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
Hi Bf,

I think we're finally getting somewhere as I try to understand your side.
Agreed. Good discussion here.
I think that I put way, way, way less emphasis on postseason play than you do. I think the sample size is just way too small there to start making career defining decisions.
Yes. That's clearly a big part of this.
With 120 games unders his belt, I'm not going to let 3 or 4 games have that much influence. I'm going to look more at the whole 120 games. Or this year, I'm going to look at the 18 games, not just the last one. I think Manning had the best 2004 season of any QB in the league. Playoffs included.
Serious question - what about 2003, when Manning and McNair won co-MVP but Brady won Superbowl MVP? Who do you think had the better combined regular-and-postseason? To me, it's Brady. That's what they play for. I thought Brady's second Superbowl, along with the fact that he beat both co-MVPs en route to the Superbowl, was vindication that he should have at least been seriously considered for MVP that year, especially since his stats were in the same ballpark as McNair's, and he led the Pats to 14 wins.
I think folks who think Tom Brady is great, put a much stronger emphasis on post season play, where obviously, Brady has been excellent (although I'll still contend winning makes things appear to be better - 144 yards and 1 TD is not a "great" performance by most standards)
I agree that Brady doesn't always put up great numbers over the course of the game. 150 total yards and 2 total TDs against Indy when they're trying to establish the run doesn't tell the story, though, when you realize that Brady just had to sustain that back breaking drive in the third quarter, including two back to back passes for good yardage to pick up a 2nd and 17. But if it's stats you want, 32/52 for 312 in the snow against Oakland was pretty decent, though, and 32/48 for 354 yards and 3 TDs against one of the top defenses in the league in the Superbowl were pretty nice, as is the fact that Brady's never thrown under 50% in a playoff game.
I don't fault that criteria of focusing much more heavily on the post season. I realize lots of folks do that. Maybe most do that. I just am not one of them. In fact, I'm adamantly not one of them. I think it puts entirely too much emphasis on way too small a sample size to make meaningful judgements on a player as a whole.
Well, Joe, it's not like we're talking about his performance in 4:30 games played on six days rest. The playoffs are a pretty important part of the quarterback's job, which I would remind you is not to get pretty stats, but to help his team win a Superbowl. It seems like you're downplaying that last fact a lot so I'll ask you the same question I asked Cobalt_27 before - as a fan, which would you rather have, your QB break the TD record but lose in the playoffs, or your team win the Superbowl?

Marty Schottenheimer is another great example. I put absolutley zero stock in the folks who discount him for never being able to win the playoff game. I look at his entire career when I'm judging it. Sure a playoff win is bigger than a regular season win, but not by the amount that many make it out to be.
I agree that Schottenheimer's had a great coaching career. I also agree that his struggles in the playoffs are much more than a footnote to his coaching career. There's a big difference between beating a bottom ten team and beating a playoff team, and there's a big difference in the importance of any one regular season game and the importance of any one playoff game to the team's ultimate goal, which is winning a Superbowl.
Marino is another example there. I probably think a lot higher of him than some do because I don't hold his lack of post season success against him nearly as strongly as many do.
I think Marino was an outstanding QB. I don't hold his lack of post season success against him as much as I do Manning because, come playoff time, top teams could focus on shutting down the passing game and there was nothing he could do about it. Manning has Edgerrin James to keep defenses honest.
For me, when you compare him to the other QBs in the categories you had listed, I take Manning as #1 in a no brainer. I've just seen him do too many of those things better than the other guys on that list too many times. (With the exception of being mobile but like Marino, his sack numbers are the bottom line there and he's exceptional) If I were starting a team today, I'd take Manning heads and shoulders above the other guys out there. And I guess that's where I'm coming from on this discussion.

J
It seems like you don't believe that there's much of a special skill in playing well specifically in a playoff game, while I think it's one of the most important skills. That's the centerpiece of our disagreement.Good stuff once again.

 
It seems like you're downplaying that last fact a lot so I'll ask you the same question I asked Cobalt_27 before - as a fan, which would you rather have, your QB break the TD record but lose in the playoffs, or your team win the Superbowl?
Hi Bf,I said I was out but you asked a good question. Lemme answer and then I'm really out.

As a fan of the team, hands down I want to win the Super Bowl. No question. I think every Colts fan in the world would trade Manning's record for a Super Bowl Win. I think Manning would trade his record for a Round 2 playoff win.

But that's not what we're talking about. At least not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about judging QBs and evaluating talent.

As an NFL GM evaluating talent, I'll take the guy who can throw 49 TDs with 4557 yards, 10 interceptions and a 121 passer rating all day long over the guy who is on the Super Bowl team. All day.

Sure, it's ideal if you can have both. But as an NFL GM judging QB's, I take the production over the title any day.

I really do think that's where we differed on this. Enjoyed the discussion.

J

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: I cant believe the owner of this board doesnt put much importance in winning playoff games and Super Bowls when evaluating a QB. That just astounds me.I know you run a Fantasy Football business but the guy who has the best stats is not the best QB. You should know that.
 
But as an NFL GM judging QB's, I take the production over the title any day.J
:wall: WOWHow about production in the clutch.......production is a game that matters.Just win baby
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems like you're downplaying that last fact a lot so I'll ask you the same question I asked Cobalt_27 before - as a fan, which would you rather have, your QB break the TD record but lose in the playoffs, or your team win the Superbowl?
Hi Bf,I said I was out but you asked a good question. Lemme answer and then I'm really out.

As a fan of the team, hands down I want to win the Super Bowl. No question. I think every Colts fan in the world would trade Manning's record for a Super Bowl Win. I think Manning would trade his record for a Round 2 playoff win.

But that's not what we're talking about. At least not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about judging QBs and evaluating talent.

As an NFL GM evaluating talent, I'll take the guy who can throw 49 TDs with 4557 yards, 10 interceptions and a 121 passer rating all day long over the guy who is on the Super Bowl team. All day.

Sure, it's ideal if you can have both. But as an NFL GM judging QB's, I take the production over the title any day.

I really do think that's where we differed on this. Enjoyed the discussion.

J
How can you not factor intangibles into the QB position? A QB is supposed to lead his team by example. Manning was a beaten man after the second series on Sunday. He looked frustrated and his body language was awful. Don't you think that affects the rest of the team and should facotr in to an analysis of his play?
 
Hi fred,I'll stick strongly to what I said above. If one thinks Manning choked in this game they have a way different definition of choking than most do. New England just soundly beat this team. There will be people that hate Manning for whatever reason that take glee in calling a "choke" but I don't think anyone that knows a lot about the game would say that. Just my .02J
:goodposting: How anyone calls THAT GAME a choke is beyond me... There have been games where Manning choked, but that was not one of them.
 
Hi fred,I'll stick strongly to what I said above. If one thinks Manning choked in this game they have a way different definition of choking than most do. New England just soundly beat this team. There will be people that hate Manning for whatever reason that take glee in calling a "choke" but I don't think anyone that knows a lot about the game would say that. Just my .02J
:goodposting: How anyone calls THAT GAME a choke is beyond me... There have been games where Manning choked, but that was not one of them.
Well, the 49 regular season TDs in 15 games made people expect him to get more than three points in a playoff game, and the fact that he SO badly failed to meet expectations makes it a choke. You might look at what the Pats did to defend him and say they just played an incredible game - and I agree - but you can also look at Manning's individual performance and the numerous personal failures he had in this specific game (enumerated throughout this thread) and see that he personally choked.
 
Hi fred,I'll stick strongly to what I said above. If one thinks Manning choked in this game they have a way different definition of choking than most do. New England just soundly beat this team. There will be people that hate Manning for whatever reason that take glee in calling a "choke" but I don't think anyone that knows a lot about the game would say that. Just my .02J
:goodposting: How anyone calls THAT GAME a choke is beyond me... There have been games where Manning choked, but that was not one of them.
I'm very late into this conversation (probably too late) but we've been talking about this at work all week and I have to put my two cents in.Manning and the entire Colts offense played the entire game as if afraid to lose and that is why they lost. The heart of the Patriots strong defense is up the middle featuring perhaps the finest team linebacking group I have ever watched play the game and a great safety in Rodney Harrison backing them up. The Patriots were very weak at the cornerback position and yet Manning continued to throw the ball underneath the Linebackers who were able to move up and make plays on the Colts offensive personel. Throwing the ball underneath against the Patriots is just asking for trouble and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to score against them using a gameplan such as this.Now I don't know if it was Manning and his audibles or the actual gameplan itself that is to blame but I do know that the play calling was terrible. I believe that Manning's four interceptions last season in New England did weigh on his mind and he was determined not to LOSE the game for the Colts instead of trying to win the game. The team had to take chances down the field against a questionable secondary, past the drop of the linebackers and yet they simply did not attempt to exploit the one weakness on that fabulous defense. Perhaps Manning would have thrown 4 interceptions once again and lost the game but at least he would have gone down gunslinging instead of with his tail between his legs.As good as the Patriots defense played though and as horrible of a gameplan the Colts utilized in the contest, I think the Patriots spanked the Colts thanks to the brilliant gameplan on offense. The one way to beat up on the Colts is to pound the ball at their small defense and the Patriots did that to perfection limiting the opportunities for Manning and company to get on track.This was the golden opportunity for the Colts to get to the show and for Manning to shed the choker label once and for all. Both he and the team not only failed to do so but added more fuel to the fire with the conservative (Chicago Bear's like) offensive playcalling. When an offensive team plays not to lose, almost every time they will go home losers and that's the bottom line.As for which quarterback I would want, that is simple. Two years ago I would have said Manning 100 times out of 100. Last season I would have said Manning 90 times out fo 100 and even during this season I would have said him more often than not. I have changed my mind after this game. Brady is a leader, a warrior and a winner. It pains me to say it as a Dolphins' fan but I would take him to lead my team.Great discussion guys! Definitely what makes this place special :popcorn:
 
Hi fred,I'll stick strongly to what I said above. If one thinks Manning choked in this game they have a way different definition of choking than most do. New England just soundly beat this team. There will be people that hate Manning for whatever reason that take glee in calling a "choke" but I don't think anyone that knows a lot about the game would say that. Just my .02J
:goodposting: How anyone calls THAT GAME a choke is beyond me... There have been games where Manning choked, but that was not one of them.
I'm very late into this conversation (probably too late) but we've been talking about this at work all week and I have to put my two cents in.Manning and the entire Colts offense played the entire game as if afraid to lose and that is why they lost. The heart of the Patriots strong defense is up the middle featuring perhaps the finest team linebacking group I have ever watched play the game and a great safety in Rodney Harrison backing them up. The Patriots were very weak at the cornerback position and yet Manning continued to throw the ball underneath the Linebackers who were able to move up and make plays on the Colts offensive personel. Throwing the ball underneath against the Patriots is just asking for trouble and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to score against them using a gameplan such as this.Now I don't know if it was Manning and his audibles or the actual gameplan itself that is to blame but I do know that the play calling was terrible. I believe that Manning's four interceptions last season in New England did weigh on his mind and he was determined not to LOSE the game for the Colts instead of trying to win the game. The team had to take chances down the field against a questionable secondary, past the drop of the linebackers and yet they simply did not attempt to exploit the one weakness on that fabulous defense. Perhaps Manning would have thrown 4 interceptions once again and lost the game but at least he would have gone down gunslinging instead of with his tail between his legs.As good as the Patriots defense played though and as horrible of a gameplan the Colts utilized in the contest, I think the Patriots spanked the Colts thanks to the brilliant gameplan on offense. The one way to beat up on the Colts is to pound the ball at their small defense and the Patriots did that to perfection limiting the opportunities for Manning and company to get on track.This was the golden opportunity for the Colts to get to the show and for Manning to shed the choker label once and for all. Both he and the team not only failed to do so but added more fuel to the fire with the conservative (Chicago Bear's like) offensive playcalling. When an offensive team plays not to lose, almost every time they will go home losers and that's the bottom line.As for which quarterback I would want, that is simple. Two years ago I would have said Manning 100 times out of 100. Last season I would have said Manning 90 times out fo 100 and even during this season I would have said him more often than not. I have changed my mind after this game. Brady is a leader, a warrior and a winner. It pains me to say it as a Dolphins' fan but I would take him to lead my team.Great discussion guys! Definitely what makes this place special :popcorn:
I couldn't have said it better myself, as evidenced by the fact that this is better than any of my 35 posts in this thread.
 
Hi fred,I'll stick strongly to what I said above. If one thinks Manning choked in this game they have a way different definition of choking than most do. New England just soundly beat this team. There will be people that hate Manning for whatever reason that take glee in calling a "choke" but I don't think anyone that knows a lot about the game would say that. Just my .02J
:goodposting: How anyone calls THAT GAME a choke is beyond me... There have been games where Manning choked, but that was not one of them.
I'm very late into this conversation (probably too late) but we've been talking about this at work all week and I have to put my two cents in.Manning and the entire Colts offense played the entire game as if afraid to lose and that is why they lost. The heart of the Patriots strong defense is up the middle featuring perhaps the finest team linebacking group I have ever watched play the game and a great safety in Rodney Harrison backing them up. The Patriots were very weak at the cornerback position and yet Manning continued to throw the ball underneath the Linebackers who were able to move up and make plays on the Colts offensive personel. Throwing the ball underneath against the Patriots is just asking for trouble and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to score against them using a gameplan such as this.Now I don't know if it was Manning and his audibles or the actual gameplan itself that is to blame but I do know that the play calling was terrible. I believe that Manning's four interceptions last season in New England did weigh on his mind and he was determined not to LOSE the game for the Colts instead of trying to win the game. The team had to take chances down the field against a questionable secondary, past the drop of the linebackers and yet they simply did not attempt to exploit the one weakness on that fabulous defense. Perhaps Manning would have thrown 4 interceptions once again and lost the game but at least he would have gone down gunslinging instead of with his tail between his legs.As good as the Patriots defense played though and as horrible of a gameplan the Colts utilized in the contest, I think the Patriots spanked the Colts thanks to the brilliant gameplan on offense. The one way to beat up on the Colts is to pound the ball at their small defense and the Patriots did that to perfection limiting the opportunities for Manning and company to get on track.This was the golden opportunity for the Colts to get to the show and for Manning to shed the choker label once and for all. Both he and the team not only failed to do so but added more fuel to the fire with the conservative (Chicago Bear's like) offensive playcalling. When an offensive team plays not to lose, almost every time they will go home losers and that's the bottom line.As for which quarterback I would want, that is simple. Two years ago I would have said Manning 100 times out of 100. Last season I would have said Manning 90 times out fo 100 and even during this season I would have said him more often than not. I have changed my mind after this game. Brady is a leader, a warrior and a winner. It pains me to say it as a Dolphins' fan but I would take him to lead my team.Great discussion guys! Definitely what makes this place special :popcorn:
do you really know what they were trying to do?maybe they switched gears and tried to runor the wind was too strongor the ball was too slickor the WRs were getting bumped at the lineor the field was too muddy to get the 9 routes outso would your plan be to throw the long bomb on 1st and 10?long bomb on 2nd and 10?long bomb on 3rd and 10?
 
do you really know what they were trying to do?maybe they switched gears and tried to runor the wind was too strongor the ball was too slickor the WRs were getting bumped at the lineor the field was too muddy to get the 9 routes outso would your plan be to throw the long bomb on 1st and 10?long bomb on 2nd and 10?long bomb on 3rd and 10?
Let's start with little steps. Manning should have attempted at least one pass that was longer than twenty yards. Do you agree or disagree?
 
I think an interesting question to raise here is what QB do you think could have beaten the Patriots last Sunday - playing on the Colts team (assuming he'd been on the team all along, so it's not like a learning curve problem)?I can't think of any. The Patriots beat the Colts in all phases of the game from what I saw. So - I'd like to hear the case of how Joe Montana in his prime on the Colts would have beaten the Patriots or even how Tom Brady and the Colts would have beaten Tom Brady and the Patriots in Foxboro in the snow. And with all the focus on wins - I don't want to hear that Brady and the Colts would have only lost 20-13 against Brady and the Patriots. Because - really - who cares how much you lost by - you lost.I'm not saying Joe Montana isn't a great QB - but in every Super Bowl he played - he also had the better supporting cast. As I said before - football is not basketball - where there's only 5 guys on the court and the best players are on the court virtually the entire game and they don't even allow zones so that the stars can truly shine.

 
So your question is, could a quarterback who took a couple of chances downfield, didn't let a Belichick defense dictate his playcalling, wasn't a relative statue, and was better in cold weather, and wasn't battling the demons of a 4 INT game the last time he played this team, have scored three touchdowns when throwing to Harrison, Wayne, Stokley, Clark, and Pollard, and not audibling James out of run plays when there were no down linemen on the line of scrimmage.

Could this magical QB possibly have called a timeout at the end of the first half so they didn't have to kick a field goal on third and goal? Could this special player have thrown or run for a first down on third and four instead of throwing for three and punting? Could this player have decided not to throw a screen to Rhodes on second and seventeen when Bruschi was sitting right next to him waiting for it? Does there exist a player on God's green earth who could have thrown a ball twenty yards past the line of scrimmage to test a battered secondary?

No, that sounds impossible.

 
I think an interesting question to raise here is what QB do you think could have beaten the Patriots last Sunday - playing on the Colts team (assuming he'd been on the team all along, so it's not like a learning curve problem)?I can't think of any. The Patriots beat the Colts in all phases of the game from what I saw. So - I'd like to hear the case of how Joe Montana in his prime on the Colts would have beaten the Patriots or even how Tom Brady and the Colts would have beaten Tom Brady and the Patriots in Foxboro in the snow. And with all the focus on wins - I don't want to hear that Brady and the Colts would have only lost 20-13 against Brady and the Patriots. Because - really - who cares how much you lost by - you lost.I'm not saying Joe Montana isn't a great QB - but in every Super Bowl he played - he also had the better supporting cast. As I said before - football is not basketball - where there's only 5 guys on the court and the best players are on the court virtually the entire game and they don't even allow zones so that the stars can truly shine.
I don't think the question is who could have beaten the Patriots. The question to me is why did the MVP of the league have BY FAR his poorest game of the season. Many are saying there's no way he could have played any better, but I don't think that's the case at all. The whole team choked, Manning included.Manning never had to beat the Pats, but he had to do something. The guy looked like Chad Pennington out there.
 
So your question is, could a quarterback who took a couple of chances downfield, didn't let a Belichick defense dictate his playcalling, wasn't a relative statue, and was better in cold weather, and wasn't battling the demons of a 4 INT game the last time he played this team, have scored three touchdowns when throwing to Harrison, Wayne, Stokley, Clark, and Pollard, and not audibling James out of run plays when there were no down linemen on the line of scrimmage.

Could this magical QB possibly have called a timeout at the end of the first half so they didn't have to kick a field goal on third and goal? Could this special player have thrown or run for a first down on third and four instead of throwing for three and punting? Could this player have decided not to throw a screen to Rhodes on second and seventeen when Bruschi was sitting right next to him waiting for it? Does there exist a player on God's green earth who could have thrown a ball twenty yards past the line of scrimmage to test a battered secondary?

No, that sounds impossible.
The absolute key question about the game was why Manning did not attempt a long pass. Whatever the gameplan was, certainly Manning had the option to go deep at any time. There had to be some plays where his receivers ran farther than 20 yards downfield. Culpepper threw to Randy Moss a bunch of times on Saturday even when Moss wasn't even close to being open in an attempt to give his best player a shot at making a big play in a desperate situation. Manning's got Marvin Harrison, a talent comparable to Moss. Reggie Wayne played as well as Harrison this year. Brandon Stokely can catch the deep ball. Surely one of those guys had some single coverage at some time during the game. Why didn't Manning give one of them a chance to make a play? It's not enough of an explanation to just say the Patriots were better and shut down the Colts. Manning was only sacked once. Why didn't he test the Pats' secondary? I'm not a fan of either team but as an NFL fan hoping for a great game I felt cheated.
 
So your question is, could a quarterback who took a couple of chances downfield, didn't let a Belichick defense dictate his playcalling, wasn't a relative statue, and was better in cold weather, and wasn't battling the demons of a 4 INT game the last time he played this team, have scored three touchdowns when throwing to Harrison, Wayne, Stokley, Clark, and Pollard, and not audibling James out of run plays when there were no down linemen on the line of scrimmage.

Could this magical QB possibly have called a timeout at the end of the first half so they didn't have to kick a field goal on third and goal? Could this special player have thrown or run for a first down on third and four instead of throwing for three and punting? Could this player have decided not to throw a screen to Rhodes on second and seventeen when Bruschi was sitting right next to him waiting for it? Does there exist a player on God's green earth who could have thrown a ball twenty yards past the line of scrimmage to test a battered secondary?

No, that sounds impossible.
The absolute key question about the game was why Manning did not attempt a long pass. Whatever the gameplan was, certainly Manning had the option to go deep at any time. There had to be some plays where his receivers ran farther than 20 yards downfield. Culpepper threw to Randy Moss a bunch of times on Saturday even when Moss wasn't even close to being open in an attempt to give his best player a shot at making a big play in a desperate situation. Manning's got Marvin Harrison, a talent comparable to Moss. Reggie Wayne played as well as Harrison this year. Brandon Stokely can catch the deep ball. Surely one of those guys had some single coverage at some time during the game. Why didn't Manning give one of them a chance to make a play? It's not enough of an explanation to just say the Patriots were better and shut down the Colts. Manning was only sacked once. Why didn't he test the Pats' secondary? I'm not a fan of either team but as an NFL fan hoping for a great game I felt cheated.
The only reason that I can think of for this is that the Patriots showed that they were sending safety help to the sidelines, but dropped their safety back to the middle of the field after a couple seconds when Manning was normally letting the ball go. This let them show one coverage (to keep him from throwing the deep ball to the outside receiver), while actually using another (rolling the safeties to the middle of the field to support the linebackers and d backs. So really, they took advantage of Manning being a bit of a one trick pony (over reacting to defenses) and used that to double up the value of their coverages.

But again, that falls on Manning and the coaches to recognize that and exploit it later in the game.

 
So your question is, could a quarterback who took a couple of chances downfield, didn't let a Belichick defense dictate his playcalling, wasn't a relative statue, and was better in cold weather, and wasn't battling the demons of a 4 INT game the last time he played this team, have scored three touchdowns when throwing to Harrison, Wayne, Stokley, Clark, and Pollard, and not audibling James out of run plays when there were no down linemen on the line of scrimmage.

Could this magical QB possibly have called a timeout at the end of the first half so they didn't have to kick a field goal on third and goal? Could this special player have thrown or run for a first down on third and four instead of throwing for three and punting? Could this player have decided not to throw a screen to Rhodes on second and seventeen when Bruschi was sitting right next to him waiting for it? Does there exist a player on God's green earth who could have thrown a ball twenty yards past the line of scrimmage to test a battered secondary?

No, that sounds impossible.
Ok, so who then?I don't say that a QB couldn't have done better - I definitely think they could have. And I agree wholeheartedly about the passing downfield thing - I can't believe the Colts tried to change their style of play in such a key game to basically try to beat the Patriots at their own game. But that is in my view due to the coaches more than Manning.

But so many people have been saying - a great QB leads his team to victory in the key games no matter what and made comparisons to basketball players and such. And the whole thread started because Manning and the Patriots lost AGAIN to the Patriots.

And my points are:

- the Patriots beat the Colts down across the board, and are just a better team. One guy can't overcome that - particularly when his team is outcoached, outhustled, dropping passes, etc. The Patriots are just a better team, and throw in the conditions of the game and in that scenario they're a MUCH better team. I'd like to hear the argument that the Colts would have won with Montana in there - or whoever you want.

- comparisons to basketball make no sense - a single player can take over a game so much easier than in football. And in fact you play a 7-game series.

- everyone's pointing out these QBs that won Super Bowls as obviously superior, and how can you tell that when often their supporting cast was so much better. Football is just too much of a team game to play the can't be great if you never won a Super Bowl card. And sure - you can say Tom Brady won that Super Bowl against the Rams with that last-minute drive. But I'd say it had more to do with the coaching and the defense that shut down the Rams supposedly unstoppable offense.

I definitely agree that Manning has major question-marks, and the Colts in general need to figure out how to beat the Patriots, but his career isn't over yet.

I'm reminded of Elway - not considered among the greatest ever until he got a running game like they got starting with TD, and their defense also got better. Denver was a lot like the Colts in winning a lot of high-scoring games, but not winning it all until late in Elway's career. If the rest of the team hadn't gotten better and they had never won the Super Bowl - would that mean Elway wasn't one of the best QBs?

 
do you really know what they were trying to do?maybe they switched gears and tried to runor the wind was too strongor the ball was too slickor the WRs were getting bumped at the lineor the field was too muddy to get the 9 routes outso would your plan be to throw the long bomb on 1st and 10?long bomb on 2nd and 10?long bomb on 3rd and 10?
It's not about knowing what they were trying to do but what they did in actuality. When any team is starting a receiver and a 3rd stringer at corner you MUST take some shots down the field. That is especially so when the offensive team is supposed to be explosive such as the Colts and the linebacking core of the opposition is great.As I stated above, perhaps Manning would have thrown 4 interceptions again this year but at least I would have admired them for trying to win the game instead of being disgusted that they played the game not to lose.BTW: I am not trying to take away anything from the Patriots effort and talent. They were the better team and are a dynasty in my mind. I just think the Colts let a tremendous opportunity slip through their fingers and especially so when you consider the Colts' defense had them in the game in the first half. When you consider the only success the Colts had was in the final two minutes of the first half when they went hurry up and threw the ball down the field, you have to wonder whether it was Manning's fault or the coaching staff's but somebody has to be accountable for that effort. There is no excuse for a team that scores at will in the regular season to be held to three stinkin' points. INexcuseable!
 
Hi fred,I'll stick strongly to what I said above. If one thinks Manning choked in this game they have a way different definition of choking than most do. New England just soundly beat this team. There will be people that hate Manning for whatever reason that take glee in calling a "choke" but I don't think anyone that knows a lot about the game would say that. Just my .02J
:goodposting: How anyone calls THAT GAME a choke is beyond me... There have been games where Manning choked, but that was not one of them.
If you consider how he passed the ball, then NO, he did not choke in any way whatsoever. However if you factor in leadership (looking defeated after one quarter), and the intestinal fortitude to try and win the football game instead of conservatively trying to not make mistakes to cost your team the win, then yes I think Manning, the coaching staff and the entire offense choked big time. I don't put it all on Manning but if you get all the glory for a 49-touchdown season you should get a sizeable chunk of the blame for a 3 points offensive stinker in the playoffs
 
Ok, so who then?
Good question.
I don't say that a QB couldn't have done better - I definitely think they could have. And I agree wholeheartedly about the passing downfield thing - I can't believe the Colts tried to change their style of play in such a key game to basically try to beat the Patriots at their own game. But that is in my view due to the coaches more than Manning.
Manning calls plays at the line of scrimmage. He had to adjust, and he failed. You can say that Dungy and Moore failed to help him adjust, but Manning was the one staring at a defense that had 0 down linemen and decided not to audible into a run on several occasions. What happened to the guy who said that if opposing teams dared him to run, they'd run their way to a win?
But so many people have been saying - a great QB leads his team to victory in the key games no matter what and made comparisons to basketball players and such. And the whole thread started because Manning and the Patriots lost AGAIN to the Patriots.
No, it started because Manning led them to a whopping 3 points in the playoffs. If the Colts lose this game 23-21, it's probably not as much of an issue. But this is part of a longstanding trend of Manning collapsing in the playoffs.
And my points are: - the Patriots beat the Colts down across the board, and are just a better team. One guy can't overcome that - particularly when his team is outcoached, outhustled, dropping passes, etc. The Patriots are just a better team, and throw in the conditions of the game and in that scenario they're a MUCH better team. I'd like to hear the argument that the Colts would have won with Montana in there - or whoever you want.
I don't think you can make an argument that this QB or that QB would have won the game, because you'd be dealing entirely in hypotheticals. But I have enumerated the reasons that Manning was easier for the Patriots to beat than another QB because he beat himself, he was predictable, he failed to adjust, he wasn't aggressive, and he wasn't a leader.
- comparisons to basketball make no sense - a single player can take over a game so much easier than in football. And in fact you play a 7-game series.
Actually, the person who brought up basketball was defending Manning, saying that Jordan "struggled" early in his career, too. I agree that they're completely different games.
- everyone's pointing out these QBs that won Super Bowls as obviously superior, and how can you tell that when often their supporting cast was so much better.Football is just too much of a team game to play the can't be great if you never won a Super Bowl card.
I'm not. I don't think many of the people saying Manning choked in this game brought up the Super Bowl. It's the Manning supporters that keep saying it's not Manning's fault he hasn't won the Super Bowl.
And sure - you can say Tom Brady won that Super Bowl against the Rams with that last-minute drive. But I'd say it had more to do with the coaching and the defense that shut down the Rams supposedly unstoppable offense.
Well, that's another argument for another thread, but what about the Superbowl against the Panthers?
I definitely agree that Manning has major question-marks, and the Colts in general need to figure out how to beat the Patriots, but his career isn't over yet.
Absolutely. And I'm almost even rooting for him to get over this hump. It's sad that he's so predictably collapsed in the playoffs the last few years after such great regular season performances. It must really eat him up inside.
I'm reminded of Elway - not considered among the greatest ever until he got a running game like they got starting with TD, and their defense also got better. Denver was a lot like the Colts in winning a lot of high-scoring games, but not winning it all until late in Elway's career. If the rest of the team hadn't gotten better and they had never won the Super Bowl - would that mean Elway wasn't one of the best QBs?
It's funny you should mentioned that, because Elway had some miserable performances the first few years of his career. From this ESPN article:
Code:
In a winning effort against New England in 1986, he completed only 13 of 32 passes; in the 1987 Super Bowl he was 14 for 38 and was picked off three times; in the 1989 Super Bowl, he was 10 for 26 for only 108 yards, and was intercepted twice.
But he rebounded late in his career. Maybe Manning will too. As I said earlier in the thread, I give him credit for beating KC last year, although it was just the kind of team he seems to excel against, the teams with no D. I thought he might be turning the corner, especially after the win against Denver this year, but it seems that hasn't happened yet. All we can say so far is that he has ended his team's season in each of the last five years with a game where he played way, way off his season averages, and failed to score a bunch of points.
 
The real question is...did the Pats have an unfair advantage and bamboozle the Colts as opposed to Manning choking.

 
The Colts have beaten the Pats the last three times that they played, including twice on the road.

I think it is safe to say that Manning had a crappy game in 2005, but has rebounded fairly well.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top