Furious Styles
Footballguy
So your playoff team is down by less than a TD late in the 4th quarter of a playoff game and just got the ball, is there anyone going to argue they would rather have Peyton as their QB than Brady?
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!
Does Peyton Manning play worse in the playoffs than the regular season (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter shader
- Start date
ChromeWeasel
Footballguy
No one in his right mind would rather have Peyton Manning over Brady in clutch time.
ICON211
Footballguy
When the games get bigger Manning consistently comes up short. I do not need stats I watched the games. Brady has had some poor playoff performances, but a LOT of really good ones too. Manning has not played really well in a large number of his playoff games. Arguing Brady vs. Manning for the regular season is a fun debate, but for the playoffs its rather silly.
Exactly.Been watching him since TN days.He tends to poop his pants in the big games. It's amazing to me that the talking heads just caught on to this and needed this last game to officially "brand" Manning for what he is.Play with the stats all you want. Anyone who watches football knows the real deal.He's a great quarterback, but he's got some work to do to be in the discussion with the elites.KY
DropKick
Footballguy
There will always be haters but, if the thread topic is Manning's post season record, there will be negative comments from some objective people.On one hand you don't want anyone to critique Manning, yet you make the wild claim that neither Brady, Brees, Ben or Rodgers could have equaled Manning's accomplishments. Why not? There are eight SBs wins among that group. For what its worth, Andrew Luck (in his rookie season) took the Colts to the playoffs. I find it hard to believe these other top QBs would have had no shot at winning two SBs with the Colts roster.'pizzatyme said:
bostonfred
Footballguy
There are two examples in the post I quoted. The difference is that manning didn't capitalize on them. In the tuck rule game, brady still had to drive them into field goal range in the snow with time winding down. Its not like that was a gimme drive. The field goal was outstanding, but he still had to drive them into range for another score in overtime. And this time he got them into chip shot field goal range. He had some great luck in that game - a decade later, people still remember the call, and the long field goal kick to tie the game. But he capitalized on it. The dude threw for over 300 yards in a blizzard against a very good oakland team during his first season as a starter. The same thing goes in the san diego game where troy brown wrestled away the interception. Brady still had to lead the comeback to win the game. When you do get a lucky bounce, you have to capitalize on it. To mannings credit, he tried. He was down two scores when polamalu intercepted that ball, and, given new life, he led a td drive. Then his defense got him one more chance, and he took some bad sacks and effectively lost the game again. But the bettis fumble and long return gave him more life, and to his credit, he got them into 46 yard field goal range, then decided that was close enough, took a shot for the end zone, and missed. That's not exactly capitalizing on the lucky missed call by the officials, or the stop by his defense, or the unlikely fumble caused by his defense who somehow turned a goal line stand into a 40 yard turnover. But he tried. I can also show examples of manning and brady getting very unlucky in the playoffs, if you want. And again, you'll find more examples of brady overcoming that bad luck than manning. Im not going to go game by game through them this morning, but take a look at the game summaries on wikipedia or pfr. Manning has wasted a lot of opportunities - and a lot of great efforts by his teammates. Ive already quoted some examples of them responding differently in similar situations. As an example, let's say your defense forces four turnovers, like the patriots did to the colts. You'd say that a qb like brady should be able to win that one handily, right? And he did, winning by ten after leading a fourth quarter drive for an insurance field goal to seal the game. Lets say that they not only forced four turnovers, but also held their opponent to 146 yards. You'd say that manning should win that handily, right? Well, sort of. the colts did win, but it wasn't because of manning, who threw three interceptions of his own, and won a one score game that should never have been in reach. Another example - after leading for most of the game, brady watches his defense give up an 85 yard bomb to take the lead. Brady leads the patriots to a go ahead touchdown. Then he watches his defense give up another long drive - not in one gulp, but a quick drive for 76 yards nonetheless. Brady then leads a field goal drive to close out the game. On the other hand, after leading most of the game, manning watches his special teams give them the go ahead score, 28-21, he then gets another gift, as his defense recovers a fumble. Manning responds by giving the ball right back to the ravens with a fumble of his own at his own 37. Baltimore scores, they exchange punts, manning leads a td drive, and you know the rest. You look at that and say that the defense blew it. And to a large extent, that's true. But manning still had a bunch of opportunities to close out that game. And not only did he fail to do it, he turned the ball over and effectively lost the game. The criticism of manning for this last game isn't that he singlehandedly lost it, but that he had repeated opportunities to win it, and he didn't. There is never going to be a perfect parallel between their situations, but in similar situations, brady has tended to do more. You can blame mannings bad luck on his kicker if you want, but its asinine to look for cumulative stats to disprove what you can see by actually watching the games.'moleculo said:
Throw Bs all you want. Yeah, it's the first time I've experienced it "firsthand". I almost never go into game threads (once in a while I'll go into a Cowboys game thread). Reading a bunch of guys writing "What a play by..." or "that was a terrible call" has never interested me. I have, however, read tons of references to bickering with Pats fans, other people complaining about them, etc. So now I know why. And since I just got done skimming the Balt/NE pre game thread that has been reinforced even more.And yeah, I know this is a thread about Manning. To call him a "choker" you kind of need a referent don't you think? To dispel the false perception? Brady makes a nice referent since he's considered so "clutch". And that's been done here very nicely by several people.Anything else?
Last edited by a moderator:
ICON211
Footballguy
Manning has made the playoffs 12 different years. If that is too small a sample size then I guess we can not make statements about anyone's level of play in the playoffs. But then again by that logic your answer to the question can not be no.
Today, San Fran became the 4th team in history to overcome an 11 point deficit in a conference championship and come back to win. Two of the three previous teams to accomplish that feat were led by Peyton Manning. Just sayin'.
ChromeWeasel
Footballguy
A fair person gives Manning credit for those games. As you said, hes the leader of the team. Likewise, you MUST also assign some blame to the team leader when he FAILS to rally his team. Manning has a lot of history letting his team down in the playoffs too, moreso than the two times he played great. Eight career one and dones is a sad stat to look back on. That diesnt mean he hasnt played really well in some outliers. But you cant give Manning credit as the leader only on the games he happened to win. If you want to give himspecial credit for comebacks, you have to give him responsibility for losses too. And his losses far outweigh his victories.
ICON211
Footballguy
I believe 5 of the one and dones are when his team had a bye, meaning his team was probably a pretty decent favorite in all those games.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Heh, I knew that was gonna get bumped by someone pretty quickly. I'd love to hear fred's good spin on Brady's awful 4th quarter tonight.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Some fun facts to chew on: -Peyton Manning has never been shut out in the 2nd half of a championship game before.-Peyton Manning has never been held to 13 points or less in a home playoff game.-Peyton Manning has never lost a home playoff game by more than 4 points; Tom Brady has now lost a home playoff game by 15+ points...twice..to the same team.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
I'd take Eli over Brady.
ICON211
Footballguy
All correct. Manning was also shut out 41-0 by the Jets 14-31 137 0-2.
It goes beyond the inceptions...1. End of the first half Brady's clock mgmt was piss poor.2. Lack of field awareness when it came time to run and time to throw the ball away.3. Not sure I've seen such a poor downfield ball in ages. It was like I was watching Chad Pennington or maybe maybe Manning 5 days removed from neck surgery.
moleculo
Footballguy
Oddly, I just watched Manning and Brady in the playoffs, at home, a week apart, against an exactly identical defense. A more perfect parallel could not be drawn. Both threw two interceptions, including his teams last offensive play of the game. However, one threw for three touchdowns, the other, just one. One was 3-3 in the red-zone, one was 1-4. One had a QB rating of 88, one had a rating of 62.At no point am I trying to claim that Manning > Brady. In fact, I'll readily admit that Brady > Manning, and I've been pretty consistent with that over the past 6+ years. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that Brady and Manning aren't very far apart in therms of playoff quarterbacking, despite their playoff W/L record discrepancy.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
That request is not going to come true for you, bro. bf would rather die than admit this.
So you're penalizing Brady because he's so good in the regular season that he gets home field? I don't understand. All of the things you can criticize him for/imply, getting home field is not one.
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
And how did they get down 11+ in those games? Just saying. Peyton wasn't just there for the comebacks.In college he would not play his best in big games either - 0-4 against Florida for instance. Then it was the Patriots that had his number and we all attributed it to the greatness of Brady and the Pats (which is probably at least partially true).'SSOG said:
No one can argue that Peyton is going to be a first ballot HOF QB. He is great. But he has not been at his best in the biggest games. He just hasn't. Maybe it isn't fair to measure him against his previous successes, but I think that his best games have been played during the seasons.
And the Tebow thread is not ridiculous.
Jesus give it up already. The fishing has ran it's course.And how did they get down 11+ in those games? Just saying. Peyton wasn't just there for the comebacks.In college he would not play his best in big games either - 0-4 against Florida for instance. Then it was the Patriots that had his number and we all attributed it to the greatness of Brady and the Pats (which is probably at least partially true).'SSOG said:
No one can argue that Peyton is going to be a first ballot HOF QB. He is great. But he has not been at his best in the biggest games. He just hasn't. Maybe it isn't fair to measure him against his previous successes, but I think that his best games have been played during the seasons.
And the Tebow thread is not ridiculous.
shader
Footballguy
It's not fishing it's historical, statistical reality. Manning isn't at his best in the playoffs. No one has come close to refuting that.Jesus give it up already. The fishing has ran it's course.And how did they get down 11+ in those games? Just saying. Peyton wasn't just there for the comebacks.In college he would not play his best in big games either - 0-4 against Florida for instance. Then it was the Patriots that had his number and we all attributed it to the greatness of Brady and the Pats (which is probably at least partially true).'SSOG said:
No one can argue that Peyton is going to be a first ballot HOF QB. He is great. But he has not been at his best in the biggest games. He just hasn't. Maybe it isn't fair to measure him against his previous successes, but I think that his best games have been played during the seasons.
And the Tebow thread is not ridiculous.
Why would anyone refute it. Most QBs that tear it up during the regular season versus the entrie league are going to have inferior performances versus the best teams in the league. Note I said most, not all as there are a few exceptions like Brees.It's not fishing it's historical, statistical reality. Manning isn't at his best in the playoffs. No one has come close to refuting that.Jesus give it up already. The fishing has ran it's course.And how did they get down 11+ in those games? Just saying. Peyton wasn't just there for the comebacks.In college he would not play his best in big games either - 0-4 against Florida for instance. Then it was the Patriots that had his number and we all attributed it to the greatness of Brady and the Pats (which is probably at least partially true).'SSOG said:
No one can argue that Peyton is going to be a first ballot HOF QB. He is great. But he has not been at his best in the biggest games. He just hasn't. Maybe it isn't fair to measure him against his previous successes, but I think that his best games have been played during the seasons.
And the Tebow thread is not ridiculous.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Its funny how people are convinced im such a super homer that I wont say brady had a bad game yesterday. Of course he did. I've always given my honest opinions in these threads, its just that brady has generally done better than this. There are some noteworthy takeaways, though, that go along with previous debate points:-The whole patriot team collapsed around him. The that is totally separate from the fact that brady performed poorly. Welker dropping easy balls early, lloyd slipping and dropping another good ball, ridley getting injured and fumbling, chung and talib getting injured early - all of those things contributed to the loss. But - and this is what I've always been critical of manning about - brady didn't contribute to the win.- I have never been a big believer in using aggregate stats without looking at the game situations. Yesterdays game was no different. Brady threw a late game interception that will look bad in his stat line, and the one that was tipped at the line of scrimmage was just terrible luck. But the run pass thing he did on fourth down, and his unusual inaccuracy, were far more meaningful in the game. If you were to look at this game late in the second quarter, I think you'd say he was playing fairly well. He wasn't playing up to the standards set earlier in the year, and he had some unusual drops from his receivers, but he'd managed to get a three point lead and a chance to get another score headed into the locker room. But then he had that weird clock management brain fart, he had trouble finding throwing lanes, and he got that weird fourth down play where he threw the ball away into center field when he needed a touchdown to stay in the game. It was not good. - The interception at the very end will look worse in his stats than an incomplete pass earlier in the game, but that was a pure garbage time in at that point - I want my quarterback throwing aggressively at that point and I don't care if a hail mary pass or any kind of end zone pass with wime winding down and down two scores gets intercepted, batted down, or whatever. Its all the same. This is why the stats guys who talk about cumulative numbers are so silly to me. The fifth touchdown in mannings scorching of denver in the playoffs years ago, and the last interception in this game, had so little to do with the actual game that it makes no sense to celebrate one and vilify the other. Contrast that with mannings fumble against the ravens, and bradys fourth down blunder, and tell me why passer rating and interception toals should supersede actual game recaps.- I don't think I've ever seen a team get as thoroughly dominated as the pats did in the second half. There was no chance of a comeback. It didn't help that the pats lost gronk before the game and half their secondary early in the game, then lost their staeting running back on a play where he fumbled while getting injured, but the ravens had a great gameplan. Everyone expected them to run and use the long passing game, but credit flacco with doing a great job on the short and intermediate stuff. - as much as everyone talks about the patriots offensive line, they need help there next year. The ravens dominated the line of scrimmage, which led to a lot of tipped balls, including an interception, and a lot of mistimed plays. Losing gronk definitely hurt, although it didn't matter against jj watt and co. The two tight end sets really cover up some flaws on the line, and that needs to be addressed this offseason.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Oh. So, when Brady throws a pick that was tipped at the line, it was terrible luck, but when Manning throws one that was because the defender interfered with the WR, causing a bobble and a deflection that resulted in a pick 6, that is a clear demonstration that once again Manning can't get it done when it really counts, right? And when Brady throws an INT late in a game that is all but lost, its okay, because you have to go for broke and hope for the best, but when Manning does it (like in both NE losses in '03 and '04), you simply mention those INTs as part of his overall game without giving him the "I want my QB being aggressive at that point" out, right? Way to stay consistent. 
moleculo
Footballguy
why use aggregate stats? Because with enough smaples, these things even out. do you think Brady is the only guy in the history of the NFL to throw a meaningless int to end the game? Conversely, surely we can find a fifth (or even sixth?) TD pass that Brady threw in a game that had already been decided?I would agree that aggregate stats have less meaning when evaluating a small number of games. The more games you have, though, the more validity they have (reference: Law of Large Numbers) I would consider a 16 game sample significant enough to draw conclusions from. I say 16 because we already like to draw conclusions based on this sample size when we compare regular seasons, so this seems appropriate (I'm sure there is a more rigorous mathematical definition for sample size, but don't have that available right now). Both Brady and Manning have well more than 16 playoff games under their belts, so their comparable metrics are meaningful.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
what about when manning throws one in the wrong spot that results in a bobble and pick 6?Oh. So, when Brady throws a pick that was tipped at the line, it was terrible luck, but when Manning throws one that was because the defender interfered with the WR, causing a bobble and a deflection that resulted in a pick 6, that is a clear demonstration that once again Manning can't get it done when it really counts, right?
And when Brady throws an INT late in a game that is all but lost, its okay, because you have to go for broke and hope for the best, but when Manning does it (like in both NE losses in '03 and '04), you simply mention those INTs as part of his overall game without giving him the "I want my QB being aggressive at that point" out, right?
Way to stay consistent.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Yes, exactly this, except pretty much the opposite. First of all, I wasn't the one harping on the interception decker tipped. I said repeatedly that the late game fumble and overtime interception were the problem. Second, I repeatedly mentioned that every team has good and bad bounces over the course of these games. Having a tipped ball get picked off, having a call go against you that shouldn't have, having your starting running back get injured - both of these guys had that happen to them. Neither overcame it. Brady probably played a worse individual game than manning did against the ravens, too. Overall, brady has done more to overcome the bad bounces and capitalize on the good ones over their careers, but he is hardly immune to bad games, and I never said he was.Third, i said repeatedly that, until the end of the game, manning was having a pretty good game, and that my problem with that game was manning didn't do things to win it, he did things to lose it. The decker interception wasn't some horrible play by manning, its just the inevitable outcome of a certain number of trials of throwing a ball in traffic. The brady tipped ball wasn't some horrible play by brady, it was just the inevitable outcome of a certain number of trials of throwing a ball through poor passing lanes. Of the two, bradys was more avoidable - he needs to find a clear lane - but also worse luck - that tip could have fallen anywhere, or been picked up by players on either team. The decker tip was caught by a guy who was right there. Both were the kinds of bad bounces I keep talking about.Fourth, the late game interception was completely irrelevant to the final outcome. Just like a hail mary pass at the end of a half, or a "fumble" on a desperation hook and lateral play. Which is why I posted game by game descriptions of the things manning did that bothered me. Its funny, because you called me out for posting the game descriptions, and you guys went back to showing aggregate stas while i said you shouldnt. Now you're calling me inconsistent for using a game description instead of aggregate stats? There is some consistency here, I guess - you consistently try to attack me for things I haven't said, for being a blind homer about points im not making, and generally make attacking posts like this with very little merit, while accusing me of doing the same. Its a shame, because I believe at one time you were a competent poster. You've changed.Oh. So, when Brady throws a pick that was tipped at the line, it was terrible luck, but when Manning throws one that was because the defender interfered with the WR, causing a bobble and a deflection that resulted in a pick 6, that is a clear demonstration that once again Manning can't get it done when it really counts, right? And when Brady throws an INT late in a game that is all but lost, its okay, because you have to go for broke and hope for the best, but when Manning does it (like in both NE losses in '03 and '04), you simply mention those INTs as part of his overall game without giving him the "I want my QB being aggressive at that point" out, right? Way to stay consistent.
bostonfred
Footballguy
This is funny, because the argument I kept hearing in defense of manning was that their postseason careers were way too small for meaningful conclusions.
moleculo
Footballguy
you may have heard it, but not from me.eta: I did mention an "anamoly of small sample sizes earlier in this thread - that had to do with the 4 games that Manning had his team in position to win, only to have his kicker miss the kick or his opponent make a kick.
Last edited by a moderator:
You never responded in the other thread, but I posted a .gif in the other thread so you could watch the pick looped indefinitely. Eric Decker got two hands on the ball basically a foot in front of his face mask. He was in a position to look the ball directly into his hands the whole way. You don't get better ball placement than that.what about when manning throws one in the wrong spot that results in a bobble and pick 6?Oh. So, when Brady throws a pick that was tipped at the line, it was terrible luck, but when Manning throws one that was because the defender interfered with the WR, causing a bobble and a deflection that resulted in a pick 6, that is a clear demonstration that once again Manning can't get it done when it really counts, right?
And when Brady throws an INT late in a game that is all but lost, its okay, because you have to go for broke and hope for the best, but when Manning does it (like in both NE losses in '03 and '04), you simply mention those INTs as part of his overall game without giving him the "I want my QB being aggressive at that point" out, right?
Way to stay consistent.
There's two different postseason samples. The first is all passes Brady has thrown. That's n = 887, which is a more than robust enough sample from which to draw conclusions. The second is all games Brady has ever played. That's n = 24, which is not at all a robust enough sample size to be comfortable drawing conclusions, especially since all data points are binary win/loss values. So, in other words- his postseason play can comfortably be compared to his regular season play (e.g. QB rating, YPA, etc), but his postseason win/loss record cannot be comfortably compared to his regular season win/loss record. Unless, of course, you're comfortable judging on 24 point sample sizes. If we selected 24 passes randomly from Brady's career, how likely do you think it is that those 24 passes would be representative of his career as a whole?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I think those two statements make it clear that we have had so many discussions about this, and in so many different threads, that it is easy to attribute certain comments to someone simply because others on their side of the argument said it. It happens with this much going on. I'll freely admit that I cannot remember which poster exactly said what (and let's face it, we all reference arguments related to this discussion from other threads), and I certainly do not expect anyone to remember everything I said.
Now, having said that...
I am sorry if you feel that someone disagreeing with you in a direct and/or sarcastic manner is an attack, but that is simply not the way I operate. I love a good, spirited disagreement. And I almost never post disagreeable opinions just for the hell of it (unless they are directed at worthless troll posters, whom shall remain nameless, and even then it is extremely rare on my part). I don't waste my time with long replies to posters I feel are not worth replying to; not my style. In the case of my last post, yes, it was sarcastic, but it was not attack. I was merely pointing out the inconsistent standards you demonstrate when comparing Manning to Brady. If that is not your intention, fine, but that is how it comes off, at least to me.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I wouldn't have a problem with this if you made any effort to quote the inconsistent posts instead of just saying I was inconsistent. Feel free to say "brady supporters often say..." instead of "way to be consistent". Try talking to me, instead of about me, like the thread in which you told other posters that I wasn't worth talking to. You're not the only one who does this, but I think you consider yourself a better poster than the guys who do. I don't mind being a magnet for comments like bassnbrew paging me to the courtesy phone when my team was losing . But i try to bring an honest, informed approach to explaining my opinions, and i dont appreciate being lumped in with the super homer posters just because I feel strongly about a player on my favorite team. Even in your response above, you didn't apologize, you just acknowledged that you couldn't keep everyones posts straight, then reiterated that I seem inconsistent to you, and took no ownership of your posts by saying you're sorry that I feel that someone saying something is an attack. Im not talking about someone. Im talking about you. You specifically have gone from someone I could talk to about these things over the years and enjoy the back and forth, to someone who goes out of his way to talk crap about me in these threads. I've discussed this with you in the past, and I've said I don't want to engage with you anymore because I feel that this has gone from good natured argument to trolling. earlier in the week, i went out of my way to avoid quoting your posts or talking to you because you do this so much. I made a general post acknowledging my guys poor performance in a loss - after several people in this thread called me out by name - and instead of acknowledging that it was at least a somewhat fair post, you immediately jumped in to talk about how inconsistent I was. I don't care if you want to talk about manning and brady or anything else you want. I would just like you to stop talking about me and making comments about my credibility when you acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about. If you feel like you can engage in a more respectful manner, that would be good, too, but after repeated requests, I haven't seen it.I think those two statements make it clear that we have had so many discussions about this, and in so many different threads, that it is easy to attribute certain comments to someone simply because others on their side of the argument said it. It happens with this much going on. I'll freely admit that I cannot remember which poster exactly said what (and let's face it, we all reference arguments related to this discussion from other threads), and I certainly do not expect anyone to remember everything I said.
bostonfred
Footballguy
My critique of manning has never been about all passes he's thrown, nor about how many games he's played. Its been about a large sample size of plays, often at the end of the game, where I would expect a great quarterback to play better, and, on average, manning hasn't. Over the course of 20 games, including some blowouts, there has been plenty of opportunity to observe a pattern. Manning can be and has been an absolutely outstanding postseason quarterback - in a few games. More often, in close games, he has made individual mistakes or failed to make the positive plays needed to win a game. Brady has done that too - like this years afccg - but he has played well in close games, and has led his teams to wins. That doesn't mean he always and only plays full games of mistake free football. This isn't just about the results of the game, either. Manning has led a fourth quarter comeback, only to be beaten by an opponent scoring in the closing minute. So has brady. And I don't expect any qb to be perfect at the end of every game. But I do expect that an all time great qb wont be as bad as often as manning has been.And I still disagree with the arbitrary metrics you've used (like the 80 qb rating you mentioned, as opposed to 70 or 75 or 85). I dont think anyone would expect brady to put up a 300+ yard game in a blizzard, for example, while throwing to below average receivers. But according to your analysis, that was a bad game, even though he ran for a touchdown and threw for just one pick in a low scoring affair. I don't find qb rating to be useful at all in that game. I also don't care if manning beat denver by throwing four touchdowns or five. That was a beatdown that was over at halftime. But that game artificially inflates his stats over a 20 game sample size by adding more tds and fewer ints than in other games. If manning could magically move a couple of those touchdowns to a different game, he obviously would. I bet he'd trade three of them just to take that superbowl pick six off the books. But according to your arbitrary cumulative stats, a td is a td. That's great for playoff fantasy football league analysis, I guess, but not so good for predicting wins and losses.
Similar threads
