Manning To Keep Record After Significant Stat Change In Question (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Eat it, haters.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's just a record. It didn't affect the outcome of a game, and everybody knows he could have easily gotten it in the second half. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That being said, it was clearly a lateral. I'm not sure how it's even close. If that was Geno Smith in week 4, I think they would have changed it. Oh, well. Better to be Manning with a sketchy record than the Steelers scheduling tee times instead of practicing for a playoff game.

Yes but .01% of the time Manning wouldn't have gotten the record so it's better to get it wrong 99.9% of the time and be accurate.

Amirightguys?

Before I answer I need to know what happens the other .09% of the time

Fatal asteroid attack. The earth is destroyed so there is no record.

In that case I choose Manning keeps record

And he's going to keep the record.

 

[JerseyPaul]

Hillary just tweeted: "What difference does it make?"

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Eat it, haters.

Yes, clearly folks who think that the stats should be pure are just haters.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Complete joke.

 

[purestrength]

Just scanning through this after a late NYE out, I see a lot of Manning jealousy here.

So be it. I'm too groggy to argue with haters.

 

[Koya]

Eat it, haters.

Yes, clearly folks who think that the stats should be pure are just haters.

Actually, I have nothing against those who point out legitimate concerns. For those who have nothing against Manning, carry on.

Honestly, until I saw the one still frame angle today, I thought no way was it a forward pass (as of this moment, it probably wasn't but I'm no longer 100% sure).

However, as noted above, much of the vitriol appears to have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the stats but rather some unreasonable hatred for Manning. So, for those folks, I stand by my words: Eat it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Eat it, haters.

Yes, clearly folks who think that the stats should be pure are just haters.

Actually, I have nothing against those who point out legitimate concerns. For those who have nothing against Manning, carry on.

Honestly, until I saw the one still frame angle today, I thought no way was it a forward pass (as of this moment, it probably wasn't but I'm no longer 100% sure).

However, as noted above, much of the vitriol appears to have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the stats but rather some unreasonable hatred for Manning. So, for those folks, I stand by my words: Eat it.

And here's the musical version just to enhance your point.

 

[Anarchy99]

With the rules migrating more to D-lineman having to count 10 Mississippis before crossing the line of scrimmage and then only being allowed to play two hand touch should they get to the QB, the record won't last 5 years. As others have already said, we are heading toward a 6K yard passer at some point.

 

[Warrior]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

 

[moleculo]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

 

[Koya]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

Tebow is a different story. While he never deserved the vitriol, the guy got hyped up, over drafted, over played, over everything considering his considerable lack of NFL level QB talent. Doesn't mean people should hate on him, as it's not as if he orchestrated this, but the hype was so much more than the substance.

Add to that the significant backdrop of someone who wears their beliefs on their sleeve and just somes off to some as a goody too shoes, while it's not deserved I can see why people would be, legitimately, rubbed the wrong way.

With Peyton, he seems like a good guy, a tough QB who's taken punishment and always plays, has a sense of humor and is exceptional at what he does, and very well paid for it.

With Tebow I don't think it was jealousy only, but also just people being overwhelmed with both the hype and the overabundance of non football related issues. With Manning Id agree, its appears to be a lot of jealous and envy.

 

[Koya]

Eat it, haters.

Yes, clearly folks who think that the stats should be pure are just haters.

Actually, I have nothing against those who point out legitimate concerns. For those who have nothing against Manning, carry on.

Honestly, until I saw the one still frame angle today, I thought no way was it a forward pass (as of this moment, it probably wasn't but I'm no longer 100% sure).

However, as noted above, much of the vitriol appears to have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the stats but rather some unreasonable hatred for Manning. So, for those folks, I stand by my words: Eat it.

And here's the musical version just to enhance your point.

Seriously, I've never been a Peyton Manning hater, but I admit that I've generally rooted against him outside of when it helps my fantasy teams. Maybe some of that's human jealousy at the guy that's too good, part of it is the reality that when it counts most, he has folded more often than not, part of it is that I was a young about to become Baltimore Colts fan and the franchise bailed... and maybe it's the fact that Eli (I'm a Giants fan) is not nearly the QB that Manning is, but has that extra ring and I like it that way. But the recent round of hating has turned me to a Peyton fan. A good guy, a hard worker, plays through injury and one of the best ever. I'm rooting for him. So, to the beat of eat it:

You hate peyton manning cause of all his touchdowns

It’s like you’re a jealous fan of the Cleveland browns

Just because he’s great doesn’t mean you should hate

Just eat it… just eat it

Yes he only has one super bowl ring

As if your team has gotten even that much bling

So why don’t you shut up and stop your whining

Just eat it. Just eat it. OOOOH!

 

[moleculo]

FTR, I'm convinced it was a lateral. I saw it as a lateral during the game, and just re-watched on NFL game rewind with a couple of screen-caps. The pass went backwards by a full yard by my estimates. It wasn't even close.

 

[jurb26]

FTR, I'm convinced it was a lateral. I saw it as a lateral during the game, and just re-watched on NFL game rewind with a couple of screen-caps. The pass went backwards by a full yard by my estimates. It wasn't even close.

Did you see the overhead view the NFL claims to have?

 

[Ghost Rider]

FTR, I'm convinced it was a lateral. I saw it as a lateral during the game, and just re-watched on NFL game rewind with a couple of screen-caps. The pass went backwards by a full yard by my estimates. It wasn't even close.

Agreed. But it is not a big deal, them leaving the record in Manning's hands or even the record itself. When people talk about great NFL records and achievements, most passing yards in a season is one of the more meaningless ones, if you ask me, so it's one that won't last long anyway, given that multiple guys have gone over 5,000 yards in recent years.

 

[jurb26]

FTR, I'm convinced it was a lateral. I saw it as a lateral during the game, and just re-watched on NFL game rewind with a couple of screen-caps. The pass went backwards by a full yard by my estimates. It wasn't even close.

Agreed. But it is not a big deal, them leaving the record in Manning's hands or even the record itself. When people talk about great NFL records and achievements, most passing yards in a season is one of the more meaningless ones, if you ask me, so it's one that won't last long anyway, given that multiple guys have gone over 5,000 yards in recent years.

I sure seems Marino's 5k season was a big deal until about 3 years ago. Now it's been 6 times in the last 3 years.

 

[Ghost Rider]

FTR, I'm convinced it was a lateral. I saw it as a lateral during the game, and just re-watched on NFL game rewind with a couple of screen-caps. The pass went backwards by a full yard by my estimates. It wasn't even close.

Agreed. But it is not a big deal, them leaving the record in Manning's hands or even the record itself. When people talk about great NFL records and achievements, most passing yards in a season is one of the more meaningless ones, if you ask me, so it's one that won't last long anyway, given that multiple guys have gone over 5,000 yards in recent years.

I sure seems Marino's 5k season was a big deal until about 3 years ago. Now it's been 6 times in the last 3 years.

Right. It used to be a big deal, but it's not anymore. Not with so many guys throwing for 5+K in the last few years.

 

[moleculo]

FTR, I'm convinced it was a lateral. I saw it as a lateral during the game, and just re-watched on NFL game rewind with a couple of screen-caps. The pass went backwards by a full yard by my estimates. It wasn't even close.

Did you see the overhead view the NFL claims to have?

nope.

 

[msudaisy26]

Eat it, haters.

Yes, clearly folks who think that the stats should be pure are just haters.

Leave him in his little world, he thinks him and Peyton are buddies because he was on his fantasy team. There are lots of those people in this thread.

 

[DropKick]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

While I'm sure Patriot fans are partial to Brady, I don't see why this issue has anything to do with him. Brees holds the yardage mark and you admit in a later post that you believe it was a lateral (as do I). Records do mean something and statistics should be accurate, right?

So, did the NFL not change this because they really believe it to be a forward pass or did they not want to impact a record, especially against one of the marquee players in the game? The latter is bothersome to many, including me.

Do we really need amateur psychologists blaming "low self image" for people who want the game to be administered accurately? Do we need to turn any discussion about Manning into one of Tom Brady?

 

[Milkman]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

Manning is clearly better than Brady. Anybody that has taken any time to look into knows that.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It's just a record. It didn't affect the outcome of a game, and everybody knows he could have easily gotten it in the second half. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That being said, it was clearly a lateral. I'm not sure how it's even close. If that was Geno Smith in week 4, I think they would have changed it. Oh, well. Better to be Manning with a sketchy record than the Steelers scheduling tee times instead of practicing for a playoff game.

Good summary IMO. Both records are pretty meaningless so I don't see any reason to lose our minds over this. I didn't even think it looked close on the replay though so I'm pretty confident they just didn't want to take his record away. Oh well.

Both records are meaningless yet we have like 5 threads about it and some are 17 pages long?This "record" now wreaks of NFL bias. How some people can say and act as if that is no big deal is amazing to me. Quit frankly if the NFL can allow something like this to stand and play favorites then is raises questions about the integrity of the league as a whole.

We have long threads about it because we're still kind of in "fantasy football" mode, and the season is over. We want to divert that energy into something, so we're talking about stats but in a different way. Nobody will care in March.

The NFL has one bias: Money. Setting and breaking records is good for the league. It creates more buzz and it gets them more media attention. If the league didn't crack down on the Strahan/Favre "sack," why is not changing a stat such a shock to you? They're not going to manufacture a record, but if things happen to break right to allow a new record for a popular player, the league isn't exactly going to stand in the way.

But let's put it this way: If Aaron Hernandez was somehow a quarterback in the same position, the league would have overturned that stat before Sportscenter went live. You would have hit "refresh" on the Gamecenter at nfl.com and it would have been changed before the final gun. The league wouldn't need attention like that.

Again, the outcome of no games were changed. The winners still won; the losers still lost. In this case, we know the record would have been broken anyway. Don't be the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Records are made to be broken, and if it's not your record stop fretting over it one way or the other.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

Manning is clearly better than Brady. Anybody that has taken any time to look into knows that.

Better for statistics and overall career play: Peyton Manning

Better for Super Bowl victories: Tom Brady

The quarterback you want in just one game with a title on the line: Eli Manning

 

[DropKick]

It's just a record. It didn't affect the outcome of a game, and everybody knows he could have easily gotten it in the second half. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That being said, it was clearly a lateral. I'm not sure how it's even close. If that was Geno Smith in week 4, I think they would have changed it. Oh, well. Better to be Manning with a sketchy record than the Steelers scheduling tee times instead of practicing for a playoff game.

Good summary IMO. Both records are pretty meaningless so I don't see any reason to lose our minds over this. I didn't even think it looked close on the replay though so I'm pretty confident they just didn't want to take his record away. Oh well.

Both records are meaningless yet we have like 5 threads about it and some are 17 pages long?This "record" now wreaks of NFL bias. How some people can say and act as if that is no big deal is amazing to me. Quit frankly if the NFL can allow something like this to stand and play favorites then is raises questions about the integrity of the league as a whole.

We have long threads about it because we're still kind of in "fantasy football" mode, and the season is over. We want to divert that energy into something, so we're talking about stats but in a different way. Nobody will care in March.

The NFL has one bias: Money. Setting and breaking records is good for the league. It creates more buzz and it gets them more media attention. If the league didn't crack down on the Strahan/Favre "sack," why is not changing a stat such a shock to you? They're not going to manufacture a record, but if things happen to break right to allow a new record for a popular player, the league isn't exactly going to stand in the way.

But let's put it this way: If Aaron Hernandez was somehow a quarterback in the same position, the league would have overturned that stat before Sportscenter went live. You would have hit "refresh" on the Gamecenter at nfl.com and it would have been changed before the final gun. The league wouldn't need attention like that.

Again, the outcome of no games were changed. The winners still won; the losers still lost. In this case, we know the record would have been broken anyway. Don't be the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Records are made to be broken, and if it's not your record stop fretting over it one way or the other.

Interesting points but there is a slippery slope. If you're willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for "marketing" purposes, are you willing to influence officiating to keep a play-off game close?

 

[Koya]

Eat it, haters.

Yes, clearly folks who think that the stats should be pure are just haters.

Leave him in his little world, he thinks him and Peyton are buddies because he was on his fantasy team. There are lots of those people in this thread.

Have you even read my posts? I've not ever particularly liked Peyton, and generally have rooted against him. I'm a Baltimore born, New York raised fan - so never wanted him to win with the Colts and always wanted Eli to have the extra ring.

There are plenty who are pointing out the legit fact that Manning probably doesnt deserve the record. I'm more than fine with that, and tend to agree, on the merits.

There are plenty who appear to want to experience the schadenfreude of Manning having the record taken back. We can only speculate as to their motivation or reasoning. For "those people" I am in a way happy Manning keeps the record, because the root cause of their uproar is not at all based on the sanctity of the record (which many claim, some are genuine in that, and some are obviously, well... hating), but rather their desire to see Manning not succeed / be rewarded (with, again, a not that important record, when he already has the more important record and by a good amount).

 

[DropKick]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

Manning is clearly better than Brady. Anybody that has taken any time to look into knows that.

Better for statistics and overall career play: Peyton Manning

Better for Super Bowl victories: Tom Brady

The quarterback you want in just one game with a title on the line: Eli Manning Joe Montana

Fixed.

 

[JohnnyU]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

Manning is clearly better than Brady. Anybody that has taken any time to look into knows that.

Better for statistics and overall career play: Peyton Manning

Better for Super Bowl victories: Tom Brady Adam Vinatieri and NE Defense

The quarterback you want in just one game with a title on the line: Eli Manning

 

[jurb26]

It's just a record. It didn't affect the outcome of a game, and everybody knows he could have easily gotten it in the second half. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That being said, it was clearly a lateral. I'm not sure how it's even close. If that was Geno Smith in week 4, I think they would have changed it. Oh, well. Better to be Manning with a sketchy record than the Steelers scheduling tee times instead of practicing for a playoff game.

Good summary IMO. Both records are pretty meaningless so I don't see any reason to lose our minds over this. I didn't even think it looked close on the replay though so I'm pretty confident they just didn't want to take his record away. Oh well.

Both records are meaningless yet we have like 5 threads about it and some are 17 pages long?This "record" now wreaks of NFL bias. How some people can say and act as if that is no big deal is amazing to me. Quit frankly if the NFL can allow something like this to stand and play favorites then is raises questions about the integrity of the league as a whole.

We have long threads about it because we're still kind of in "fantasy football" mode, and the season is over. We want to divert that energy into something, so we're talking about stats but in a different way. Nobody will care in March. The NFL has one bias: Money. Setting and breaking records is good for the league. It creates more buzz and it gets them more media attention. If the league didn't crack down on the Strahan/Favre "sack," why is not changing a stat such a shock to you? They're not going to manufacture a record, but if things happen to break right to allow a new record for a popular player, the league isn't exactly going to stand in the way.

But let's put it this way: If Aaron Hernandez was somehow a quarterback in the same position, the league would have overturned that stat before Sportscenter went live. You would have hit "refresh" on the Gamecenter at nfl.com and it would have been changed before the final gun. The league wouldn't need attention like that.

Again, the outcome of no games were changed. The winners still won; the losers still lost. In this case, we know the record would have been broken anyway. Don't be the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Records are made to be broken, and if it's not your record stop fretting over it one way or the other.

Interesting points but there is a slippery slope. If you're willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for "marketing" purposes, are you willing to influence officiating to keep a play-off game close?

If you are willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for marketing, then the record itself is meaningless. If fans find out that the books are cooked then they no longer have an incentive to care about them. It takes all the luster off breaking records.

 

[moleculo]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

While I'm sure Patriot fans are partial to Brady, I don't see why this issue has anything to do with him. Brees holds the yardage mark and you admit in a later post that you believe it was a lateral (as do I). Records do mean something and statistics should be accurate, right?

So, did the NFL not change this because they really believe it to be a forward pass or did they not want to impact a record, especially against one of the marquee players in the game? The latter is bothersome to many, including me.

Do we really need amateur psychologists blaming "low self image" for people who want the game to be administered accurately? Do we need to turn any discussion about Manning into one of Tom Brady?

There are two populations here - one set of people who prefer the facts speak for themselves and believe the Decker pass should have been ruled a lateral. There is a second set of people who take any possible chance to denigrate Manning, and have consistently done so over the course of this year and years past. I have found this second set to have a high degree of correlation with NE Pats fans.

 

[moleculo]

It's just a record. It didn't affect the outcome of a game, and everybody knows he could have easily gotten it in the second half. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That being said, it was clearly a lateral. I'm not sure how it's even close. If that was Geno Smith in week 4, I think they would have changed it. Oh, well. Better to be Manning with a sketchy record than the Steelers scheduling tee times instead of practicing for a playoff game.

Good summary IMO. Both records are pretty meaningless so I don't see any reason to lose our minds over this. I didn't even think it looked close on the replay though so I'm pretty confident they just didn't want to take his record away. Oh well.

Both records are meaningless yet we have like 5 threads about it and some are 17 pages long?This "record" now wreaks of NFL bias. How some people can say and act as if that is no big deal is amazing to me. Quit frankly if the NFL can allow something like this to stand and play favorites then is raises questions about the integrity of the league as a whole.

We have long threads about it because we're still kind of in "fantasy football" mode, and the season is over. We want to divert that energy into something, so we're talking about stats but in a different way. Nobody will care in March. The NFL has one bias: Money. Setting and breaking records is good for the league. It creates more buzz and it gets them more media attention. If the league didn't crack down on the Strahan/Favre "sack," why is not changing a stat such a shock to you? They're not going to manufacture a record, but if things happen to break right to allow a new record for a popular player, the league isn't exactly going to stand in the way.

But let's put it this way: If Aaron Hernandez was somehow a quarterback in the same position, the league would have overturned that stat before Sportscenter went live. You would have hit "refresh" on the Gamecenter at nfl.com and it would have been changed before the final gun. The league wouldn't need attention like that.

Again, the outcome of no games were changed. The winners still won; the losers still lost. In this case, we know the record would have been broken anyway. Don't be the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Records are made to be broken, and if it's not your record stop fretting over it one way or the other.

Interesting points but there is a slippery slope. If you're willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for "marketing" purposes, are you willing to influence officiating to keep a play-off game close?

If you are willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for marketing, then the record itself is meaningless. If fans find out that the books are cooked then they no longer have an incentive to care about them. It takes all the luster off breaking records.

I'd argue that no records are sacred. This isn't baseball. The NFL changes rules all the time, which means that long-standing rules are worthless. It's been pointed out that Marino's record has stood for 25 years and has been passed several times over the past couple of years due to rule changes - if the NFL cared about the sanctity of the records, that wouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

[Papa Georgio]

Since I neither hate or love Manning my take is that had it been ruled a lateral then I probably would've felt Manning was robbed bc he clearly would've stayed in the game long enough to get the record had it been ruled correctly on the field.

I guess the lesson learned is when in a position to break a record pass it by enough that one statistical error cannot take it from you.

 

[DropKick]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

While I'm sure Patriot fans are partial to Brady, I don't see why this issue has anything to do with him. Brees holds the yardage mark and you admit in a later post that you believe it was a lateral (as do I). Records do mean something and statistics should be accurate, right?

So, did the NFL not change this because they really believe it to be a forward pass or did they not want to impact a record, especially against one of the marquee players in the game? The latter is bothersome to many, including me.

Do we really need amateur psychologists blaming "low self image" for people who want the game to be administered accurately? Do we need to turn any discussion about Manning into one of Tom Brady?

There are two populations here - one set of people who prefer the facts speak for themselves and believe the Decker pass should have been ruled a lateral. There is a second set of people who take any possible chance to denigrate Manning, and have consistently done so over the course of this year and years past. I have found this second set to have a high degree of correlation with NE Pats fans.

You could probably accurately say "there is a group that take any possible chance to denigrate Brady, and have consistently done so over the course of this year and years past. I have found this second set to have a high degree of correlation with Colts/Broncos fans".

A very biased, irrational group are football fans...

 

[jurb26]

It's just a record. It didn't affect the outcome of a game, and everybody knows he could have easily gotten it in the second half. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That being said, it was clearly a lateral. I'm not sure how it's even close. If that was Geno Smith in week 4, I think they would have changed it. Oh, well. Better to be Manning with a sketchy record than the Steelers scheduling tee times instead of practicing for a playoff game.

Good summary IMO. Both records are pretty meaningless so I don't see any reason to lose our minds over this. I didn't even think it looked close on the replay though so I'm pretty confident they just didn't want to take his record away. Oh well.

Both records are meaningless yet we have like 5 threads about it and some are 17 pages long?This "record" now wreaks of NFL bias. How some people can say and act as if that is no big deal is amazing to me. Quit frankly if the NFL can allow something like this to stand and play favorites then is raises questions about the integrity of the league as a whole.

We have long threads about it because we're still kind of in "fantasy football" mode, and the season is over. We want to divert that energy into something, so we're talking about stats but in a different way. Nobody will care in March. The NFL has one bias: Money. Setting and breaking records is good for the league. It creates more buzz and it gets them more media attention. If the league didn't crack down on the Strahan/Favre "sack," why is not changing a stat such a shock to you? They're not going to manufacture a record, but if things happen to break right to allow a new record for a popular player, the league isn't exactly going to stand in the way.

But let's put it this way: If Aaron Hernandez was somehow a quarterback in the same position, the league would have overturned that stat before Sportscenter went live. You would have hit "refresh" on the Gamecenter at nfl.com and it would have been changed before the final gun. The league wouldn't need attention like that.

Again, the outcome of no games were changed. The winners still won; the losers still lost. In this case, we know the record would have been broken anyway. Don't be the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Records are made to be broken, and if it's not your record stop fretting over it one way or the other.

Interesting points but there is a slippery slope. If you're willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for "marketing" purposes, are you willing to influence officiating to keep a play-off game close?

If you are willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for marketing, then the record itself is meaningless. If fans find out that the books are cooked then they no longer have an incentive to care about them. It takes all the luster off breaking records.

I'd argue that no records are sacred. This isn't baseball. The NFL changes rules all the time, which means that long-standing rules are worthless. It's been pointed out that Marino's record has stood for 25 years and has been passed several times over the past couple of years due to rule changes - if the NFL cared about the sanctity of the records, that wouldn't have happened in the first place.

There is a pretty big difference between rule changes watering down stats and making things easier, or harder, than previous years and generations. This is a circumstance and example where the current rules are not being applied the same for all players.

 

[Breesisdaman]

Eat it, haters.

Always will have a * by it because it was not earned on the field. Eat that.

 

[Breesisdaman]

Still one Drew Brees record for Manning to get- 5 seasons with over 5000 yards. Go for it Peyton.

 

[Koya]

Eat it, haters.

Always will have a * by it because it was not earned on the field. Eat that.

1. I have no vested interest in Manning getting the record. As stated on multiple occasions, I've generally rooted against him. That is, until this thread and those who hate Manning for no good reason just got my goat and I'm now enjoying my own schadenfraude knowing that he will keep the record much to the chagrin of the haters and agenda pushes (although from what I've seen, he shouldn't. Where's this mystery video shot? ) Regardless...

2. There will be no *. It's Manning's. So, to those who have a legitimate issue with the fact that it does not appear that Manning should have the record, keep up the good discussion. For those who have some angle or vested interest (Manning hating, trying to save their own guys record, jealousy, combo of the above) in pushing for the record to be taking back the good news is you only have to live with this until someone else breaks it. But, until then, it's his. Your agenda lost. No *

 

[JohnnyU]

Eat it, haters.

Always will have a * by it because it was not earned on the field. Eat that.

It's not all that important of a record.

 

[Koya]

Eat it, haters.

Always will have a * by it because it was not earned on the field. Eat that.

It's not all that important of a record.

Apparently for those who are angsting about Manning getting it, there is some importance.

Unfortunately for them, there will be no *

And those of us relaxing on a nice lazy New Years Day will enjoy having something to do in goading the haters on. Life gets slow after the FF season ends.

 

[Milkman]

Eat it, haters.

Always will have a * by it because it was not earned on the field. Eat that.

Def Mad.

 

[stubby]

Since I neither hate or love Manning my take is that had it been ruled a lateral then I probably would've felt Manning was robbed bc he clearly would've stayed in the game long enough to get the record had it been ruled correctly on the field.

I guess the lesson learned is when in a position to break a record pass it by enough that one statistical error cannot take it from you.

This is pretty much where I am on the issue....

 

[Run It Up]

Since we're all still here, has anyone else seen another instance of "the equipment is not working, therefore the play cannot be challenged" this year, or any year for that matter?

I still can't believe it happened back in the

Could be worse imo.

 

[Neofight]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

While I'm sure Patriot fans are partial to Brady, I don't see why this issue has anything to do with him. Brees holds the yardage mark and you admit in a later post that you believe it was a lateral (as do I). Records do mean something and statistics should be accurate, right?

So, did the NFL not change this because they really believe it to be a forward pass or did they not want to impact a record, especially against one of the marquee players in the game? The latter is bothersome to many, including me.

Do we really need amateur psychologists blaming "low self image" for people who want the game to be administered accurately? Do we need to turn any discussion about Manning into one of Tom Brady?

There are two populations here - one set of people who prefer the facts speak for themselves and believe the Decker pass should have been ruled a lateral. There is a second set of people who take any possible chance to denigrate Manning, and have consistently done so over the course of this year and years past. I have found this second set to have a high degree of correlation with NE Pats fans.

What about the folks that want Manning to have the record regardless of what actually happened on the field (and the subsets of the Manning lovers, the short-sighted and the apathetic)?

 

[Neofight]

It's just a record. It didn't affect the outcome of a game, and everybody knows he could have easily gotten it in the second half. It really doesn't mean a whole lot.

That being said, it was clearly a lateral. I'm not sure how it's even close. If that was Geno Smith in week 4, I think they would have changed it. Oh, well. Better to be Manning with a sketchy record than the Steelers scheduling tee times instead of practicing for a playoff game.

Good summary IMO. Both records are pretty meaningless so I don't see any reason to lose our minds over this. I didn't even think it looked close on the replay though so I'm pretty confident they just didn't want to take his record away. Oh well.

Both records are meaningless yet we have like 5 threads about it and some are 17 pages long?This "record" now wreaks of NFL bias. How some people can say and act as if that is no big deal is amazing to me. Quit frankly if the NFL can allow something like this to stand and play favorites then is raises questions about the integrity of the league as a whole.

We have long threads about it because we're still kind of in "fantasy football" mode, and the season is over. We want to divert that energy into something, so we're talking about stats but in a different way. Nobody will care in March. The NFL has one bias: Money. Setting and breaking records is good for the league. It creates more buzz and it gets them more media attention. If the league didn't crack down on the Strahan/Favre "sack," why is not changing a stat such a shock to you? They're not going to manufacture a record, but if things happen to break right to allow a new record for a popular player, the league isn't exactly going to stand in the way.

But let's put it this way: If Aaron Hernandez was somehow a quarterback in the same position, the league would have overturned that stat before Sportscenter went live. You would have hit "refresh" on the Gamecenter at nfl.com and it would have been changed before the final gun. The league wouldn't need attention like that.

Again, the outcome of no games were changed. The winners still won; the losers still lost. In this case, we know the record would have been broken anyway. Don't be the 1972 Miami Dolphins. Records are made to be broken, and if it's not your record stop fretting over it one way or the other.

Interesting points but there is a slippery slope. If you're willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for "marketing" purposes, are you willing to influence officiating to keep a play-off game close?

If you are willing to let the integrity of the record be compromised for marketing, then the record itself is meaningless. If fans find out that the books are cooked then they no longer have an incentive to care about them. It takes all the luster off breaking records.

I'd argue that no records are sacred. This isn't baseball. The NFL changes rules all the time, which means that long-standing rules are worthless. It's been pointed out that Marino's record has stood for 25 years and has been passed several times over the past couple of years due to rule changes - if the NFL cared about the sanctity of the records, that wouldn't have happened in the first place.

A baseball purist knows that the steroid era already wiped clean any sanctity with regards to MLB records. There are a handful that still matter.

 

[IHEARTFF]

The record rightly stands. The fact it was a lateral is irrelevant here. Angry folks are missing that point.

 

[Not Sleeping]

The record rightly stands. The fact it was a lateral is irrelevant here. Angry folks are missing that point.

Wow, that's a new argument. Manning's laterals count as forward passing yards. That sure does change a lot actually.

 

[IHEARTFF]

The record rightly stands. The fact it was a lateral is irrelevant here. Angry folks are missing that point.

Wow, that's a new argument. Manning's laterals count as forward passing yards. That sure does change a lot actually.

They called it a pass in the game is the point. Had they called it a lateral at the time, he would have stayed in to start the 2nd half and break the record then. He sat out the entire 2nd half because the record was already broken and they were crushing Oakland.

 

[jurb26]

The record rightly stands. The fact it was a lateral is irrelevant here. Angry folks are missing that point.

Wow, that's a new argument. Manning's laterals count as forward passing yards. That sure does change a lot actually.

They called it a pass in the game is the point. Had they called it a lateral at the time, he would have stayed in to start the 2nd half and break the record then. He sat out the entire 2nd half because the record was already broken and they were crushing Oakland.

This thread just gets funnier and funnier. Before, the Manning backers were saying he doesn't chase records and used his exclusion of the 2nd half as proof. Now, he simply would have stayed in had he not had the record so it's irrelevant how that play was ruled.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The record rightly stands. The fact it was a lateral is irrelevant here. Angry folks are missing that point.

Wow, that's a new argument. Manning's laterals count as forward passing yards. That sure does change a lot actually.

Exactly. This isn't that hard.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Manning jealousy/hatred stems from the same areas as Tebow jealousy/hatred. He's a talented, rich guy who has millions upon millions of fans, is a great leader and is extremely successful.

Some people have such a low self-image that they just can't stand to see others (who are better than them) succeed. So they try to cut them down and take away any accomplishment they earn.

Hate on, miserable haters.

I don't think that's it. I think it's more about an unparalleled man-love for the Great Tom Brady. Since Brady is clearly the Best that Ever Was, it's inconceivable that anyone else possibly have an equivalent, much less better, season than Brady's 2007.

Manning is clearly better than Brady. Anybody that has taken any time to look into knows that.

Better for statistics and overall career play: Peyton Manning

Better for Super Bowl victories: Tom Brady

The quarterback you want in just one game with a title on the line: Eli Manning Joe Montana

Fixed.

I was talking about current players, but yes. I agree.