Is Manning As Much A Cancer As T.O.? Take 2 (1 Viewer)

[Capella]

lol @ BFred.......This is the time to be quiet and take it like a man.If I would have seen the quote, I may have put it in my sig as well.

I've only ever put two people on ignore at footballguys, because I found that every time I looked at one of their posts, it contained no content and was generally irritating. But I took you off of ignore for this post. I'm not sure why. I've already "taken it like a man", and I'll say it again - I gave Manning a ton of credit for the Pats game, and whether he won or lost, I no longer felt like his playoff failures defined him after a very successful comeback in that game. I give him even more credit for overcoming another tough start to a game to just dominate. I think he deserved the MVP for this game every bit as much as Brady deserved it for 2001. I have nothing but glowing things to say about him. Of the people who posted in this thread, I have nothing but congratulations to give to cobalt, Just Win Baby, and Joe Bryant for standing by their case and making a good argument for what they believed in. I'd specifically name guys like JohnnyU and djcolts as guys who I've argued with over the years, and I'm thrilled for them because they must be all kinds of psyched today. But you and JWW did nothing in this thread to make your case. You were piling on because you had nothing to add. Your "lol" post is a great example of the value-free posts I've come to expect from you not only in this thread, but across the board. I'm not worried about your rebuttal. You're back on my ignore list for life now.

I certainly can't argue with having that guy on ignore.Seems like this may be an interesting thread. I may wade through it tomorrow.

 

[GregR_2]

...And the first two games of this season seemed to bear that out. Manning threw one TD and 5 INTs in the first two games of the season. His team played well enough to make up for his mistakes, but his individual play was unspectacular at best and pretty bad at its worst. And the first half of the Patriots game, the same thing appeared to be true. ...

I missed the Colt's first game, but I have never understood why anyone would think Peyton didn't have a fairly good game against the Ravens. It wasn't a 5 TD performance obviously. But as I recall he led 4 scoring drives all of 45+ yards against the best defense in the league, and had another long drive that reversed bad field position for the Colts. He had 2 picks, both on 3rd and long. One ended up turning the ball over 25 yards downfield. The other turned the ball over 50 yards downfield and the effect was better than your average punt would have been. Obviously you'd rather sustain your drive than turn it over, but I don't see how you can say a 50 yard long interception on 3rd and long is a bad thing.I think anyone who viewed that as other than a successful game of ball control isn't viewing it very objectively. I think you have to go into the game expecting a choke job to consider that as anything worse than a decent performance. If Brady had that same exact game people would be talking about how he did what his team needed and he put his team in a position to win by moving the chains and not making silly mistakes.

 

[BassNBrew]

 

[kingmalaki]

Let me repeat to everyone else, though:

I said before the Patriots game that I would believe it when I saw it. Well I saw it, and I believe it.

After his interception in the Pats game, I don't think I've ever felt that way in a game before. Every possession, no matter where the Colts got the ball on the field, I felt like they were a danger to get a touchdown. Manning had to do everything he did, and he did everything he had to do.

Congratulations to Peyton, to JohnnyU and djcolts, and to Joe. I was rooting for him along with you guys in the Superbowl. He's moved into the top echelon of quarterbacks by exorcising the last and biggest demon on his impressive resume.

Then why where you so adament about this cancer when a rain soaked Grossman attrocity was the remedy?

Win or lose, Manning played a good game tonight. It wasn't the statistics. After that early interception - and defenses often seem to come out more hyped up than offenses in playoff games - he played mistake-free football the rest of the way. He led scoring drives, but more importantly he led long, ball control drives that won the game. Manning had never done this before. I've said again and again that his play at the end of the Steelers game cost his team the win, and I stand by that statement. His play in the 4 INT game against the Patriots cost his team a chance at the win. His play when he lost 41-0 was terrible, and when the Colts were held to 3 points the year he threw 49 TDs, it was Manning who deserved the bulk of the blame.

To me, the defining characteristic of Manning wasn't so much that he wasn't winning games. It was that his mistakes were the ones that caused his team to lose. The whole point of the statement that caused Joe to start this thread was that Manning had individually performed so poorly in playoff games that he had cost his team far more dearly than Owens, who, while a jerk, had generally helped his team win games.

And the first two games of this season seemed to bear that out. Manning threw one TD and 5 INTs in the first two games of the season. His team played well enough to make up for his mistakes, but his individual play was unspectacular at best and pretty bad at its worst. And the first half of the Patriots game, the same thing appeared to be true.

But the reason I've changed my tune is that, in the biggest game he'd ever played (his second AFCCG), down 21-3, he led his team on drive after drive. He didn't fold under the pressure. Win or lose, that was as impressive a game as I've seen in the playoffs. He deserves a ton of credit for that game.

Tonight, win or lose, he played another good game. It wasn't a flashy performance, but he kept drives alive, he converted third downs, he dumped the ball off when he needed to and he found his receivers when they were open. It was a good game, in the rain, against a tough defense that he made look mediocre. Win or lose, he deserves credit for playing well.

We had never seen this before. We had a body of work to look at, and for the most part, that body of work said that he would perform extremely well in the regular season, and extremely poorly in the playoffs. This year, in the playoffs, the defense played better and the running game played well enough to overcome Manning's mistakes, which is what got them to the AFC Championship Game. But it was Manning's play that won them that game against the Patriots, and it was Manning's play that was the major factor in them winning tonight. I saw it. And I believe it now.

You know why we never saw this before.Because his defense came ready to play. Just like Brady's years ago. That's how it works. It's a team game.

That is true. It does take a team to win. However, I do get bostonfred's point. Manning played pretty badly in those losses. There is a difference between a player playing well in a loss and a player playing poorly in a loss. Even though Brady's defense came to play when his team was winning, he still made few mistakes (only 3 intros in the SB runs, compared to 13 td's).

 

[bostonfred]

Let me repeat to everyone else, though: I said before the Patriots game that I would believe it when I saw it. Well I saw it, and I believe it. After his interception in the Pats game, I don't think I've ever felt that way in a game before. Every possession, no matter where the Colts got the ball on the field, I felt like they were a danger to get a touchdown. Manning had to do everything he did, and he did everything he had to do. Congratulations to Peyton, to JohnnyU and djcolts, and to Joe. I was rooting for him along with you guys in the Superbowl. He's moved into the top echelon of quarterbacks by exorcising the last and biggest demon on his impressive resume.

Then why where you so adament about this cancer when a rain soaked Grossman attrocity was the remedy?

Win or lose, Manning played a good game tonight. It wasn't the statistics. After that early interception - and defenses often seem to come out more hyped up than offenses in playoff games - he played mistake-free football the rest of the way. He led scoring drives, but more importantly he led long, ball control drives that won the game. Manning had never done this before. I've said again and again that his play at the end of the Steelers game cost his team the win, and I stand by that statement. His play in the 4 INT game against the Patriots cost his team a chance at the win. His play when he lost 41-0 was terrible, and when the Colts were held to 3 points the year he threw 49 TDs, it was Manning who deserved the bulk of the blame. To me, the defining characteristic of Manning wasn't so much that he wasn't winning games. It was that his mistakes were the ones that caused his team to lose. The whole point of the statement that caused Joe to start this thread was that Manning had individually performed so poorly in playoff games that he had cost his team far more dearly than Owens, who, while a jerk, had generally helped his team win games. And the first two games of this season seemed to bear that out. Manning threw one TD and 5 INTs in the first two games of the season. His team played well enough to make up for his mistakes, but his individual play was unspectacular at best and pretty bad at its worst. And the first half of the Patriots game, the same thing appeared to be true. But the reason I've changed my tune is that, in the biggest game he'd ever played (his second AFCCG), down 21-3, he led his team on drive after drive. He didn't fold under the pressure. Win or lose, that was as impressive a game as I've seen in the playoffs. He deserves a ton of credit for that game. Tonight, win or lose, he played another good game. It wasn't a flashy performance, but he kept drives alive, he converted third downs, he dumped the ball off when he needed to and he found his receivers when they were open. It was a good game, in the rain, against a tough defense that he made look mediocre. Win or lose, he deserves credit for playing well. We had never seen this before. We had a body of work to look at, and for the most part, that body of work said that he would perform extremely well in the regular season, and extremely poorly in the playoffs. This year, in the playoffs, the defense played better and the running game played well enough to overcome Manning's mistakes, which is what got them to the AFC Championship Game. But it was Manning's play that won them that game against the Patriots, and it was Manning's play that was the major factor in them winning tonight. I saw it. And I believe it now.

Same man(ning) he was three weeks ago...

Two major differences. First, we have different information to work with now than we did three weeks ago. Second, he did something different in the past two games that I haven't seen from him before. He led much better ball control drives than I had seen from him in the playoffs. He didn't try to win the game on one play, and either throw a quick TD or a pick and leave his tired defense out there to make a stop. He dumped the ball off, he audibled to the run, and he made longer throws to keep the defense honest and keep drives alive. I think he tried to do the same against KC and the Ravens, but he threw picks and relied on his running game, kicker and defense. In the AFCCG and Superbowl, he threw early picks, but overcame them and led game winning drives. So while he may be the same man, I think he played a different style, and I think we learned something about him that we didn't know before.

 

[BassNBrew]

Let me repeat to everyone else, though:

I said before the Patriots game that I would believe it when I saw it. Well I saw it, and I believe it.

After his interception in the Pats game, I don't think I've ever felt that way in a game before. Every possession, no matter where the Colts got the ball on the field, I felt like they were a danger to get a touchdown. Manning had to do everything he did, and he did everything he had to do.

Congratulations to Peyton, to JohnnyU and djcolts, and to Joe. I was rooting for him along with you guys in the Superbowl. He's moved into the top echelon of quarterbacks by exorcising the last and biggest demon on his impressive resume.

Then why where you so adament about this cancer when a rain soaked Grossman attrocity was the remedy?

Win or lose, Manning played a good game tonight. It wasn't the statistics. After that early interception - and defenses often seem to come out more hyped up than offenses in playoff games - he played mistake-free football the rest of the way. He led scoring drives, but more importantly he led long, ball control drives that won the game. Manning had never done this before. I've said again and again that his play at the end of the Steelers game cost his team the win, and I stand by that statement. His play in the 4 INT game against the Patriots cost his team a chance at the win. His play when he lost 41-0 was terrible, and when the Colts were held to 3 points the year he threw 49 TDs, it was Manning who deserved the bulk of the blame.

To me, the defining characteristic of Manning wasn't so much that he wasn't winning games. It was that his mistakes were the ones that caused his team to lose. The whole point of the statement that caused Joe to start this thread was that Manning had individually performed so poorly in playoff games that he had cost his team far more dearly than Owens, who, while a jerk, had generally helped his team win games.

And the first two games of this season seemed to bear that out. Manning threw one TD and 5 INTs in the first two games of the season. His team played well enough to make up for his mistakes, but his individual play was unspectacular at best and pretty bad at its worst. And the first half of the Patriots game, the same thing appeared to be true.

But the reason I've changed my tune is that, in the biggest game he'd ever played (his second AFCCG), down 21-3, he led his team on drive after drive. He didn't fold under the pressure. Win or lose, that was as impressive a game as I've seen in the playoffs. He deserves a ton of credit for that game.

Tonight, win or lose, he played another good game. It wasn't a flashy performance, but he kept drives alive, he converted third downs, he dumped the ball off when he needed to and he found his receivers when they were open. It was a good game, in the rain, against a tough defense that he made look mediocre. Win or lose, he deserves credit for playing well.

We had never seen this before. We had a body of work to look at, and for the most part, that body of work said that he would perform extremely well in the regular season, and extremely poorly in the playoffs. This year, in the playoffs, the defense played better and the running game played well enough to overcome Manning's mistakes, which is what got them to the AFC Championship Game. But it was Manning's play that won them that game against the Patriots, and it was Manning's play that was the major factor in them winning tonight. I saw it. And I believe it now.

You know why we never saw this before.Because his defense came ready to play. Just like Brady's years ago. That's how it works. It's a team game.

That is true. It does take a team to win. However, I do get bostonfred's point. Manning played pretty badly in those losses. There is a difference between a player playing well in a loss and a player playing poorly in a loss. Even though Brady's defense came to play when his team was winning, he still made few mistakes (only 3 intros in the SB runs, compared to 13 td's).

Super Bowl margin of victory comps???

 

[bostonfred]

Let me repeat to everyone else, though:

I said before the Patriots game that I would believe it when I saw it. Well I saw it, and I believe it.

After his interception in the Pats game, I don't think I've ever felt that way in a game before. Every possession, no matter where the Colts got the ball on the field, I felt like they were a danger to get a touchdown. Manning had to do everything he did, and he did everything he had to do.

Congratulations to Peyton, to JohnnyU and djcolts, and to Joe. I was rooting for him along with you guys in the Superbowl. He's moved into the top echelon of quarterbacks by exorcising the last and biggest demon on his impressive resume.

Then why where you so adament about this cancer when a rain soaked Grossman attrocity was the remedy?

Win or lose, Manning played a good game tonight. It wasn't the statistics. After that early interception - and defenses often seem to come out more hyped up than offenses in playoff games - he played mistake-free football the rest of the way. He led scoring drives, but more importantly he led long, ball control drives that won the game. Manning had never done this before. I've said again and again that his play at the end of the Steelers game cost his team the win, and I stand by that statement. His play in the 4 INT game against the Patriots cost his team a chance at the win. His play when he lost 41-0 was terrible, and when the Colts were held to 3 points the year he threw 49 TDs, it was Manning who deserved the bulk of the blame.

To me, the defining characteristic of Manning wasn't so much that he wasn't winning games. It was that his mistakes were the ones that caused his team to lose. The whole point of the statement that caused Joe to start this thread was that Manning had individually performed so poorly in playoff games that he had cost his team far more dearly than Owens, who, while a jerk, had generally helped his team win games.

And the first two games of this season seemed to bear that out. Manning threw one TD and 5 INTs in the first two games of the season. His team played well enough to make up for his mistakes, but his individual play was unspectacular at best and pretty bad at its worst. And the first half of the Patriots game, the same thing appeared to be true.

But the reason I've changed my tune is that, in the biggest game he'd ever played (his second AFCCG), down 21-3, he led his team on drive after drive. He didn't fold under the pressure. Win or lose, that was as impressive a game as I've seen in the playoffs. He deserves a ton of credit for that game.

Tonight, win or lose, he played another good game. It wasn't a flashy performance, but he kept drives alive, he converted third downs, he dumped the ball off when he needed to and he found his receivers when they were open. It was a good game, in the rain, against a tough defense that he made look mediocre. Win or lose, he deserves credit for playing well.

We had never seen this before. We had a body of work to look at, and for the most part, that body of work said that he would perform extremely well in the regular season, and extremely poorly in the playoffs. This year, in the playoffs, the defense played better and the running game played well enough to overcome Manning's mistakes, which is what got them to the AFC Championship Game. But it was Manning's play that won them that game against the Patriots, and it was Manning's play that was the major factor in them winning tonight. I saw it. And I believe it now.

You know why we never saw this before.Because his defense came ready to play. Just like Brady's years ago. That's how it works. It's a team game.

That is true. It does take a team to win. However, I do get bostonfred's point. Manning played pretty badly in those losses. There is a difference between a player playing well in a loss and a player playing poorly in a loss. Even though Brady's defense came to play when his team was winning, he still made few mistakes (only 3 intros in the SB runs, compared to 13 td's).

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

Why do people get so wrapped up in these catfights? Let me clue those involved in on something:* To all the Manning worshippers-- You're not Peyton. You don't get credit for his victories. You're simply a fan whose "job" is to buy all the merchandise to keep them wealthy. When he won a Super Bowl ring...you accomplished nothing. You still have to go to work tomorrow and live the same life you had yesterday, for better or worse.* To all the Manning haters-- You're not Peyton. You gain nothing when he fails, and you lose nothing when he succeeds. If he had never won a ring...your life would be exactly the same. If he wins five in a row...you life would be exactly the same. You're no worse off now that he has a ring. What he does does not impact what you do, for better or worse.It doesn't matter if you "gloat" over his win (like you had anything to do with it) or if you whine and make excuses for his win (like you had anything to do with the Bears losing).It doesn't even matter of you're "classy" and give him his due. You have no due to give. You have nothing to offer him. In the scheme of things, you're not relevant to anything involving Peyton Manning. We're all just people on an internet message board. Don't get your feathers ruffled. Did you even enjoy the biggest game of the year, or is defending your position on the forum more important?

Only reason I am a Manning fan, as well as a Dungy, Wayne and Harrison fan, is that the play the game the right way. No showboating, selfish celebrations, etc. They are humble guys who, as far as I can tell, are class-acts.Guys like Manning and others such as Warrick Dunn, Derrick Brooks, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, Shaun Alexander, Trent Green, etc are who I root for on an individual level. I don't worship Manning, but we do worship the same God, and for that, I root for him, and others who hold similar beliefs.

 

[cobalt_27]

Let me repeat to everyone else, though: I said before the Patriots game that I would believe it when I saw it. Well I saw it, and I believe it. After his interception in the Pats game, I don't think I've ever felt that way in a game before. Every possession, no matter where the Colts got the ball on the field, I felt like they were a danger to get a touchdown. Manning had to do everything he did, and he did everything he had to do. Congratulations to Peyton, to JohnnyU and djcolts, and to Joe. I was rooting for him along with you guys in the Superbowl. He's moved into the top echelon of quarterbacks by exorcising the last and biggest demon on his impressive resume.

Then why where you so adament about this cancer when a rain soaked Grossman attrocity was the remedy?

Win or lose, Manning played a good game tonight. It wasn't the statistics. After that early interception - and defenses often seem to come out more hyped up than offenses in playoff games - he played mistake-free football the rest of the way. He led scoring drives, but more importantly he led long, ball control drives that won the game. Manning had never done this before. I've said again and again that his play at the end of the Steelers game cost his team the win, and I stand by that statement. His play in the 4 INT game against the Patriots cost his team a chance at the win. His play when he lost 41-0 was terrible, and when the Colts were held to 3 points the year he threw 49 TDs, it was Manning who deserved the bulk of the blame. To me, the defining characteristic of Manning wasn't so much that he wasn't winning games. It was that his mistakes were the ones that caused his team to lose. The whole point of the statement that caused Joe to start this thread was that Manning had individually performed so poorly in playoff games that he had cost his team far more dearly than Owens, who, while a jerk, had generally helped his team win games. And the first two games of this season seemed to bear that out. Manning threw one TD and 5 INTs in the first two games of the season. His team played well enough to make up for his mistakes, but his individual play was unspectacular at best and pretty bad at its worst. And the first half of the Patriots game, the same thing appeared to be true. But the reason I've changed my tune is that, in the biggest game he'd ever played (his second AFCCG), down 21-3, he led his team on drive after drive. He didn't fold under the pressure. Win or lose, that was as impressive a game as I've seen in the playoffs. He deserves a ton of credit for that game. Tonight, win or lose, he played another good game. It wasn't a flashy performance, but he kept drives alive, he converted third downs, he dumped the ball off when he needed to and he found his receivers when they were open. It was a good game, in the rain, against a tough defense that he made look mediocre. Win or lose, he deserves credit for playing well. We had never seen this before. We had a body of work to look at, and for the most part, that body of work said that he would perform extremely well in the regular season, and extremely poorly in the playoffs. This year, in the playoffs, the defense played better and the running game played well enough to overcome Manning's mistakes, which is what got them to the AFC Championship Game. But it was Manning's play that won them that game against the Patriots, and it was Manning's play that was the major factor in them winning tonight. I saw it. And I believe it now.

Same man(ning) he was three weeks ago...

Two major differences. First, we have different information to work with now than we did three weeks ago. Second, he did something different in the past two games that I haven't seen from him before. He led much better ball control drives than I had seen from him in the playoffs. He didn't try to win the game on one play, and either throw a quick TD or a pick and leave his tired defense out there to make a stop. He dumped the ball off, he audibled to the run, and he made longer throws to keep the defense honest and keep drives alive. I think he tried to do the same against KC and the Ravens, but he threw picks and relied on his running game, kicker and defense. In the AFCCG and Superbowl, he threw early picks, but overcame them and led game winning drives. So while he may be the same man, I think he played a different style, and I think we learned something about him that we didn't know before.

I think YOU learned something you didn't know before. The rest of didn't learn anything new at all. Shove all this "loser" and a "cancer" talk aside (or down your throat, if you wish), as it's time for the Manning haters to just fess up, say they were wrong and understand the fact that not even Tom Brady comes to play with his best game every time a clutch situation arises. Many factors/variables are at play. But, when it comes down to it, Manning is one of the greatest to ever play the game.

 

[bostonfred]

I think YOU learned something you didn't know before. The rest of didn't learn anything new at all. Shove all this "loser" and a "cancer" talk aside (or down your throat, if you wish), as it's time for the Manning haters to just fess up, say they were wrong and understand the fact that not even Tom Brady comes to play with his best game every time a clutch situation arises. Many factors/variables are at play. But, when it comes down to it, Manning is one of the greatest to ever play the game.

Of course I did. I've said that I learned something new from this year's playoffs. I won't be critical of your learning ability just because you say you didn't learn anything. Last year, when Manning's individual performance cost the Colts the game against the Steelers, I didn't see you saying you'd learned anything, either. And the year before that, when Manning led the team to just three points after setting a touchdown record in the regular season, still nothing. I don't think you claimed to have learned anything from his 4 INT performance the year before that. So of course I don't expect you to have learned anything new at all. I think I've correctly predicted his playoff performances up until this year using the old model, and when I saw things changing, I changed my model for predicting them. That's what works for me. You've got your opinions, and you stick to them, regardless of what happens, you argue for why things will work out your way until they finally do, and then you tell people to shove things down their throat because you were right all along. I hope that works out for you, too.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think YOU learned something you didn't know before. The rest of didn't learn anything new at all. Shove all this "loser" and a "cancer" talk aside (or down your throat, if you wish), as it's time for the Manning haters to just fess up, say they were wrong and understand the fact that not even Tom Brady comes to play with his best game every time a clutch situation arises. Many factors/variables are at play. But, when it comes down to it, Manning is one of the greatest to ever play the game.

Of course I did. I've said that I learned something new from this year's playoffs. I won't be critical of your learning ability just because you say you didn't learn anything. Last year, when Manning's individual performance cost the Colts the game against the Steelers, I didn't see you saying you'd learned anything, either. And the year before that, when Manning led the team to just three points after setting a touchdown record in the regular season, still nothing. I don't think you claimed to have learned anything from his 4 INT performance the year before that. So of course I don't expect you to have learned anything new at all. I think I've correctly predicted his playoff performances up until this year using the old model, and when I saw things changing, I changed my model for predicting them. That's what works for me. You've got your opinions, and you stick to them, regardless of what happens, you argue for why things will work out your way until they finally do, and then you tell people to shove things down their throat because you were right all along. I hope that works out for you, too.

It's one thing to have some perspective and understand that a player is truly gifted, great, clutch, and elite, but still can't win the big one (or not play his best when his best was needed). John Elway took 15 years to finally win the big one. But, all that did was stuff it in the face of everyone out there who was of the opinion that he just didn't have "it." Others, like myself, always regarded him as an elite QB who, for a variety of reasons, was not able to get his team over the hump. But, it would've been absurd to disregard his greatness by the absence of a SB. And, it would've been totally ridiculous to call him a "cancer" because of his playoff/SB failures.You called Peyton a "cancer," so I'll just let you navigate that interpretation however you choose. But, characterizing him as a cancer when you did was ridiculous even when you did it. And, now that Peyton has won, it looks all-the-more stupid. But, for your sake, I'm glad you can own up to it and revise that label.Brady sure came up in the clutch this year, eh?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Why do people get so wrapped up in these catfights? Let me clue those involved in on something:

* To all the Manning worshippers-- You're not Peyton. You don't get credit for his victories. You're simply a fan whose "job" is to buy all the merchandise to keep them wealthy. When he won a Super Bowl ring...you accomplished nothing. You still have to go to work tomorrow and live the same life you had yesterday, for better or worse.

* To all the Manning haters-- You're not Peyton. You gain nothing when he fails, and you lose nothing when he succeeds. If he had never won a ring...your life would be exactly the same. If he wins five in a row...you life would be exactly the same. You're no worse off now that he has a ring. What he does does not impact what you do, for better or worse.

It doesn't matter if you "gloat" over his win (like you had anything to do with it) or if you whine and make excuses for his win (like you had anything to do with the Bears losing).

It doesn't even matter of you're "classy" and give him his due. You have no due to give. You have nothing to offer him. In the scheme of things, you're not relevant to anything involving Peyton Manning.

We're all just people on an internet message board. Don't get your feathers ruffled. Did you even enjoy the biggest game of the year, or is defending your position on the forum more important?

Only reason I am a Manning fan, as well as a Dungy, Wayne and Harrison fan, is that the play the game the right way. No showboating, selfish celebrations, etc. They are humble guys who, as far as I can tell, are class-acts.Guys like Manning and others such as Warrick Dunn, Derrick Brooks, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, Shaun Alexander, Trent Green, etc are who I root for on an individual level. I don't worship Manning, but we do worship the same God, and for that, I root for him, and others who hold similar beliefs.

I'll agree with that. However, the wife and I really get annoyed with Manning b/c he always seems pissed when things don't go just right. It never really seems like he is enjoying himself on the field. He always seems to have his "image" in mind. Even while getting handed the Lombardi trophy there didn't seem to be much emotion there at all. Just my take.

 

[PMENFAN]

Let me repeat to everyone else, though: I said before the Patriots game that I would believe it when I saw it. Well I saw it, and I believe it. After his interception in the Pats game, I don't think I've ever felt that way in a game before. Every possession, no matter where the Colts got the ball on the field, I felt like they were a danger to get a touchdown. Manning had to do everything he did, and he did everything he had to do. Congratulations to Peyton, to JohnnyU and djcolts, and to Joe. I was rooting for him along with you guys in the Superbowl. He's moved into the top echelon of quarterbacks by exorcising the last and biggest demon on his impressive resume.

Then why where you so adament about this cancer when a rain soaked Grossman attrocity was the remedy?

Win or lose, Manning played a good game tonight. It wasn't the statistics. After that early interception - and defenses often seem to come out more hyped up than offenses in playoff games - he played mistake-free football the rest of the way. He led scoring drives, but more importantly he led long, ball control drives that won the game. Manning had never done this before. I've said again and again that his play at the end of the Steelers game cost his team the win, and I stand by that statement. His play in the 4 INT game against the Patriots cost his team a chance at the win. His play when he lost 41-0 was terrible, and when the Colts were held to 3 points the year he threw 49 TDs, it was Manning who deserved the bulk of the blame. To me, the defining characteristic of Manning wasn't so much that he wasn't winning games. It was that his mistakes were the ones that caused his team to lose. The whole point of the statement that caused Joe to start this thread was that Manning had individually performed so poorly in playoff games that he had cost his team far more dearly than Owens, who, while a jerk, had generally helped his team win games. And the first two games of this season seemed to bear that out. Manning threw one TD and 5 INTs in the first two games of the season. His team played well enough to make up for his mistakes, but his individual play was unspectacular at best and pretty bad at its worst. And the first half of the Patriots game, the same thing appeared to be true. But the reason I've changed my tune is that, in the biggest game he'd ever played (his second AFCCG), down 21-3, he led his team on drive after drive. He didn't fold under the pressure. Win or lose, that was as impressive a game as I've seen in the playoffs. He deserves a ton of credit for that game. Tonight, win or lose, he played another good game. It wasn't a flashy performance, but he kept drives alive, he converted third downs, he dumped the ball off when he needed to and he found his receivers when they were open. It was a good game, in the rain, against a tough defense that he made look mediocre. Win or lose, he deserves credit for playing well. We had never seen this before. We had a body of work to look at, and for the most part, that body of work said that he would perform extremely well in the regular season, and extremely poorly in the playoffs. This year, in the playoffs, the defense played better and the running game played well enough to overcome Manning's mistakes, which is what got them to the AFC Championship Game. But it was Manning's play that won them that game against the Patriots, and it was Manning's play that was the major factor in them winning tonight. I saw it. And I believe it now.

Same man(ning) he was three weeks ago...

Two major differences. First, we have different information to work with now than we did three weeks ago. Second, he did something different in the past two games that I haven't seen from him before. He led much better ball control drives than I had seen from him in the playoffs. He didn't try to win the game on one play, and either throw a quick TD or a pick and leave his tired defense out there to make a stop. He dumped the ball off, he audibled to the run, and he made longer throws to keep the defense honest and keep drives alive. I think he tried to do the same against KC and the Ravens, but he threw picks and relied on his running game, kicker and defense. In the AFCCG and Superbowl, he threw early picks, but overcame them and led game winning drives. So while he may be the same man, I think he played a different style, and I think we learned something about him that we didn't know before.

Anybody who compares the Peyton Manning we saw in the Raven, Pats and Bears game to the Peyton in the Jets, Pats 2x and Steelers games and sees the same thing just isn't looking. He's a QB making better decisions, and being a better QB, not just the prolific passer we used to see. I leave off the KC game this year, because that was the same old guy, and if they were up against a team that came to play, a different outcome, and the same label would have been there. But, his defense kept them that out of the discussion, and did he ever take advantage of his shot at redemption? It will be tough for anybody to top that performance in the second half of the AFCCG. That was awesome. The SB MVP? Not stellar stats, but like Brady in 2001, it had to go to somebody. As in 2001 when I would have given it to Ty Law, they bypassed Sanders and gave it to Manning. He was good, not great. Ge good all the time, and occasionally make great plays. Trying to be great all the time is what got him in trouble before. That's the difference I saw in the last 3 games.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think I've correctly predicted his playoff performances up until this year using the old model, and when I saw things changing, I changed my model for predicting them.

Yeah, you changed it to a better one -- the one that cobalt had been using the whole time.I think cobalt is correct to say that we didn't really learn a whole lot yesterday -- because we already knew it. Manning played well yesterday, but he'd already done that over 100 times in his career. We already knew that Manning was really good. GregR nailed the perspective thing in this post.

A playoff game isn't magically different from a regular season game, and any stuff about "this guy really comes through in the playoffs" or "that guy chokes in the playoffs" will always be based on too small a sample size to mean anything.

 

[bostonfred]

I think I've correctly predicted his playoff performances up until this year using the old model, and when I saw things changing, I changed my model for predicting them.

Yeah, you changed it to a better one -- the one that cobalt had been using the whole time.I think cobalt is correct to say that we didn't really learn a whole lot yesterday -- because we already knew it. Manning played well yesterday, but he'd already done that over 100 times in his career. We already knew that Manning was really good. GregR nailed the perspective thing in this post.

A playoff game isn't magically different from a regular season game, and any stuff about "this guy really comes through in the playoffs" or "that guy chokes in the playoffs" will always be based on too small a sample size to mean anything.

1) The "Manning is a choker" model was a better predictor than the "Manning is an elite QB" model for several years. The "Manning is an elite QB" model looks like it will be a better model to use for the next several years. It's wrong to say that the "Manning is an elite QB" model was the better model just because it predicted this season better, and may predict the future better. The best option for predicting games would be to have correctly changed models when the data suggested that you should. I'm not suggesting that you should have predicted that Manning would lose every playoff game in the past, and that you should now predict that he wins every playoff game in the future. More likely, all things considered, I was more likely to predict a playoff upset for the Colts in previous years, and I'm not anymore. I don't think that's wrong at all.

2) I've also said that I disagree that the sample size is small. We're not talking about games here. We're talking about plays. Manning might have made a terrible, game changing play at a rate of 1 per 15 plays in the past. This year, maybe he made those mistakes at a rate of 1 per 25 plays. If that were the case, then we're looking at a larger sample size.

If you stop looking at plays, and drill into all of the individual decisions that go into a successful play, then maybe Manning made good decisions at a 75% clip in the past, and improved to an 85% clip this year. Or whatever the numbers might be. Across thousands of decisions in the playoffs, we have a much larger sample size.

The sample size argument assumes that the only thing we're talking about here is winning or losing games. That's not a good model to use to describe what we're watching. Manning wasn't losing games, he was throwing four picks, or losing the Steelers game three different ways. Calling each of those one trial will make the sample size artificially low.

 

[Yitbos69]

I think I've correctly predicted his playoff performances up until this year using the old model, and when I saw things changing, I changed my model for predicting them.

Yeah, you changed it to a better one -- the one that cobalt had been using the whole time.I think cobalt is correct to say that we didn't really learn a whole lot yesterday -- because we already knew it. Manning played well yesterday, but he'd already done that over 100 times in his career. We already knew that Manning was really good. GregR nailed the perspective thing in this post.

A playoff game isn't magically different from a regular season game, and any stuff about "this guy really comes through in the playoffs" or "that guy chokes in the playoffs" will always be based on too small a sample size to mean anything.

1) The "Manning is a choker" model was a better predictor than the "Manning is an elite QB" model for several years. The "Manning is an elite QB" model looks like it will be a better model to use for the next several years. It's wrong to say that the "Manning is an elite QB" model was the better model just because it predicted this season better, and may predict the future better. The best option for predicting games would be to have correctly changed models when the data suggested that you should. I'm not suggesting that you should have predicted that Manning would lose every playoff game in the past, and that you should now predict that he wins every playoff game in the future. More likely, all things considered, I was more likely to predict a playoff upset for the Colts in previous years, and I'm not anymore. I don't think that's wrong at all.

2) I've also said that I disagree that the sample size is small. We're not talking about games here. We're talking about plays. Manning might have made a terrible, game changing play at a rate of 1 per 15 plays in the past. This year, maybe he made those mistakes at a rate of 1 per 25 plays. If that were the case, then we're looking at a larger sample size.

If you stop looking at plays, and drill into all of the individual decisions that go into a successful play, then maybe Manning made good decisions at a 75% clip in the past, and improved to an 85% clip this year. Or whatever the numbers might be. Across thousands of decisions in the playoffs, we have a much larger sample size.

The sample size argument assumes that the only thing we're talking about here is winning or losing games. That's not a good model to use to describe what we're watching. Manning wasn't losing games, he was throwing four picks, or losing the Steelers game three different ways. Calling each of those one trial will make the sample size artificially low.

He beat your Guy(Brady) and your Team(NE) and went on to win the SB.....I am not a Colts Fan (Washington is my Curse) but Manning IS a great QB and now he IS a great SB Championship QB....He won the big game over and over in the playoff's this year and has in the past just never The Biggest game. Check that one off his TO DO list!

 

[bostonfred]

He beat your Guy(Brady) and your Team(NE) and went on to win the SB.....I am not a Colts Fan (Washington is my Curse) but Manning IS a great QB and now he IS a great SB Championship QB....He won the big game over and over in the playoff's this year and has in the past just never The Biggest game. Check that one off his TO DO list!

Done. THAnks.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

1) The "Manning is a choker" model was a better predictor than the "Manning is an elite QB" model for several years.

After ten rolls of a six-sided die, "it lands on 5 or 6 on every even-numbered roll" might look like a good model, but it is voodoo. It only looks right because of the small sample size.Your argument about sample size is most likely provably wrong. (It's just a math thing.) But I'm not going to do a proof for a message board posting. Maybe I'll work it into an FBG article on hypothesis testing in general. (Another good candidate for debunking is the claim that RBs who get 350+ carries in Year N should be expected to suck in Year N+1. The evidence isn't there to support it due to small sample sizes.) You can take whatever unit you want -- plays, quarters, games -- and in each case the variance associated with that unit will, I predict, make "the playoffs" into too small a sample to mean anything.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You can take whatever unit you want -- plays, quarters, games -- and in each case the variance associated with that unit will, I predict, make "the playoffs" into too small a sample to mean anything.

I phrased that really badly, so let me flesh out briefly what I mean.Let's use plays as our unit. Using DVOA would be great since that's based on individual plays, and it takes strength of opponent into account, but I don't know if it's available for playoffs. If not, we can use completion percentage, yards per attempt, TDs per attempt, and INTs per attempt (preferably controlling for strength of opponent, but that's more work).

To take completion percentage as an example. Let's say that Manning's playoff completion percentage (up to the point where he became the New Manning) was X% over Y number of plays.

What we'd want to do to see if Manning is a choker in the playoffs is to look at his regular season completion percentage, and at the variance in completion percentage over Y number of plays. Then we can see where his playoff completion percentage fits into the normal variance over a sample of Y plays.

But -- and this is important -- it is considered a no-no to test a hypothesis using the same data that was used to derive the hypothesis in the first place. If you roll a bunch of fives and sixes on even-numbered dice rolls, and you therefore come up with the hypothesis that it's usually a five or a six on even-numbered rolls, of course the hypothesis will be confirmed if you test it using the data containing lots of fives and sixes on even-numbered rolls. What you generally want to do is use a different set of data to test the hypothesis. So you come up with the hypothesis based on the first ten rolls, and then you test it using the next ten (or preferably more).

So if you came up with the idea that Manning chokes during the playoffs based on his performances up through 2004, you'd want to test that hypothesis using his post-2004 playoff performances. This is where the Y number of plays would come from.

Alternatively, if that's impractical (because he became a New Manning after that or whatever, so our post-hypothesis data is insufficient), and if you're going to test the hypothesis based on the same data that gave rise to it, you'd want to square the confidence interval. So to reject the null hypothesis (that Manning is not a choker) with 95% confidence, you'd have to find that his actual performance lies outside of 1 - (5% * 5%) = 99.75% of the results expected from his regular season performance. (Stanford Wong has a section on this in his sports betting book.)

 

[Yitbos69]

He beat your Guy(Brady) and your Team(NE) and went on to win the SB.....I am not a Colts Fan (Washington is my Curse) but Manning IS a great QB and now he IS a great SB Championship QB....He won the big game over and over in the playoff's this year and has in the past just never The Biggest game. Check that one off his TO DO list!

Done. THAnks.

Fred,Just glad I could help. If you anything else please let me know. I am always here for you.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Hey bostonfred

Manning agrees to restructure contract...from USA Today(AP)

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Peyton Manning has agreed to restructure his contract with the Indianapolis Colts to save the team nearly $8 million in salary cap space.

The Super Bowl MVP was to receive a $10 million roster bonus during the offseason but by converting the money into a regular signing bonus, the Colts can prorate that amount over the remaining four years of his deal. That saves Indianapolis space under the cap, which is $109 million.

The restructuring was disclosed to The Associated Press on Wednesday by a person familiar with the negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal had not yet been signed.

Colts spokesman Craig Kelley said the team had no comment.

Manning signed a $98 million contract in March 2004, the season after he shared the league's MVP award with Steve McNair.

He followed that with a record-setting 2004 season in which he threw 49 touchdown passes and earned his second straight league MVP award.

In 2005, Manning guided the Colts to a 13-0 record and the AFC's No. 1 seed before losing in the divisional round of the playoffs to eventual Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh.

But this season, Manning showed more patience in throwing short and relying on his ground game, using that combination to bring the Colts their first Super Bowl title since moving to Indianapolis in 1984.

Manning has led the Colts to seven playoff appearances in nine seasons, including five straight under coach Tony Dungy, and after breaking John Unitas' franchise record for completions last season is closing in on Unitas' other career records for passing attempts, yardage and touchdowns.

 

[KoolKat]

1) The "Manning is a choker" model was a better predictor than the "Manning is an elite QB" model for several years.

After ten rolls of a six-sided die, "it lands on 5 or 6 on every even-numbered roll" might look like a good model, but it is voodoo. It only looks right because of the small sample size.Your argument about sample size is most likely provably wrong. (It's just a math thing.) But I'm not going to do a proof for a message board posting. Maybe I'll work it into an FBG article on hypothesis testing in general. (Another good candidate for debunking is the claim that RBs who get 350+ carries in Year N should be expected to suck in Year N+1. The evidence isn't there to support it due to small sample sizes.) You can take whatever unit you want -- plays, quarters, games -- and in each case the variance associated with that unit will, I predict, make "the playoffs" into too small a sample to mean anything.

I was thinking the same thing when I read BostonFred's post, there is the same discrepancy of Playoff Plays to Regular Season plays when compared to Playoff to Regular season games.As far as the "Manning is a Choker Model" being a better predictor. That statement reminded of the Ptolemy Model of the universe. It sufficed for well over a thousand years predicting the placement of the stars, moon and planets, but when Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler proved that theory wrong it became irrelavant. Not really dealing with football, but I felt it applied.