Fla......

.........and Danny Awful was smarter! Tom Brady is Peytons Pro version of Danny Awful...

:boxing:

You know what they say..... "Just Win Baby"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Along the "can't win the big game" thing, Manning is much like the Eagles. When they've lost the NFC championship game, you have people (again who honestly, I don't think know much about football) rail on how they can't win a big game. The truth is they've won plenty of big games. They just conveniently want to focus on the NFC championship game. I guess that's just human nature.J
JThe Colts were beaten by a better team. In the context of the game's play-by-play, Manning did "not choke" (like he arguably did last year). However, despite going up against a "better team", Manning did not play a "good game" as others in this thread seem to imply that Peyton did everything humanly possible but his squad was just overmatched. I've watched all of the Colts offensive plays at least twice now (thanks TIVO) and there were numerous instances where Peyton didn't make "best in class" throws or decisions. He threw too early, held it too long, bailed out of the pocket a split second early or simply didn't "bullet" the ball to the WR in the manner that Mr Brady was able to do to a better extent. All year long, Peyton was lauded as "the best" and it is really against that STANDARD that he should graded unless he is not worthy of consideration for the vaunted "label". One year ago, Steve McNair (Peyton's co-MVP) took a squad from south of the Mason-Dixon line into Foxboro and played against the Pats (with Ty Law, Poole and Richard Seymour) in conditions just as bad as yesterday's. McNair didn't have a "vintage" game but he was able to move the ball in a few different drives and prevented his team from getting simply blown out. Stay in the game and perhaps Drew Bennett hangs onto the last pass and then anything can happen. The Colts/Pats game was not a blow out right away. Peyton did not make any "best in class" plays to get his team into the end zone before half time or with his 3rd quarter possessions and did nothing to single-handedly keep his team in the game. Football is a tremendous "momentum" sport and Mr. Audible could certainly have pulled some magic at some point that may have shifted momentum, at least temporarily, away from the Pats.Fantasy guys love stats and thus there is more love for Peyton on boards like this than he legitimately has earned-to-date in a sport where winning in the post-season, especially at the QB slot, is what it is all about. I'm not one that solely focuses on Super Bowl rings, but if you don't wear the jewelry I would at least like to see playoff wins in which you the QB have single-handedly taken a team and put them on your back and led them to victory against a formidable opponent. In this regards, Peyton Manning has not further advanced beyond where he was a year ago.
 
I've read most of this, but not all, so I apologize if this point has been made.

When evaluating Manning in this game I think you have to consider the expectations of him. He definitly under performed in this game. When you consider that he personally accounts for a large share of their cap the onus is on him personally to deliver.

He prides himself on being able to beat whatever is shown to him.

He certainly has the talent (his own and teamates) to beat the Pats at least half the time.

Despite that he fails...consistently.

If it is not a choke, then the only reason is that he is not that good. I think he is that good therefore choke. No excuses.

To those that say he didn't choke, he just got beat by a better team that argument doesn't hold much water with me. Players are not paid to just play their best and hope they dont face anyone better then them. They are played to win. Peyton Manning in particular is paid to win as evidenced by the huge investment made in him.
Can we please stop making this VERY untrue statement. Manning takes up less cap room than a good many starting QBs in the league. His deal isn't cap prohibitive until the 2008 season. :wall:
I am not saying that his cap is prohibitive. I am saying that for the investment in him personally, you are entitled to have high expectations. The same goes for any highly compensated veteran quarterback in the league, but particularly those who are viewed as the lynchpin to their entire team.How is that VERY untrue?

:confused:

 
I've read most of this, but not all, so I apologize if this point has been made. 

When evaluating Manning in this game I think you have to consider the expectations of him.  He definitly under performed in this game.  When you consider that he personally accounts for a large share of their cap the onus is on him personally to deliver. 

He prides himself on being able to beat whatever is shown to him. 

He certainly has the talent (his own and teamates) to beat the Pats at least half the time. 

Despite that he fails...consistently.

If it is not a choke, then the only reason is that he is not that good.  I think he is that good therefore choke.  No excuses.

To those that say he didn't choke, he just got beat by a better team that argument doesn't hold much water with me. Players are not paid to just play their best and hope they dont face anyone better then them.  They are played to win.  Peyton Manning in particular is paid to win as evidenced by the huge investment made in him.
Can we please stop making this VERY untrue statement. Manning takes up less cap room than a good many starting QBs in the league. His deal isn't cap prohibitive until the 2008 season. :wall:
I am not saying that his cap is prohibitive. I am saying that for the investment in him personally, you are entitled to have high expectations. The same goes for any highly compensated veteran quarterback in the league, but particularly those who are viewed as the lynchpin to their entire team.How is that VERY untrue?

:confused:
Ahh, my mistake Ibis. I thought you meant financially invested. As you're aware, many conveniently bandy about the notion that Manning somehow eats up a disproportionate amount of the Colts cap versus other quality QBs and that's simply untrue.
 
I think Manning is a terrific QB and I don't think "choke" is really a fair way to describe his performance yesterday.But it does bother me that people don't seem to understand that while Manning is a great QB he is not good at improvising when things don't go as planned. To me this is the essence of what makes some very good QB's great and keeps others only very good.When all the pressure is on and things don't go right how does he react? If you look at his playoff performances you can see his play has been far from great. Yes he has the misfortune to play the NE D instead of the Indy D but tuff noogy. At some point he has to make it happen and he hasn't as of yet. Manning and Brady both faced key 3rd and goal situations yesterday and both were forced to move out of the pocket. Manning threw the ball to Eugene Wilson who dropped the interception and Indy settled for 3. Brady threw a PERFECT ball to David Givens for the touchdown. IMO that was ballgame and a micrososm of the difference between the 2 qb's. It may have only been 1 game but anyone who takes an honest look at their H2H matchups can see it is a pattern.Manning is on his way to the HOF and may from a pure statistical perspective become the best NFL qb ever. But for all the marbles and all things being equal would you rather have a td machine like Manning or Marino or a make it happen guy like Montana, Favre or dare I say Brady?
I think that it is unfair, at least at this stage, to put Dan Marino into the same category as Peyton Manning. Marion had less supporting talent and quite often rallied his team to wins in adverse circumstances. Go look at career leader for 4th quarter combacks and Marino is adequately represented.
 
I would at least like to see playoff wins in which you the QB have single-handedly taken a team and put them on your back and led them to victory against a formidable opponent.
You mean like last week when he carried his team with 27 of 33 for 457 yards and 4 TDs?J
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He certainly has the talent (his own and teamates) to beat the Pats at least half the time. 
I think you made a good overall post, so I don't like just singling out the one part I disagree with, but...I think this is totally wrong. I think that the Pats are far and away better than the Colts and have provent that time and time again. I think that if they met in the playoffs, the Pats would win 7 or 8 out of 10.
You truly think that on a pure talent basis the colts offense does not match up well with the NE defense? To clarify that I am refering to athletic talent such as what you measure at the NFL combine, not the intangibles like adaptability, heart, etc.I think this game illustrates that talent gets you only so far, but it was not a lack of talent that was the colts undoing.
But you can't rule out the intangibles! If you did, then Brady shouldn't even be starting QB. The only reason that the Pats are good is because of the intangibles....but the thing is: We knew that going in, so its not a choke- its just losing to a better team(a team that is better because of the intangibles).
 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game".  But until then, he's just a "choker".  As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.'

Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
The bolded statement is the one I'm trying to refute here... why was "Manning" the one who was solely responsible for the Colts winning? Wasn't it the whole team's job to win? Or the coaches job to preapre them to win?Hell, for that matter - were they really "supposed" to win? I believe the Vegas odds had the Pats as the favorite. So really, technically, they were supposed to lose.
So if you're trying to refute the definition of choking, then we just have a semantical argument and we don't actually disagree. What then is your defiition of choking? Personally, I don't see how it can be considered 'choking' since the Pats have beaten him in the past, were/are a better team, and had a tremendous home field advantage.
 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game".  But until then, he's just a "choker".  As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.'

Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
The bolded statement is the one I'm trying to refute here... why was "Manning" the one who was solely responsible for the Colts winning? Wasn't it the whole team's job to win? Or the coaches job to preapre them to win?Hell, for that matter - were they really "supposed" to win? I believe the Vegas odds had the Pats as the favorite. So really, technically, they were supposed to lose.
So if you're trying to refute the definition of choking, then we just have a semantical argument and we don't actually disagree. What then is your defiition of choking? Personally, I don't see how it can be considered 'choking' since the Pats have beaten him in the past, were/are a better team, and had a tremendous home field advantage.
2004 Colts vs Tampa BayTampa up 30 something to 7, seven minutes to go.

 
He has plenty of time left to "win the big game".  But until then, he's just a "choker".  As are the other 31 quarterbacks in the league who won't win "the big game" this year.
NO!You don't understand the meaning of 'choker.'

Choking is when you're supposed to win and you don't. Losing to a better team isn't choking. Are you seriously suggesting that Tim Rattay and the SF 49ers choked this year by not winning the super bowl?
The bolded statement is the one I'm trying to refute here... why was "Manning" the one who was solely responsible for the Colts winning? Wasn't it the whole team's job to win? Or the coaches job to preapre them to win?Hell, for that matter - were they really "supposed" to win? I believe the Vegas odds had the Pats as the favorite. So really, technically, they were supposed to lose.
I think becasue all anyone can ever do is praise Manning. When the Colts win, he gets the credit. Oh Manning made some incredible reads today blah blah blah. But when they lose it's never Manning's fault.
Thats not true at all, and I'm definitely not a Manning supporter...I've said time and tiem again that Brady is the best QB in the league. And I will admit that Manning played terribly and that he was a major reason they lost...but I don't think he 'choked' BY WHAT I DEFINE AS CHOKING. I think choking is playing poorly due to pressure...from watching the game yesterday, I don't think thats what happened- I think Manning didn't play well simply due to being outmatched, being out-though, being simply not as good as the Pats, and the weather.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as Manning not calling plays to throw the ball down field, they didn't run the no-huddle offense which is what peyton uses to call the plays and do all the signaling at the line. I believe that would be the coach's call whether or not to run that.someone talked about Indy should've run the ball more, they tried to establish the run early, but Edge and the o-line couldn't do anything, while the Pats ran at will.Someone mentioned the drive the Pats had that ended with Brady's sneak, I believe Dilllon had as much to do with that drive if not more than Brady.I also agree that the two "key" third and goal plays were different, when Brady stepped up he had a wide open David Givens in the end zone. When Manning Stepped up, he had a clutter of defenders and wr's in the end zone. (it wasn't the best pass in the world, but the guy wasn't open like Givens was)Again, why do people still say Peyton hasn't won a big game. Did the two playoff wins last year not count? Wasn't the Kansas City game on the road? and if the colts score one less touchdown they lose, so that was a nice performance in a big game, right?

 
I don't remember many bad passes Peyton had....where could he of done more?
You don't remember the numerous passes out of bounds or to Edgerrin's feet? A couple of times there was no pass rusher near him and he still threw it away. Manning doesn't usually do that.
No I don't remember the numerous passes out of bounds. I do remember passes at Edge's feet, but most of those were because nothing was open on the screen and he didn't want to force anything or get sacked. Sometimes even if there's no pressure yet you throw a scree pass away because if you wait too long the lineman are going to be down field and it will be illegal.
I agree that Manning was forced to throw some passes away. But part of Manning's game is his ability to read defenses and audible into the correct play. When there's no down linemen, how do you stick with a pass play?
Hurons, Peyton wasn't the only one responsible for the lack of scoring. The New England defense played great and Indy's defense got run over. The Colts barely got the ball in the second half.
I agree that the Colts defense didn't give Manning much time in the second half. But Manning had plenty of opportunities to score in the first half, or sustain his own drives, or play aggressively when the team was down late, and he didn't. Look at the play by play. The first drive ended when Manning threw a 2 yard pass to Pollard on third and four. The second drive ended on a Manning incompletion. The third drive ended on consecutive incompletions to Stokley, who was covered by Troy Brown at the time. He clearly misdiagnosed that as a mismatch. The fourth drive started with a Manning fumble on first down, followed by consecutive incomplete passes. The fifth drive ended on a 2nd and 17 pass to a well covered Dominic Rhodes for -2 yards - Rhodes was blanketed by Bruschi the whole way, so even if Bruschi doesn't strip him, it's still probably a loss or small gain when they need 17. The sixth drive ended with a field goal just before the half, but Manning and the Colts failed to call a timeout and because of it, they ended up kicking a field goal instead of going for it on third and goal from the 5 yard line. The Colts could have taken a shot at going into the locker room with a lead at halftime but had to settle for the field goal instead. The Patriots went three and out on their first possession of the second half, and the Colts had a chance to get some momentum. Instead, Manning's first drive of the second half ended when Manning threw a three yard pass to Stokley on third and four. He then sat on the bench for over 9 minutes, and ended when he threw a pass at Edge's feet, then threw the next pass out of bounds. Sure, he would have been risking an interception by throwing into coverage, but his defense was getting run over. He had to sustain a drive. The next drive, he was down three scores with seven minutes left, but instead of taking his shots downfield, he threw little dink and dunk stuff to Edge and Wayne. Wayne fumbled, then when Manning got the ball back with three minutes left and down by three scores, he started throwing 5-10 yard passes to get a passing touchdown in the closing minutes instead of trying to win the game.
Excellent post. Boston Fred makes a good case here for Manning's performance being a "choke". It's hard to know where to draw the line between the Patriots playing better vs. Manning playing poorly. The Patriots are the defending champs and have constently beaten the Colts and Manning, and very convincingly as far as yesterday's game goes. On the other hand the Colts could easily have won the earlier meeting this year and could very well have won the AFC title game last year if Manning had played a little better. I think you have to say the Colts do have the ability to beat the Patriots even if they are not quite as good. The talent gap is not that wide. I think we have a case here where the Patriots did raise the level of their game but Manning and the Colts played below their capability as well. It is a team game. Those two long second-half drives by the Pats were real back-breakers and obviously Manning had nothing to do with that; it was on the Indy D. And his receivers dropped some key passes early. A road underdog with a losing history against their opponent usually needs to make something happen early and Manning's receivers let him down. Manning though certainly blew a chance or two at the end of the first half and he did not take shots downfield as has been noted often. It's logical to conclude he was inhibited by his INT history against the Pats. I just hesitate to apply the word "choke" when somebody loses to a superior opponent, especially without making the sort of disastrous play that marks a turning point such as a bad INT returned for a TD. It's important to note that New England is two games away from winning three Super Bowls in four years. That's a dynasty in NFL terms. Nobody considers the teams that lost to the 60's Packers, the 70's Steelers, or the 80's Niners championship teams to have choked. New England is on the verge of being ranked along with some of the greatest teams to ever take the field. Few QB's play well against dynastys even Hall of Famers like Staubach, Marino, and Len Dawson.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would at least like to see playoff wins in which you the QB have single-handedly taken a team and put them on your back and led them to victory against a formidable opponent. 
You mean like last week when he carried his team with 27 of 33 for 457 yards and 4 TDs?J
Joe,I think the key to Wilbur's statement is against a formidable opponent? Is Denver a formidable opponent? Are all playoff teams considered formidable opponents or do you need to be Championship caliber to get that distinction.
 
3 things:

"Manning Choked". Please. How can he have "choked" if he didn't let the pressure result in him messing up. The Pats beat the Colts is what it was.

The weather. The weather had an impact on the game? Really? What was there - a total of 1/2 of an inch of snow? 30 degrees out there (or so) isn't anything harsh either. Let's put the "weather" talk away.
Am I the only one who sees a LOT of similarities between yesterday's game and the Super Bowl 2 years ago when Tampa Bay (the defensive team) soundly defeated vaunted Oakland (the record-setting offensive team)?
 
I would at least like to see playoff wins in which you the QB have single-handedly taken a team and put them on your back and led them to victory against a formidable opponent. 
You mean like last week when he carried his team with 27 of 33 for 457 yards and 4 TDs?J
Joe,I think the key to Wilbur's statement is against a formidable opponent? Is Denver a formidable opponent? Are all playoff teams considered formidable opponents or do you need to be Championship caliber to get that distinction.
Hi Cochise,I guess that's my point. The Titans were a formidable opponent in season for the times Manning "choked" and Indy lost to Tennessee. Then when Manning won several, that wasn't a big game anymore.A playoff game was a big game when the Colts went one and out. Until Manning started winning those.The short memories just seem interesting to me.Manning absolutely picked up his team and carried them on his back in the 2003 playoffs. He posted one of the best performances by a QB in postseason ever when he hung 22 of 26 for 377 yards with 5 TDs and 0 INTs on Denver last year.The next week, he "slowed" down only posting 22 of 30 for 304 yards with just 3 TDs and 0 INTs in a win over Kansas City on the road. In two weeks last season, he won his first playoff game and then won a road playoff game where he absolutely picked his team up on his shoulders and carried them. He did the same thing last week against Denver in the playoffs. So yes, I'll call any playoff game a "big" game against a "formidable" opponent. The fact he played terrible last year against NE and not well enough to win this year takes zero from the fact he's carried his team nearly singlehandely (as singlehandedly as any QB ever does that relies on guys to catch the ball) to huge victories against top caliber teams under the pressure of the playoffs. It's just interesting to me when smart people don't remember that and act like it's not happened.J
 
This comes from a Colts fan...Haters will hate as long as they can. Once Manning wins a Superbowl, then everyone will go back to their rock.How many of you or your dads were calling Elway a choker early in his career? Didn't he lose a couple of SB's before winning his last two? Maybe I am mistaken?!And, to whomever said that because 30% of the voters think Manning choked means he must be a choker, well... I'm glad you don't run our government. For if 30% think one candidate is the clear choice, then he must be, right?The poll speaks for itself, all haters need to #### and go cheer your team on to victory.Brady is great, but don't hate Manning for getting the press. If Brady were in another system, I think he could prosper like Manning in the regular season. I also think he wouldn't then have 2 SB MVP's!!!Which would you rather have?Give it a break, you are in the MINORITY if you think he choked!

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top