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

[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.

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.

Of course he cares about records. I don't really care what "Manning backers" say. You don't think he would have stayed in to break the record?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

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.

OK, this is a poor argument. The Broncos play in the NFL, a league where stats change every single week. They understand how the game works. If they choose to sit on a one-yard cushion for the record, that's the risk they take. The record should stand based only whether or not those passes were actually passes. My argument is simply that the record doesn't matter all that much, so who cares if he actually earned it or not? He wants another ring. That's what matters.

I will tell you that if it was me and I cared about the record, I'd come out and play into the third quarter. Teams do that all the time in meaningless games. The Chiefs didn't, but the Patriots' starters usually play three quarters of meaningless week 17 games. The Giants did it to show they could compete with the undefeated Pats, too-- and they gave up a manufactured bye to do it.

Just like a fantasy owner would be sweating a fraction-of-a-point victory and would be stupid to bench a player, a team that cared about the record would be stupid to bench a player. Fortunately, it's not that important. Nobody is going to change their opinion of Peyton Manning based on whether he has that record or not. He won't gain or lose any HOF votes over it.

The fact that he pushed the TD record to 55 is more significant. I think it will stand for a good while because of that. By "good while" I mean a decade or more. Getting 56 is a lot harder than 52. It's an extra great game, and in a league or parity, that's a nice cushion for your record.

 

[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.

Of course he cares about records. I don't really care what "Manning backers" say. You don't think he would have stayed in to break the record?

Of course i do. I've already said I think all players generally chase records and care about them. We were told by many Manning lovers this was not the case. It's pretty much what an entire 18 page thread is about. I find it funny how once that record is hypothetically gone the argument changes. Not directing this at you and you weren't the first to say it. Just quoted you because you were the last to say it. I could care less if he or anyone else chases the records. They are paid to win football games and entertain. He's doing that.

 

[Koya]

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.

Baseball has always had eras. The dead ball era. The '30's boost of offense. The pitcher dominated 60's-80's. All stats must be correctly adjusted for era and to match apples for apples.

 

[Koya]

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.

That's the thing. I think most of us are neither Manning backers nor Manning bashers. It's not as if those are the only two camps in football fandom.

 

[Mario Kart]

Since the goal posts have changed, did Brees have any laterals during his season that we can go back and give him credit for the yardage off of those "runs"? Seems only fitting now that the goal posts have changed.

 

[Koya]

Since the goal posts have changed, did Brees have any laterals during his season that we can go back and give him credit for the yardage off of those "runs"? Seems only fitting now that the goal posts have changed.

Goal posts have not changed. Brees is now #2.

Pretty straight forward.

 

[Mario Kart]

Since the goal posts have changed, did Brees have any laterals during his season that we can go back and give him credit for the yardage off of those "runs"? Seems only fitting now that the goal posts have changed.

Goal posts have not changed. Brees is now #2.

Pretty straight forward.

I'm just asking since laterals are now considered "passing yardage" what, if any, laterals Brees had during his breaking year to now go back and change those "rushing yards" to "passing yards" since laterals are now considered "passing yards."

If the shoe fits.

 

[jurb26]

Since the goal posts have changed, did Brees have any laterals during his season that we can go back and give him credit for the yardage off of those "runs"? Seems only fitting now that the goal posts have changed.

Goal posts have not changed. Brees is now #2. Pretty straight forward.

I'm just asking since laterals are now considered "passing yardage" what, if any, laterals Brees had during his breaking year to now go back and change those "rushing yards" to "passing yards" since laterals are now considered "passing yards."If the shoe fits.

Which is why rules need to be enforced fairly and equally. To avoid questions like this.

 

[Koya]

Since the goal posts have changed, did Brees have any laterals during his season that we can go back and give him credit for the yardage off of those "runs"? Seems only fitting now that the goal posts have changed.

Goal posts have not changed. Brees is now #2. Pretty straight forward.

I'm just asking since laterals are now considered "passing yardage" what, if any, laterals Brees had during his breaking year to now go back and change those "rushing yards" to "passing yards" since laterals are now considered "passing yards."If the shoe fits.

Which is why rules need to be enforced fairly and equally. To avoid questions like this.

I agree. And from what I've seen, it should have been a lateral.

In the end, as a team is as good as its record says it is, so too, is Peyton the holder of the record.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

I'm not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half. The Broncos were up 31-0, and I really don't think Manning cares all that much about the yardage record.

But assuming that your conjecture is true -- assuming he would have stayed in and tried to get the record -- when has it ever been appropriate to give people records based on what they probably would have done instead of what they actually did? (And if it is appropriate to give Manning the record because he would have thrown more passes in 2013 if only he'd known he was short of Brees's 2011 season, why shouldn't we also consider that Brees would have thrown more passes in 2011 if only he'd known he'd end up short of Manning's fortified 2013 season?)

I haven't seen the pass in question and don't have an opinion about whether it was forward or backward, or how close it was. I also don't know how obviously wrong a stat has to be for Elias to correct it. ("Preponderance of the evidence"? "Indisputable visual evidence"? Something else?)

I prefer to think that Elias didn't correct the stat in this case because it had a view of the play that made it defensible to deem the pass forward, and they don't correct stats that are defensible.

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

 

[lod01]

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.

I'm not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half. The Broncos were up 31-0, and I really don't think Manning cares all that much about the yardage record.

But assuming that your conjecture is true -- assuming he would have stayed in and tried to get the record -- when has it ever been appropriate to give people records based on what they probably would have done instead of what they actually did? (And if it is appropriate to give Manning the record because he would have thrown more passes in 2013 if only he'd known he was short of Brees's 2011 season, why shouldn't we also consider that Brees would have thrown more passes in 2011 if only he'd known he'd end up short of Manning's fortified 2013 season?)

I haven't seen the pass in question and don't have an opinion about whether it was forward or backward, or how close it was. I also don't know how obviously wrong a stat has to be for Elias to correct it. ("Preponderance of the evidence"? "Indisputable visual evidence"? Something else?)

I prefer to think that Elias didn't correct the stat in this case because it had a view of the play that made it defensible to deem the pass forward, and they don't correct stats that are defensible.

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

If Manning was 1 yard behind Brees going into the 3rd Q, he comes in for one series and gets the yard he needs. That's what stat whores do. I said last week that he would play until he got the record. Once he got it and the game was over...(it was over after 2 TDs)... he would leave the game. That's what he did. It was exactly what I expected to happen.

 

[buck naked]

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.

I'm not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half. The Broncos were up 31-0, and I really don't think Manning cares all that much about the yardage record.

But assuming that your conjecture is true -- assuming he would have stayed in and tried to get the record -- when has it ever been appropriate to give people records based on what they probably would have done instead of what they actually did? (And if it is appropriate to give Manning the record because he would have thrown more passes in 2013 if only he'd known he was short of Brees's 2011 season, why shouldn't we also consider that Brees would have thrown more passes in 2011 if only he'd known he'd end up short of Manning's fortified 2013 season?)

I haven't seen the pass in question and don't have an opinion about whether it was forward or backward, or how close it was. I also don't know how obviously wrong a stat has to be for Elias to correct it. ("Preponderance of the evidence"? "Indisputable visual evidence"? Something else?)

I prefer to think that Elias didn't correct the stat in this case because it had a view of the play that made it defensible to deem the pass forward, and they don't correct stats that are defensible.

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

If Manning was 1 yard behind Brees going into the 3rd Q, he comes in for one series and gets the yard he needs. That's what stat whores do. I said last week that he would play until he got the record. Once he got it and the game was over...(it was over after 2 TDs)... he would leave the game. That's what he did. It was exactly what I expected to happen.

You are right. That's why he stayed in against Houston the week before and kept throwing the ball with 3-4 minutes left in that game. Just to break the record in week 16. There was no reason to keep throwing the ball at that point.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

There's no probably about it. He had 266 yards and 4 TD at the half, according to the statisticians. The record was broken. There was no reason for him to assume he needed more yards.

Had that not been the case, he would have stayed in to get the measly couple yards needed. However, going back to unbreak the record on a stat correction would be much worse than assuming he would stay in for a couple more plays to get the record.

 

[JohnnyU]

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.

I'm not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half. The Broncos were up 31-0, and I really don't think Manning cares all that much about the yardage record.

But assuming that your conjecture is true -- assuming he would have stayed in and tried to get the record -- when has it ever been appropriate to give people records based on what they probably would have done instead of what they actually did? (And if it is appropriate to give Manning the record because he would have thrown more passes in 2013 if only he'd known he was short of Brees's 2011 season, why shouldn't we also consider that Brees would have thrown more passes in 2011 if only he'd known he'd end up short of Manning's fortified 2013 season?)

I haven't seen the pass in question and don't have an opinion about whether it was forward or backward, or how close it was. I also don't know how obviously wrong a stat has to be for Elias to correct it. ("Preponderance of the evidence"? "Indisputable visual evidence"? Something else?)

I prefer to think that Elias didn't correct the stat in this case because it had a view of the play that made it defensible to deem the pass forward, and they don't correct stats that are defensible.

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

If Manning was 1 yard behind Brees going into the 3rd Q, he comes in for one series and gets the yard he needs. That's what stat whores do. I said last week that he would play until he got the record. Once he got it and the game was over...(it was over after 2 TDs)... he would leave the game. That's what he did. It was exactly what I expected to happen.

You are right. That's why he stayed in against Houston the week before and kept throwing the ball with 3-4 minutes left in that game. Just to break the record in week 16. There was no reason to keep throwing the ball at that point.

Didn't Brady keep throwing in games where the outcome had long been decided the year he broke Peyton's TD record? Talk about stat whore, he and Belichick are the poster children on the subject. If you're going to blast Manning for going after the record, you have to do the same to Brady. They ran up the score at every opportunity.

 

[lod01]

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.

I'm not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half. The Broncos were up 31-0, and I really don't think Manning cares all that much about the yardage record.

But assuming that your conjecture is true -- assuming he would have stayed in and tried to get the record -- when has it ever been appropriate to give people records based on what they probably would have done instead of what they actually did? (And if it is appropriate to give Manning the record because he would have thrown more passes in 2013 if only he'd known he was short of Brees's 2011 season, why shouldn't we also consider that Brees would have thrown more passes in 2011 if only he'd known he'd end up short of Manning's fortified 2013 season?)

I haven't seen the pass in question and don't have an opinion about whether it was forward or backward, or how close it was. I also don't know how obviously wrong a stat has to be for Elias to correct it. ("Preponderance of the evidence"? "Indisputable visual evidence"? Something else?)

I prefer to think that Elias didn't correct the stat in this case because it had a view of the play that made it defensible to deem the pass forward, and they don't correct stats that are defensible.

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

If Manning was 1 yard behind Brees going into the 3rd Q, he comes in for one series and gets the yard he needs. That's what stat whores do. I said last week that he would play until he got the record. Once he got it and the game was over...(it was over after 2 TDs)... he would leave the game. That's what he did. It was exactly what I expected to happen.

You are right. That's why he stayed in against Houston the week before and kept throwing the ball with 3-4 minutes left in that game. Just to break the record in week 16. There was no reason to keep throwing the ball at that point.

Didn't Brady keep throwing in games where the outcome had long been decided the year he broke Peyton's TD record? Talk about stat whore, he and Belichick are the poster children on the subject. If you're going to blast Manning for going after the record, you have to do the same to Brady. They ran up the score at every opportunity.

Yes. He's also a stat whore. They stat whored to break Jerry Rice's single season TD record. So is Brett Favre who I enjoyed racking up cheap TDs for my fantasy team over 15 years. Oh, so is Rice who I had from 1992 to 2000. You see I know they are stat whores because when Rice would be close to any record, I knew I what he was going to get me that week. Never failed. I don't discriminate against the NFL team. I want the stat whore on my FF team.

 

[IHEARTFF]

They're all obviously stat whores. It's part of what drives them to be great. I'm guessing Manning, Rodgers & Brees will try to break all of those records next year.

 

[jurb26]

Great so we are all finally in agreement. They are all stat whores. Enjoy the riches of these promiscuous, stat chasing prima donna's. Follow them correctly and they can help you, too, make money!

 

[lod01]

They're all obviously stat whores. It's part of what drives them to be great. I'm guessing Manning, Rodgers & Brees will try to break all of those records next year.

If they are on pace 1/2 way thru the season, they will go after it.

Great so we are all finally in agreement. They are all stat whores. Enjoy the riches of these promiscuous, stat chasing prima donna's. Follow them correctly and they can help you, too, make money!

FF 101: If you are wavering between 2 guys with your 1st round redraft pick, take the stat whore..

 

[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.

Baseball has always had eras. The dead ball era. The '30's boost of offense. The pitcher dominated 60's-80's. All stats must be correctly adjusted for era and to match apples for apples.

Of course, but there is a rather glaring difference between the steroid era and every other era that directly relates to the record books. In those previous eras the playing field was level; everyone had to face tough pitching or hit dead balls or use bats covered in pine tar. That is why there is everything prior to the steroid era, everything that was tarnished by it, and everything after.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

There's no probably about it.

Of course there is. The whole reason that teams sit their starters in those situations is an acknowledgment of the probably about it. It's an acknowledgment that injuries can occur. Even if we know for sure that he would have tried to break the record, it is merely probable -- not certain -- that he would have succeeded.

He had 266 yards and 4 TD at the half, according to the statisticians. The record was broken. There was no reason for him to assume he needed more yards.

Sure there was a reason to assume that he may have needed more yards. Seven of those 266 yards came on what could easily have been considered a backward pass. Stat corrections are a regular part of normal NFL procedure. One always has to assume that a stat correction may be forthcoming.

Had that not been the case, he would have stayed in to get the measly couple yards needed. However, going back to unbreak the record on a stat correction would be much worse than assuming he would stay in for a couple more plays to get the record.

I don't think records should be based on assumptions about what would have happened if only things had been different. If you disagree, I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half.

X

 

[Neofight]

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.

I'm not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half. The Broncos were up 31-0, and I really don't think Manning cares all that much about the yardage record.

But assuming that your conjecture is true -- assuming he would have stayed in and tried to get the record -- when has it ever been appropriate to give people records based on what they probably would have done instead of what they actually did? (And if it is appropriate to give Manning the record because he would have thrown more passes in 2013 if only he'd known he was short of Brees's 2011 season, why shouldn't we also consider that Brees would have thrown more passes in 2011 if only he'd known he'd end up short of Manning's fortified 2013 season?)

I haven't seen the pass in question and don't have an opinion about whether it was forward or backward, or how close it was. I also don't know how obviously wrong a stat has to be for Elias to correct it. ("Preponderance of the evidence"? "Indisputable visual evidence"? Something else?)

I prefer to think that Elias didn't correct the stat in this case because it had a view of the play that made it defensible to deem the pass forward, and they don't correct stats that are defensible.

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

Do yourself a favor and don't watch it, if keeping the faith is what is preventing you from doing so. On the other hand, I would be interested to know how indisputable you would find the evidence to be. Opinions vary, but I have yet to hear someone say they saw an angle where the play looked like a forward pass. And it seems improbable there is secret video out there somewhere that shows this to be the case.

 

[fatness]

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.

 

[Hoss Style]

Lot's of weird stuff in this thread.

Either way, if I'm forced to take the word of Elias Sport Bureau on the validity of the pass or the word of a bunch of dudes on the internet - I'm going with Elias.

I've watched the play about 50 times now. It looks like it was backwards by a very small amount if you account for the angle of the camera. I know the NFL has other angles, yet hasn't released them to us (or anyone, that I could find) but Elias has access to. Even with the crap view that we are getting, it's extremely close (a half yard or less, maybe?).

After reading a bit more about it on the wonderful internet, I've found that they only make stat corrections when there is an obvious error. Considering the multiple angles that they have (that we don't) then it seems they are saying it's not egregious enough to change.

Now, unless you've got video evidence (or some other proof) that Elias normally does change stats when the play is so close, then I don't know what you're arguing about. It would be easy to prove your point -

Scour through every record that exists in the NFL and find one play during the entire tenure needed to achieve that record (could be one game, could be hundreds) that is extremely close to not counting towards the record in question. Then find a video clip showing that Elias did, in fact, change the stat to the opposite of what was ruled on the field. Then you'd prove your point. It's probably happened at some point, during some record, for one of your favorite players for or against.

I can understand people disagreeing with the play in question, that's fine. But the conspiracy theories are really, really weird.

And I take that back - it wouldn't be easy to prove your point. I'll let the naysayers have at it, though.

 

[ghostguy123]

Lot's of weird stuff in this thread.

Either way, if I'm forced to take the word of Elias Sport Bureau on the validity of the pass or the word of a bunch of dudes on the internet - I'm going with Elias.

I've watched the play about 50 times now. It looks like it was backwards by a very small amount if you account for the angle of the camera. I know the NFL has other angles, yet hasn't released them to us (or anyone, that I could find) but Elias has access to. Even with the crap view that we are getting, it's extremely close (a half yard or less, maybe?).

After reading a bit more about it on the wonderful internet, I've found that they only make stat corrections when there is an obvious error. Considering the multiple angles that they have (that we don't) then it seems they are saying it's not egregious enough to change.

Now, unless you've got video evidence (or some other proof) that Elias normally does change stats when the play is so close, then I don't know what you're arguing about. It would be easy to prove your point -

Scour through every record that exists in the NFL and find one play during the entire tenure needed to achieve that record (could be one game, could be hundreds) that is extremely close to not counting towards the record in question. Then find a video clip showing that Elias did, in fact, change the stat to the opposite of what was ruled on the field. Then you'd prove your point. It's probably happened at some point, during some record, for one of your favorite players for or against.

I can understand people disagreeing with the play in question, that's fine. But the conspiracy theories are really, really weird.

And I take that back - it wouldn't be easy to prove your point. I'll let the naysayers have at it, though.

Can't really argue with any of that. I would agree that stat changes should not occur unless it is ridiculously obvious. In this case, I think if it was counted as a pass, leave it as a pass. I would bet with all the WR screens and swing passes to Sproles there would be a few laterals that were counted as forward passes also regarding the stats.

That said................had Decker dropped it and a guy from the other team picked it up, you bet your #### it would be counted as a lateral/fumble.

 

[Hoss Style]

That said................had Decker dropped it and a guy from the other team picked it up, you bet your #### it would be counted as a lateral/fumble.

That actually would be interesting, because then it would have been reviewed (surely someone would have thrown a flag) on whether it was a foward pass or not. I wonder how they would have ruled it on the field. From what I've read (and seen) the refs are more likely to overturn their own calls on the field than Elias is. It seems Elias only changes things that are obvious, no question errors.

 

[ghostguy123]

That said................had Decker dropped it and a guy from the other team picked it up, you bet your #### it would be counted as a lateral/fumble.

That actually would be interesting, because then it would have been reviewed (surely someone would have thrown a flag) on whether it was a foward pass or not. I wonder how they would have ruled it on the field. From what I've read (and seen) the refs are more likely to overturn their own calls on the field than Elias is. It seems Elias only changes things that are obvious, no question errors.

The refs do not ALWAYS change things that appear obvious, but this one appeared obvious, and I think they would have ruled it a fumble.

 

[Anarchy99]

The Manning play looks very similar to this Brady/Gronk play that was originally scored a passing TD and later changed to a rushing TD.

About 1:40 in . . .

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2011120413/2011/REG13/colts@patriots?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr#menu=highlights&tab=recap

 

[Neofight]

Lot's of weird stuff in this thread.

Either way, if I'm forced to take the word of Elias Sport Bureau on the validity of the pass or the word of a bunch of dudes on the internet - I'm going with Elias.

I've watched the play about 50 times now. It looks like it was backwards by a very small amount if you account for the angle of the camera. I know the NFL has other angles, yet hasn't released them to us (or anyone, that I could find) but Elias has access to. Even with the crap view that we are getting, it's extremely close (a half yard or less, maybe?).

After reading a bit more about it on the wonderful internet, I've found that they only make stat corrections when there is an obvious error. Considering the multiple angles that they have (that we don't) then it seems they are saying it's not egregious enough to change.

Now, unless you've got video evidence (or some other proof) that Elias normally does change stats when the play is so close, then I don't know what you're arguing about. It would be easy to prove your point -

Scour through every record that exists in the NFL and find one play during the entire tenure needed to achieve that record (could be one game, could be hundreds) that is extremely close to not counting towards the record in question. Then find a video clip showing that Elias did, in fact, change the stat to the opposite of what was ruled on the field. Then you'd prove your point. It's probably happened at some point, during some record, for one of your favorite players for or against.

I can understand people disagreeing with the play in question, that's fine. But the conspiracy theories are really, really weird.

And I take that back - it wouldn't be easy to prove your point. I'll let the naysayers have at it, though.

Which is weirder: conspiracy theories (not that we've seen much of those) or appeals to authority (and other fallacies, assumptions and leaps of logic that we have seen plenty of)?Even your post above is shaded with subtle homerism. Though I don't find that weird at all.

 

[General Tso]

Lot's of weird stuff in this thread.

Either way, if I'm forced to take the word of Elias Sport Bureau on the validity of the pass or the word of a bunch of dudes on the internet - I'm going with Elias.

I've watched the play about 50 times now. It looks like it was backwards by a very small amount if you account for the angle of the camera. I know the NFL has other angles, yet hasn't released them to us (or anyone, that I could find) but Elias has access to. Even with the crap view that we are getting, it's extremely close (a half yard or less, maybe?).

After reading a bit more about it on the wonderful internet, I've found that they only make stat corrections when there is an obvious error. Considering the multiple angles that they have (that we don't) then it seems they are saying it's not egregious enough to change.

Now, unless you've got video evidence (or some other proof) that Elias normally does change stats when the play is so close, then I don't know what you're arguing about. It would be easy to prove your point -

Scour through every record that exists in the NFL and find one play during the entire tenure needed to achieve that record (could be one game, could be hundreds) that is extremely close to not counting towards the record in question. Then find a video clip showing that Elias did, in fact, change the stat to the opposite of what was ruled on the field. Then you'd prove your point. It's probably happened at some point, during some record, for one of your favorite players for or against.

I can understand people disagreeing with the play in question, that's fine. But the conspiracy theories are really, really weird.

And I take that back - it wouldn't be easy to prove your point. I'll let the naysayers have at it, though.

Well, we certainly know what the weirdest stuff is in this thread, and it is what you just posted. They only make stat correctionds when there is " an obvious error"? Do you know how many stat corrections have been made to individual players in the NFL this year? 195. It happens all the time, on plays exactly like the one in question - and the standard applied with Manning was clearly different than the standard applied on the others. If you think otherwise you are completely delusional.

My God, the Manning propoganda machine in here is just ridiculous - almost scary. You guys have lost all credibility in my book. They made an exception for Manning - plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

[SWC]

anything that takes bert the weiner texters name off of first place is aok with this old boy brohans

 

[Adam Harstad]

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 Pats Falcons game this year, sitting at home watching the replay of Dobson being absolutely mugged by Falcons defenders over and over to have the ref come back and say that since they can't see the replay on the field the play can't be reviewed...

I've seen it before, although I can't remember when. I've also seen times when the play clock malfunctioned and the officials had to keep time on the field by hand. And I've seen times when the in-helmet communications system for one team fails, so the officials force the other team to turn off their system too to keep everything fair.

Equipment malfunctions sometimes.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm not at all sure that he would have stayed in to start the second half. The Broncos were up 31-0, and I really don't think Manning cares all that much about the yardage record.

But assuming that your conjecture is true -- assuming he would have stayed in and tried to get the record -- when has it ever been appropriate to give people records based on what they probably would have done instead of what they actually did? (And if it is appropriate to give Manning the record because he would have thrown more passes in 2013 if only he'd known he was short of Brees's 2011 season, why shouldn't we also consider that Brees would have thrown more passes in 2011 if only he'd known he'd end up short of Manning's fortified 2013 season?)

I haven't seen the pass in question and don't have an opinion about whether it was forward or backward, or how close it was. I also don't know how obviously wrong a stat has to be for Elias to correct it. ("Preponderance of the evidence"? "Indisputable visual evidence"? Something else?)

I prefer to think that Elias didn't correct the stat in this case because it had a view of the play that made it defensible to deem the pass forward, and they don't correct stats that are defensible.

Any other reason for failing to make a correction, especially reasons along the lines of "he probably would have gotten it anyway," I would find rather distasteful.

Pretty much this x1000.

Edit: Once again, Manning in the press conference immediately after the game, asking what it felt like to break the yardage record: "yeah, I mean, like I said, it's... um... *shrug* I don't really have much to say about it, to tell you the truth." (question and answer starts at 5:15 in the linked video.)

 

[Hoss Style]

Lot's of weird stuff in this thread.

Either way, if I'm forced to take the word of Elias Sport Bureau on the validity of the pass or the word of a bunch of dudes on the internet - I'm going with Elias.

I've watched the play about 50 times now. It looks like it was backwards by a very small amount if you account for the angle of the camera. I know the NFL has other angles, yet hasn't released them to us (or anyone, that I could find) but Elias has access to. Even with the crap view that we are getting, it's extremely close (a half yard or less, maybe?).

After reading a bit more about it on the wonderful internet, I've found that they only make stat corrections when there is an obvious error. Considering the multiple angles that they have (that we don't) then it seems they are saying it's not egregious enough to change.

Now, unless you've got video evidence (or some other proof) that Elias normally does change stats when the play is so close, then I don't know what you're arguing about. It would be easy to prove your point -

Scour through every record that exists in the NFL and find one play during the entire tenure needed to achieve that record (could be one game, could be hundreds) that is extremely close to not counting towards the record in question. Then find a video clip showing that Elias did, in fact, change the stat to the opposite of what was ruled on the field. Then you'd prove your point. It's probably happened at some point, during some record, for one of your favorite players for or against.

I can understand people disagreeing with the play in question, that's fine. But the conspiracy theories are really, really weird.

And I take that back - it wouldn't be easy to prove your point. I'll let the naysayers have at it, though.

Well, we certainly know what the weirdest stuff is in this thread, and it is what you just posted. They only make stat correctionds when there is " an obvious error"? Do you know how many stat corrections have been made to individual players in the NFL this year? 195. It happens all the time, on plays exactly like the one in question - and the standard applied with Manning was clearly different than the standard applied on the others. If you think otherwise you are completely delusional.

My God, the Manning propoganda machine in here is just ridiculous - almost scary. You guys have lost all credibility in my book. They made an exception for Manning - plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

As I go through stat corrections every week, I do know how many occur. 195 sounds about right. And when you read them on a weekly basis you realize they are obvious errors (most are easy to tell, such as a catch, sack, etc given to the wrong player, while others (very few) are errors on plays like a backward/foward pass.) This is not news to many of us, and if it is to someone, then I'm glad you've enlightened them to how many errors are made on a weekly basis.

You say I'm delusional because I think Elias is not lying? What else do you find delusional about my post? The fact that I said that it looked like a backward pass? The fact that Elias only changes obvious errors? It's funny that you post this, as I was very close to actually quoting a post you made where every statement you made was either false or heavlily opinionated. Adam responded to it, though, so I moved on.

So what is really delusional here? The ones saying that it looked to be backwards pass, but we don't have all the facts? Or the guy making outlandish statements that he can't prove at all, and then saying there are no "ifs ands or buts about it?"

I honestly couldn't care less about the record. You, on the other hand, seem almost feverish about it in your opposition. It's quite interesting.

 

[pizzatyme]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

 

[Hoss Style]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

Indeed. Those of us who check the stat corrections often know that most corrections every week are on the defensive side of the ball. Tons of stuff like Assisted Tackles changed to full ones, and vice versa. Same with half sacks/full sacks. Defensive stat changes are usually busy.

 

[Mario Kart]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

Your math needs correcting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

That math doesn't seem right.

 

[General Tso]

And when you read them on a weekly basis you realize they are obvious errors (most are easy to tell, such as a catch, sack, etc given to the wrong player, while others (very few) are errors on plays like a backward/foward pass.) This is not news to many of us...

Wrong yet again, Hoss. They are not obvious errors, else they wouldn't have been scored incorrectly in the first place. The type of play in question here, whether it was a forward pass or a lateral, is exactly the type of stat correction the review process was designed for. And it failed here - miserably.

And the delusional part here is people like yourself who really believe that this oversight was not because of the record, that either "there was another camera angle" or that "it was too close to call". In the stat review process, this is actually one of the more blatantly one sided instances I have seen.

They gave the guy a Mulligan. Quit deluding yourself, accept it for what it is, and move on.

 

[Hoss Style]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

That math doesn't seem right.

Yeah, it is a bit off.

I got his point though. If his math was correct it would have made his point even stronger.

 

[Hoss Style]

And when you read them on a weekly basis you realize they are obvious errors (most are easy to tell, such as a catch, sack, etc given to the wrong player, while others (very few) are errors on plays like a backward/foward pass.) This is not news to many of us...

Wrong yet again, Hoss. They are not obvious errors, else they wouldn't have been scored incorrectly in the first place. The type of play in question here, whether it was a forward pass or a lateral, is exactly the type of stat correction the review process was designed for. And it failed here - miserably.

And the delusional part here is people like yourself who really believe that this oversight was not because of the record, that either "there was another camera angle" or that "it was too close to call". In the stat review process, this is actually one of the more blatantly one sided instances I have seen.

They gave the guy a Mulligan. Quit deluding yourself, accept it for what it is, and move on.

How can I argue with you when you just make up your own facts, or maybe just aren't in the same ballpark with your definition of the word "obvious" when it comes to these corrections?

So, you are saying that when a team stat guy puts down that a tackle was made by #42, and it was actually made by #47, it's not an "obvious" error? Because that's what most stat corrections are similar to.

Good lord, man. I like the passion you feel, but you're placing it so far out of bounds that it makes it impossible to take you seriously sometimes.

Just let me know if you think the example I use above qualifies as an "obvious" error to you, or not. If it doesn't, then there's no reason to even try to discuss this topic with you, and I'll bow out. If it does qualify as "obvious" to you, then I would still love to hear how you find me delusional.

I'm not expecting a lot of reason here in response, but I'm holding out hope.

 

[pizzatyme]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot

considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

Your math needs correcting.

Indeed it does. LOL Lets try 0.38/ game

 

[pizzatyme]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

That math doesn't seem right.

A/B=C unless B/A=C

Math, who needs it?!

 

[General Tso]

And when you read them on a weekly basis you realize they are obvious errors (most are easy to tell, such as a catch, sack, etc given to the wrong player, while others (very few) are errors on plays like a backward/foward pass.) This is not news to many of us...

Wrong yet again, Hoss. They are not obvious errors, else they wouldn't have been scored incorrectly in the first place. The type of play in question here, whether it was a forward pass or a lateral, is exactly the type of stat correction the review process was designed for. And it failed here - miserably.And the delusional part here is people like yourself who really believe that this oversight was not because of the record, that either "there was another camera angle" or that "it was too close to call". In the stat review process, this is actually one of the more blatantly one sided instances I have seen.

They gave the guy a Mulligan. Quit deluding yourself, accept it for what it is, and move on.

How can I argue with you when you just make up your own facts, or maybe just aren't in the same ballpark with your definition of the word "obvious" when it comes to these corrections?So, you are saying that when a team stat guy puts down that a tackle was made by #42, and it was actually made by #47, it's not an "obvious" error? Because that's what most stat corrections are similar to.

Good lord, man. I like the passion you feel, but you're placing it so far out of bounds that it makes it impossible to take you seriously sometimes.

Just let me know if you think the example I use above qualifies as an "obvious" error to you, or not. If it doesn't, then there's no reason to even try to discuss this topic with you, and I'll bow out. If it does qualify as "obvious" to you, then I would still love to hear how you find me delusional.

I'm not expecting a lot of reason here in response, but I'm holding out hope.

I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to suggest repeatedly that somehow this Manning stat correction is outside the normal realm of the many weekly stat corrections we see. You make it sound like the only stat corrections we see are obvious. That is entirely false. Stat corrections include exact instances of this play, where a forward pass is ruled a lateral. It took me all of 5 minutes to find such a play. Week 2, Cutler throws sideways to Forte for a loss of 2 yards. It is originally called a forward pass. The stat corrections process changes it to a lateral. I haven't seen the play, by I have a real good hunch that the Manning play is just as definitive.Res ipsa loquitur.

 

[pizzatyme]

Vayas con Dios to you too, amigo!

 

[tkrull]

*

 

[General Tso]

Res ipsa loquitur - "the thing speaks for itself".

ie - it is what it is - an intentional, charitable scoring oversight done by Elias so that Manning keeps the record.

Or, as the guy above me so eloquently summed it up - *

 

[pizzatyme]

Or, it is what it is, a play ruled upon by the official scorer and confirmed in the booth by Elias.

 

[RUSF18]

195 stat corrections doesn't seem like a lot

considering a total of 512 games played

2.62 corrections per game and this includes defensive corrections

Your math needs correcting.

Indeed it does. LOL Lets try 0.38/ game

Now let's work on figuring out how many ACTUAL games are played in the NFL every year...