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)
- Thread starter bostonfred
- Start date
bostonfred
Footballguy
Manning is now 3-5 in the playoffs. In eight playoff games, his postseason numbers of 271 yards, 1.8 TDs and 1 INT per game almost perfectly mirror his regular season numbers of about 265 yards, 2 TDs and 1 INT. In the three wins, though, he averages over 375 yards and 4 TDs per game. In the five losses, he averages 206 yards, .4 TDs and 1.4 INTs. Why the huge discrepancy? Isn't five games enough to call it a trend? Or has he just been really unfortunate to play five games against 5 unstoppable defenses? I know you said the Pats played a great game - and as a Pats fan, thank you. But it hasn't just been the Patriots. When Tennessee held him below 40% passing in 1999, were they just that good? Well, they did go to the Superbowl that year, so maybe it's just bad luck that Manning faced them. When Miami held him under 200 yards in 2000, were they a team of destiny? Well, after beating the Colts, the Dolphins went on to get shut out 27-0 against the Raiders, who in turn got blown out against the Ravens, so it's not like they had an unstoppable passing D. What about when he went 14 for 31 for 137 yards with 2 picks and no TDs vs. the Jets in a 41-0 shutout? Those same Jets gave up 30 points in a loss to the Raiders the next game. Manning's gone three passing TDs without a TD. Manning didn't go a single regular season game this year without a TD. Manning is very capable of carrying his team in the playoffs. He should be celebrated for his ability to carry his team to the divisional round. He's had a couple of great games against Denver, and a great game against KC last year. But it's not revisionist history to say that he has problems in big games. By the way, I'm not saying Manning can't win a big game. KC last year was a big game. KC was supposed to have as good an offense as Indy if not better. It was not coincidentally the first time Peyton has gotten to face a bad D in one of those big games. And the game against San Diego this year was as big a regular season game as you could hope to win. Manning was outstanding in both those games. But in those 5 losses, if he wasn't choking, then what do you think it is? It's just interesting to me when smart people don't acknowledge those games and act like they've not happened.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Elway did choke early in his career. He made up for it later in his career. I don't understand why both can't happen. Manning did choke in at least some of these five playoff losses. I don't think that means he'll never win one, but I think he's taken an incredible amount of offensive talent with him into the playoffs and done terribly with it. I don't understand why both can't happen.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Fred,I understand what you're saying. The problem is that not everyone has the same definition of "Choker". Some seem to think that because it happens once or twice, that they are always a choker. All you have to do is read this thread to see that.Is it possible for the team to choke in a game? Is it possible for the team to be outplayed by a better team? Outcoached by a better coach?The Pats are on the verge of being labeled a dynasty. At least by some. And for good reasons.It just seems silly to put this all on Peyton's shoulders!The Colts game plan was terrible. No passes downfield, where was the no-huddle, not sticking to the running game.Passes were dropped. Both D's played pretty well. It finally came down to small advantages all over the field. But to say that one player choked seems to take away from what the game really was, a dominating TEAM performance by the Patriots.And that comes from a true-blue Colts fan!
MarshallRob
Footballguy
This doesn't help the "no-choke" side. Manning calls his own plays. Again, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a choke (as you say everyone has their own definition). Manning didn't make any really stupid mistakes and he hardly had the ball, let alone a chance to get into a rhythm, in the 2d half. But again, Manning could have played better and he could have been more aggressive when his team needed a big play.
Thanks Bf,I'm sure others really remember those games as well if they try and don't see it as lopsided as some seem to.Thanks. Have a great one.J
sinatravolta
Footballguy
Some of you just have way too loose definitions of "choking." First off - it's a team game where one individual, even the QB, can't win the game on his own. This is true in most team games, but even moreso in football than basketball, baseball, or hockey just because there are many more players involved on a football team, and you only play the opposing team once instead of having a 7-game series. Secondly - having a losing record in the playoffs (3-5) - is really not surprising. It doesn't mean the team sucks. In theory (NFC this year is a possible exception) - all playoff teams are pretty good so there's not a great deal of shame in simply losing to some playoff teams. Having a winning record or great stats in the regular season does not mean a team should have a similar record nor players have similar stats in the postseason. You're only playing good teams in the playoffs! And the overall record in the playoffs of all playoff teams will be .500. 3-5 is barely below that. There aren't many times when a team with only a great offense has won the Super Bowl - so as long as their D is what it is - it's going to be hard for the Colts, regardless of what Manning does. So - if anything - I think people are overrating how much impact a QB can have on whether or not his team wins games. Yes - he has the most impact of any player on the team in most cases, but it's still not nearly as much as the rest of the team combined. And in the case of this game - the Colts WRs, coaches, and D except for Freeney I think all played/coached much worse than Manning.I do think Manning has trouble if he doesn't have time to throw or has to throw on the run (or if his receivers keep dropping passes) - but that's true for almost any QB out there. Brady is one of the ones who are pretty good at handling not having much time to throw - and maybe that makes him a better QB come playoff time than Manning because in the playoffs you're more likely to face great defenses. And maybe that makes him a better QB overall.But it does not make Manning a choker, and certainly doesn't mean he choked in this game.If you switched Manning and Brady only - are you confident about who would win the game? Because I still think you've then got 2 good offenses and 1 good defense and the team with the good defense is going to win. Would Brady then be the "choker"?Is Manning overrated? Possibly. Choker? No.
bostonfred
Footballguy
As always, the master diffuser. Good stuff Joe, you made some good points along the way.
ICON211
Footballguy
When you have all the talent in the world, put up HUGE numbers regular season after regular season, then fall short with sub par efforts EVERY year in the playoffs then you are a choke artist. And year after year the same people find different excuses for him. Its either the weather or his defense or the rules or the refs......enough already. He couldn't beat Florida and he will NEVER win a super bowl.
Tau837
Footballguy
I think this gets overstated a bit, especially nowadays, as everyone mistakenly thinks Manning's Colts have always had the offensive cast they had this year.Manning's teams have made the playoffs in 5 seasons.1999: Manning, Harrison, and James were Pro Bowlers. James was either the best or second best RB (to Faulk), and Harrison was the best receiver. Still, their second best WR was Terrence Wilkins, with 42/565/4, and Dilger was their best TE with 40/479/2. The Colts lost a divisional playoff game at home to the Titans, 19-16, and the Titans went on to narrowly lose the Super Bowl.2000: Manning, Harrison, and James were Pro Bowlers. James was the second best RB (to Faulk), and Harrison was in the 2nd to 4th range (with Rod Smith and Owens, all behind Moss). Still, their second best WR was Pathon, with 50/646/3, and Dilger was their best TE with 47/538/3. The Colts lost a wildcard playoff game 23-17 at Miami in OT.2002: Manning and Harrison were the only Pro Bowlers. Harrison was the best WR. However, the Colts' running game was only 16th in the league, with James failing to rush for 1000 yards and scoring only 3 TDs on the season. Wayne was the second best WR, with 49/716/4, and their top TE was Pollard, with 43/478/6. The Colts were humiliated 41-0 by the Jets in New York in a wildcard playoff game.2003: Manning and Harrison were the only offensive Pro Bowlers (Freeney made it on defense). James ran for 1259 yards and 11 TDs in 13 games. Good numbers, especially per game, but clearly not what he was pre-injury. Wayne contributed 68/838/7 as their second best receiver, finally providing a reasonably legitimate threat across from Harrison. The top TE was Pollard, with 40/541/3. The Colts crushed Denver 41-10 at home, beat KC on the road 38-31, then lost 24-14 at NE in the AFC title game.I don't see all of the overwhelming offensive talent people assume Manning has always had. Until this year, and to a lesser extent last year, he has never had a viable WR2 across from Harrison. He has never had an elite TE. None of his offensive linemen have made the Pro Bowl. He has had some years with a great running game and other years with an average running game.I would venture to say that in the playoffs, points and yards are typically harder to come by than in the regular season, due to more extensive game planning & preparation (at least after bye weeks), more motivation & focus, and the higher quality of the opponents (i.e., better defenses in many cases). Perhaps half of the playoff teams in a given year have great defenses, while the other half may be strong offensive teams. So it seems reasonable that every other playoff game (the ones vs. the better defenses), one of a team's top offensive threats (thinking particularly in the passing game, but potentially also a RB) can be taken away. Looking back at Manning's playoff career, he has typically had two great weapons. If one is taken away, that obviously makes it harder on him and the other weapon.I really think a lot of this talk is off base. He hasn't played well in his 5 playoff losses. All of those losses have come against very good to great defensive teams, and 4 of them were on the road. In contrast, in all 3 playoff games the Colts have won, Manning has had a great game. The Colts have not won a playoff game in his tenure without him playing great. Is that the case for most other playoff teams in recent years? Don't other teams sometimes win without a great performance by their QB? Perhaps this says as much or more about the rest of the Colts' players and particularly coaches as it does about Manning.The bottom line is that we're talking about a 5 game sample in unfavorable conditions for a QB. He'll have plenty more opportunities, and I'm sure he'll end up playing better in many of them.
Mr. Anonymous
Footballguy
I don't think Peyton's regular season numbers would have been what they were if he played in the snow every game. But I do think they would be better than Brady's.Anything can happen in a single game, particularly against a tough team (and the Pats seem to match up well with the Colts), in crappy conditions.
Thanks Bf,You made good points too. I always learn stuff here. Have a great one.J
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
One thing I don't understand about Manning and his choking.When Philadelphia loses in the NFC championship game every year, we say that Philedelphia choked (not so much that McNabb choked).When Indy looses every year in the playoffs, we say that Manning choked (Not so much the team).I wonder why this is. Both QB's are considered to be two of the best in the league, bit with Philadelphia you have a stout defense also.
Rhino
Footballguy
As I stated before - My definition of "choke" is when your team plays well enough to win a game, but you single-handedly, individually, do something to prevent the win.Doug Brien missing field goals on two game-winning opportunities was a choke. That was all him.
Yesterday the entire Colts team played poorly, including but not limited to Peyton Manning, and that is why they lost. They were collectively outplayed by the Patriots. You cannot point to any one thing that Manning alone did to lose them that football game.
i dont think this was the case at all. NE defenders had the deep routes covered forcing manning to dump it to james, clark, or go short over the middle to stokley. the colts were driving when brushci ripped the ball from rhodes. and the colt defense gave up no big plays, NE simply made plays to keep looonnnngggggg drives going. the defense gave up 2 fgs in 2 qtrs and then a td in the 3rd. 13 points in 3 qtrs? what more did you wantsorry, but your offense has to do something
Rhino
Footballguy
The Colts defense made a few big plays here and there, but I'd hesitate to say they played well. They failed to stop the Patriots from converting on a lot of thrid downs, which led to the Pats completely controlling the clock. They even let the Pats convert on a couple key thrid-and-long plays. Once the Pats controlled the clock and the tempo of the game it kept the Colts offense off the field and never let them get into any kind of rhythm.The Colts defense was abused in the runnning game, as was a big problem for them all year. The only part of the Defense you can point to is Freeny and really the whole D-Line. They did manage to get to Brady a few times last night and put some pressure on him - just not consistantly enough to kill those long drives.And another factor was the turnovers. The Colts D was +19 on the season in the giveaway/takeaway category. (I believe - someone will correct me I'm sure if I'm wrong - but I believe that is close) The Pats protected the football well last night and didn't allow the Colts defense to make a big play to get them back in the game.From what I saw, I really believe the Colts were outplayed on both sides of the ball. Maybe the Offense did worse, but that doesn't mean the defense takes no blame for what happened last night.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Manning kinda reminds me of Patrick Ewing. Manning's likely the better player, but Ewing could have more of an impact on his team due to the nature of the sport.Still, because Ewing couldn't beat Michael Jordan he was considered a choker. 
once the defense was tired, they were abused by the run. but for the most part, they played well, by colt standards. hand it to NE, they made plays in 3rd down situations that continued their long play drives. usually when a team has to use 14 plays to score, something goes wrong, but they executed flawlessly.
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
JThanks for supporting my point. I couldn't have summed up better.KC was/is an all-time defensive basket case. I guess that Billy Volek and Jake Plummer belong in Canton based on the fact that they've both lit up the Chiefs. Any QB who was in the playoffs in 2003 would have put up big number against KC.A blowout win (in a dome at home no less) against a team that hasn't one a playoff game since Elway is evidence of nothing IMHO. Many QB's in the league would have had a very good day had they walked a mile in Peyton's shoes in either of the Bronco playoff games. No QB in the league play as well as Peyton and will post the same ungodly level of fantasy stats as Peyton Manning will do when his team is in a blowout. Winning blowouts and putting up huge numbers is not the SOLE definition of an "all time" great QB or the one that you feel is the "Greatest in the game today". Handling adversity well, even in a loss, is what the all-time great QB's do. Take a team on its shoulders and move them where other likely couldn't.Peyton Manning is still a work-in-process. To date, he is great at "steamrolling" teams that don't matchup well. Now its time to see some things like Johnny Unitas, circa 1958 vs NYG, Montana vs Dallas, Favre, etc.
:rotflmao: Thanks Wilbur. Once again, the target keeps moving.First it was "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."
But when he does take the team on his shoulders to singlehandedly carry his team to victory in the playoffs on the road, then any QB could have have done that and we have to change the definition.
Let's just go ahead and say it: Manning will be nothing more than a choke until he can singlehandedly carry his team to a Super Bowl win. And if they could waive that silly NFC rule so Indy could play New England in Foxboro for the Super Bowl, and he could somehow manage to win it then, well that would be really cool.
J
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug Drinen
Moderator
Good point. It should be noted that, of Manning's 8 playoff games, the Colts have been the higher seed in 3 of them. And they've won 3 of them. Not the same 3, but the point is that the Colts playoff record in the Manning era is exactly what one ought to expect it to be.
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
If you would actually READ what I have posted, I said effectively that Manning did not "choke". However, he did not play at "his best" or close to his best. If he is truly "the best" NFL QB in the game, he needs to get his team into the end zone and make some "special" plays in this type of game. Again, I have repeatedly that it is simply beating the Pats, but he needs to scrap and claw when he's not at his best (a la McNair last year) to make some plays and keep the game close.Objectively, Peyton Manning's stock (which granted was at an all-time high) takes a hit. Many thought that he could lead the Colt juggernaut to the Super Bowl (Not my standard). Many NFL analysts (throw out the ex-QB's many of which that the frat brother approach to analysis) have effectively said the same thing. I guess we're just not as smart as those who think that Peyton played better than any other QB on earth and just came up against an insurmountable task on Sunday -- being defined as at least producing a non-garbage time TD (I'll even give him a mulligan on the last drive for if he threw a TD instead of an INT it would have been meaningless at that point).:rotflmao: Thanks Wilbur. Once again, the target keeps moving.First it was "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."
But when he does take the team on his shoulders to singlehandedly carry his team to victory in the playoffs on the road, then any QB could have have done that and we have to change the definition.
Let's just go ahead and say it: Manning will be nothing more than a choke until he can singlehandedly carry his team to a Super Bowl win. And if they could waive that silly NFC rule so Indy could play New England in Foxboro for the Super Bowl, and he could somehow manage to win it then, well that would be really cool.
J
I am not a Manning-hater. I actually imbibed the KOOL AID and had fantasy playoff team loaded with Colts and them winning it all in my Office Pool. My analysis throughout this thread has been nothing but objective (I am a fan of neither team and I think that Donovan McNabb will have significantly more success vs the Pats than Manning)
Get outta here, Doc. We don't need any of your rational facts.
JJoe,I dont think anybody said that Manning should have an 8-0 record in the playoffs. If he could ONCE beat a formidable team (in my definition a title contender, not just a playoff team), I think you might have an argument. If he could just ONCE keep a game close against said title contender, I would be willing to cut him some slack.In the only 2 games of the 8 that count as against a title contender (ie. a team that made it to the Conference Championship game...last years was in the Conf. Championship so it counts), the game has NOT been close. If you believe last years 24-14 PATS win was a close game, you didnt watch it.Please just show us that you can compete against one of the NFL elite. He cant even keep the game close.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Playoff Records of Select QBsDan Marino -- 8-10 (.444)
Dan Fouts -- 3-4 (.429)So neither Marino nor Fouts were great quarterbacks?
mighty thor
Footballguy
I don't think Manning really choked but his level of play does not rise in the big games like others. And his body language is terrible for a leader. He always gets frustrated by the Patriots and it shows on his face and his expressions. This has to rub off on the other players who look up to him. Brady (and in the past Monatana) just remains calm in these situations and has a tendency to come through in the clutch, even if has been having a bad game up to that point. And this helps the Patriots tremendously in pressure games because they look at Brady and know they can win because he is in charge. I don't think many people outside NE give Brady enough credit for his leadership qualities. These are the qualities that I see lacking in Manning. He has the great arm but he has a tendancy to pout when things get a little hairy.
ICON211
Footballguy
I think Marino and Fouts are overrated. IMO great QBs win titles. I can't put Marino or Fouts ahead of Montana, Elway, Unitas and a couple others. I'd put it this....Marino is the best QB never to win a title. I think the term great gets thrown around too much.Playoff Records of Select QBsDan Marino -- 8-10 (.444)
Dan Fouts -- 3-4 (.429)So neither Marino nor Fouts were great quarterbacks?
Jason Wood
Zoo York
I can respect that viewpoint, in fact, it's not that dissimilar to my own thoughts. Although I don't think winning a title is in and of itself a declaration of greatness for a QB (i.e., Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams) so it's unfair to say someone can't be "great" without a title too.But as to Marino specifically, I agree that he's too readily put among the top 2 or 3 at his position ever, and I don't hold him in that regard. But that's more indicative of the fact his play declined in the playoffs from his regular season accomplishments than because he never won a title.I think Marino and Fouts are overrated. IMO great QBs win titles. I can't put Marino or Fouts ahead of Montana, Elway, Unitas and a couple others. I'd put it this....Marino is the best QB never to win a title. I think the term great gets thrown around too much.Playoff Records of Select QBsDan Marino -- 8-10 (.444)
Dan Fouts -- 3-4 (.429)So neither Marino nor Fouts were great quarterbacks?
MarshallRob
Footballguy
I'm not sure people realize just how difficult it is to win a title now in the NFL. Sammy Baugh only had to beat out 9 other teams back in the day. Unitas and Starr had to beat out 13 other teams in the '50's and '60's. Moving ahead, Fouts and Marino competed against 28 teams. Now you're talking about 32 teams. In the future there's going to be a lot of great QB's that don't win titles.
Hurons
Footballguy
Fouts and Marino never won back to back NFL MVPS We expect more from a two time MVP with 50 TD passes in one year....The Media expected more.....The Colts expected more. Everyone expected more.Playoff Records of Select QBsDan Marino -- 8-10 (.444)
Dan Fouts -- 3-4 (.429)So neither Marino nor Fouts were great quarterbacks?
We are talking about the inability of the 2 time, back to back, MVP and single season TD leader to lead his team to the promised land. He failed again.
This is about Mannings failures, not Fouts and/or Marnios. Just becuase they failed to win doesnt mean Manning gets a free pass.
You dont need to give a free pass to a great player, and 2 time MVP, that has failed repeatedly in Championship caliber games. He earned his label. Fair or not.
BTW:
Who cares about Fouts or Marino....give me Stabler , his ring, and his two MVPS any day of the week.
ICON211
Footballguy
I can see that. I certainly don't think Dilfer or those guys were great QBs. Drives me nuts that I hear Manning's name with some other guys that he does not deserve to be mentioned with. I mean this guy went out there yesterday and looked like a beaten man after their second series. His body langauge and the way he played told me the game was over after the second series. He is supposed to be the leader of that team and if their leader looks beaten after the second series what does that say to the rest of the team. Then I hear people call him a great QB. Great QBs lead their team. Manning puts up great stats but he is not a great QB.I can respect that viewpoint, in fact, it's not that dissimilar to my own thoughts. Although I don't think winning a title is in and of itself a declaration of greatness for a QB (i.e., Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams) so it's unfair to say someone can't be "great" without a title too.But as to Marino specifically, I agree that he's too readily put among the top 2 or 3 at his position ever, and I don't hold him in that regard. But that's more indicative of the fact his play declined in the playoffs from his regular season accomplishments than because he never won a title.I think Marino and Fouts are overrated. IMO great QBs win titles. I can't put Marino or Fouts ahead of Montana, Elway, Unitas and a couple others. I'd put it this....Marino is the best QB never to win a title. I think the term great gets thrown around too much.Playoff Records of Select QBsDan Marino -- 8-10 (.444)
Dan Fouts -- 3-4 (.429)So neither Marino nor Fouts were great quarterbacks?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Joe Namath was 2-1 in the post-season, with a ring.
MarshallRob
Footballguy
Isn't that another way of saying he only got his team to the playoffs twice in 13 seasons?
Loomba
Footballguy
I haven't read this whole thread, but are any people saying that a lot of the blame for the Colts offensive (punny, huh?) production should lie at Tom Moore's feet? I don't think the Colts even attempted ONE pass beyond 15 yards! With the Patriot's secondary banged up and starting some pretty inexperienced players, you would have thought they would have gone deep a few times, if not to just loosen up the defence underneath or to draw some interference calls.Any one else wonder the same thing??
pizzatyme
Footballguy
That is how I feel too.I mentioned it before in this thread, but someone boldly said "Manning calls his own plays"However, that is only partly true. I follow the Colts, am a season ticket holder, and understand the offensive playcalling scheme better than most on the board.Ton Moore designs the game plan. If the game plan calls for a short passing game, then that is the play options that are sent into Manning. More sends in 2 passing plays and 1 running play. Peyton has the flexibility to call either of the passing plays and can change the side to which the running play goes.He doesn't, however, change a 3 step drop, quick slant, to a 7-step hitch and go route.He does take some of the responsibility for when it is a 7-step drop and he doesn't try to stretch the field. However, the Pats were playing cover 2 and were really taking away the deep ball.I just think the Colts had too conservative of a gameplan. They never went to an empty backfield set to maximize their advantage against lesser skilled DB's. And they didn't attempt a pass longer than the 15 yarder to Wayne.Manning did look beat from the 1st Q on and it was obvious to see. The Colts punted from the Pats 48 on 4th and 1 in the 3rd Q and I think that said all we needed to see from this coaching staff. Best O in football and aren't confident you can get a yard on NE's side of the field. Brass balls make tough calls in those situations and the Colts Coaching staff is lacking.
Tau837
Footballguy
I don't disagree. But, all that said, if Manning calls timeout with 16 seconds left in the half, they have 2 shots at a TD and a 7-6 halftime lead. I have no idea what he was thinking in saving it. I assume that is Manning's call, not the coaching staff's call.Who knows how much confidence a TD there would have given Manning and the Colts? I'm not saying it would have changed the outcome of the game, but it certainly would have given the Colts more life and made the game more interesting. And it would also have offset these choker claims, at least a bit.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Which is a great way of saying that Manning is a perfectly ordinary QB who has done only and exactly what is expected. You can whip up some statistics to show that his yards and TDs are exactly what they ought to be, too. Because they are. But when his individual performance in the playoff loss is much worse than even his worst regular season game, there's something to be said for Manning in particular being the reason this team isn't getting over the hump.
i disagree.i think its the perfect way of saying manning is a phenomenal QB who was born in the wrong era (ie the NEP era) same way Jim Kelly was born in the (NYG/WAS/DAL ie NFC era).You CAN be a great player and just have the dumb luck of having a roadblock in your way every year.This is especially true for every team in the NBA from 1990-1998 when MJ was owning the NBA with the Bulls. There were a lot of great teams... the Jazz, the Suns, the NY teams just to name a few. But everyone got thrashed by MJ.Same thing for golf with Tiger although he hasnt maintained his era very well.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
He is not an ordinary QB but to think he has been anything other than very ordinary in the playoffs is just as sillyThis points to why I have a hard time giving you respect in this board with your opinions.To think that Manning is ordinary is just silly!
Hi cochise,The Chiefs on the road last year in the 2nd round of the playoffs were clearly title contenders with Priest Holmes running wild and that offense clicking. Manning led the Colts to a win at Arrowhead in a shootout.Let's just say he has to win the AFC championship to not be labeled a choker. I can live with that. Elway had the same stuff to deal with too. That's cool.J
bostonfred
Footballguy
If you're saying he's successfully met a perfectly ordinary standard for playoff wins, then you've successfully shown that he's a perfectly ordinary QB in the playoffs. Doug said he's won exactly as many playoff games as he should. Putting aside his statistical performances (which were way above average in his wins and way below average in his losses). Manning's led his teams to do nothing more and nothing less than expected.This points to why I have a hard time giving you respect in this board with your opinions.To think that Manning is ordinary is just silly!
DeCleater
Footballguy
This is not tennis people, in case you haven't noticed football is a team sport. The Patriots are a better team than the Colts. By your definitions Jordan was a huge choker because he couldn't beat the Pistons early in his career. It wasn't until the Bulls were a better team than the Pistons could they advance.
bostonfred
Footballguy
If Jordan's average had dropped by almost 50% per game in those playoff games, it would have been a choke. Or maybe a better example would be if his assists had dropped off completely - it may not be entirely his fault that his teammates aren't scoring, but he isn't putting them in a position to score. Again, the problem isn't just that Manning's teams aren't winning, it's that his individual performance is so subpar.
