Weiner Dog
Footballguy
Highest completion percentage (78.9%) ever with three INT's??
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Manning's game vs Chiefs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Weiner Dog
- Start date
purestrength
Footballguy
I'm a Manning fan, but I have to admit it was a strange performance.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
How exactly did he "choke"? Would you then say that earlier this season when the Colts beat the Patriots at Foxboro and Brady had 4 INTs, that Brady choked? Because I would mostcertainly NOT say that."Choke" is brobably the #2 most overused sports cliche these days. Next to "It is what it is."
pizzatyme
Footballguy
What is your point? This happens all the time in the NFL. He took what the defense was allowing and completed 79% of his passes to his own team.Maybe you can point out where someone else had a similar situation of taking what the defense allowed and had an even higher completion %?He had 267 yards of passing. That is a dream day for most QBs in the league.
T
trader jake
Guest
Peyton Manning Hater Playbook:
Colts win and Manning has big statistical game: That game wasn't a big game anyway. Just wait until he chokes next week in the big game. Repeat this line until the Colts lose. Manning will never win a title so don't even acknowledge the possibility that he could lead the Colts to a Super Bowl win. Even poke fun at his appearance or commercials.
Colts win and Manning has average or below average game: What a choker. I can't wait for Manning to choke again next week. Only next week ________ won't bail him out. Mention clever lines about dogs and sun shining on their backsides.
Colts lose and Manning has a big to average game: That's all Manning can do...put up big numbers. The guy isn't a winner and never will be. His cap number kept the Colts from adding more talent around him to win. What a selfish bastage. Compare him to guys like Terrell Owens or Dennis Rodman.
Colts lose and Manning has poor game: Open the floodgates. Type anything and everything. Make sure to mention Tom Brady and any other QB who has won a Super Bowl. Bonus points for Trent Dilfer or Mama Cass references.
Colts win and Manning has big statistical game: That game wasn't a big game anyway. Just wait until he chokes next week in the big game. Repeat this line until the Colts lose. Manning will never win a title so don't even acknowledge the possibility that he could lead the Colts to a Super Bowl win. Even poke fun at his appearance or commercials.
Colts win and Manning has average or below average game: What a choker. I can't wait for Manning to choke again next week. Only next week ________ won't bail him out. Mention clever lines about dogs and sun shining on their backsides.
Colts lose and Manning has a big to average game: That's all Manning can do...put up big numbers. The guy isn't a winner and never will be. His cap number kept the Colts from adding more talent around him to win. What a selfish bastage. Compare him to guys like Terrell Owens or Dennis Rodman.
Colts lose and Manning has poor game: Open the floodgates. Type anything and everything. Make sure to mention Tom Brady and any other QB who has won a Super Bowl. Bonus points for Trent Dilfer or Mama Cass references.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
Because he was in yet another playoff game, against a team that was doing nothing, and threw three freaking interceptions.If he were an average QB, ok... but he is better than that, and he three three picks in a playoff game.Im a Manning fan, but this is his history... from college on. Tonight shouldnt have changed much. We will see against the Ravens, which is a very tall order.eta: not only am I a manning fan, he got me a super bowl in FF football, so I am far from a hater.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Ashcraft
Footballguy
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I guess you prefer not to answer the question concerning Brady and the Patriots. Fair enough.Brady tosses 4 pics in a regular season game against Indy and loses. I think that was a big game for the Patriots. Oh wait, I think I remember someone stating that Belichick, in all his genius, lost that game on purpose to keep from showing his hand he intends to use against the Colts in the playoffs.Manning won the game. He led the colts on 5 scoring drives. He had 3 pics in his winning effort. That is not choking!
Koya
Footballguy
Didnt leave out brady on purpose. Its late. Im tired. I miss things.First, we werent talking brady here.Second, Brady has three championships. Nuff said there, and I can't stand brady.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
That is the silliest argument yet! It is okay do call out Manning as a choker in this game where the Colts won and he completed 79% of his passes. Yet, Brady gets a pass on a game earlier in the year where his TEAM lost and he had 4 INTs, simply because he had won previous championships.You can't have it both ways. INTs by your definition mean a QB is a choker. Unless, they have won a Superbowl, then INTs are excused.
Saints-Man
Footballguy
Agreed on both counts. Two of those INTs were exceptionally bad. But, a win is a win and they will advance to play Baltimore next week. He needs to play better than that for them to win in Balitmore.
Koya
Footballguy
Um, you really want to go to the loco card?See, there is this thing called context.the context of this particular situation has Brady leading his team to three championships. He may have bad games, he may never win another championship, but he has proven to be a winning QB, a championship QB, under that pressure, not wilting. Even if sometimes he may wilt, we know he can also overcome.Manning, on the other hand, has never even reached a Championship game. He has had a number of examples, many in fact if you go back to college, of being unable to rise when the time most calls for it - a clutch moment/game in the playoff. He doesnt play better or even as good or close to as good as his "normal play" in these big games, he plays considerably worse.Why are you looking at this game as if it was played in a vacuum? Manning has a history and this game does nothing to change that reality.That is the silliest argument yet! It is okay do call out Manning as a choker in this game where the Colts won and he completed 79% of his passes. Yet, Brady gets a pass on a game earlier in the year where his TEAM lost and he had 4 INTs, simply because he had won previous championships.You can't have it both ways. INTs by your definition mean a QB is a choker. Unless, they have won a Superbowl, then INTs are excused.
Zaphod
Two heads are better than one
To add to that, he has had his worst statistical game of the SEASON in the 4 of his 6 playoff appearances. I love how anyone that points out his failings is a 'hater'. Simply put, this team won despite his 3 INTS and will not win a SB if they have to rely on him performing in a big game. I am not calling today's performance a 'choke' but to ignore his continued horrible performances in the playoffs is simply ignoring the facts.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I looked at this game in a vacuum because that is how you referenced it in your initial post! I then brought in a different example from another SINGLE game this season. You said he "choked to a degree". That was in reference to this "game in a vacuum".If you want to reference historical performance, fine. But that isn't what you said in your original post.Um, you really want to go to the loco card?See, there is this thing called context.the context of this particular situation has Brady leading his team to three championships. He may have bad games, he may never win another championship, but he has proven to be a winning QB, a championship QB, under that pressure, not wilting. Even if sometimes he may wilt, we know he can also overcome.Manning, on the other hand, has never even reached a Championship game. He has had a number of examples, many in fact if you go back to college, of being unable to rise when the time most calls for it - a clutch moment/game in the playoff. He doesnt play better or even as good or close to as good as his "normal play" in these big games, he plays considerably worse.Why are you looking at this game as if it was played in a vacuum? Manning has a history and this game does nothing to change that reality.That is the silliest argument yet! It is okay do call out Manning as a choker in this game where the Colts won and he completed 79% of his passes. Yet, Brady gets a pass on a game earlier in the year where his TEAM lost and he had 4 INTs, simply because he had won previous championships.You can't have it both ways. INTs by your definition mean a QB is a choker. Unless, they have won a Superbowl, then INTs are excused.
Koya
Footballguy
While I appreciate you telling me what I meant, I dont look at any game in a vacuum. Im judging Manning's performance in the context of his career. In that context, he, once again, had major issues in a big game.Again.I looked at this game in a vacuum because that is how you referenced it in your initial post! I then brought in a different example from another SINGLE game this season. You said he "choked to a degree". That was in reference to this "game in a vacuum".If you want to reference historical performance, fine. But that isn't what you said in your original post.Um, you really want to go to the loco card?See, there is this thing called context.the context of this particular situation has Brady leading his team to three championships. He may have bad games, he may never win another championship, but he has proven to be a winning QB, a championship QB, under that pressure, not wilting. Even if sometimes he may wilt, we know he can also overcome.Manning, on the other hand, has never even reached a Championship game. He has had a number of examples, many in fact if you go back to college, of being unable to rise when the time most calls for it - a clutch moment/game in the playoff. He doesnt play better or even as good or close to as good as his "normal play" in these big games, he plays considerably worse.Why are you looking at this game as if it was played in a vacuum? Manning has a history and this game does nothing to change that reality.That is the silliest argument yet! It is okay do call out Manning as a choker in this game where the Colts won and he completed 79% of his passes. Yet, Brady gets a pass on a game earlier in the year where his TEAM lost and he had 4 INTs, simply because he had won previous championships.You can't have it both ways. INTs by your definition mean a QB is a choker. Unless, they have won a Superbowl, then INTs are excused.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
There is no question that he made the 3 bad throws. All I am saying is that he also led his team on 5 scoring drives. While doing so he completed 79% of his passes. All the while his TEAM won.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Next time I will know to read what is written and then read between the lines and input all historical performances as your basis for the post.Thanks!While I appreciate you telling me what I meant, I dont look at any game in a vacuum. Im judging Manning's performance in the context of his career. In that context, he, once again, had major issues in a big game.Again.I looked at this game in a vacuum because that is how you referenced it in your initial post! I then brought in a different example from another SINGLE game this season. You said he "choked to a degree". That was in reference to this "game in a vacuum".If you want to reference historical performance, fine. But that isn't what you said in your original post.Um, you really want to go to the loco card?See, there is this thing called context.the context of this particular situation has Brady leading his team to three championships. He may have bad games, he may never win another championship, but he has proven to be a winning QB, a championship QB, under that pressure, not wilting. Even if sometimes he may wilt, we know he can also overcome.Manning, on the other hand, has never even reached a Championship game. He has had a number of examples, many in fact if you go back to college, of being unable to rise when the time most calls for it - a clutch moment/game in the playoff. He doesnt play better or even as good or close to as good as his "normal play" in these big games, he plays considerably worse.Why are you looking at this game as if it was played in a vacuum? Manning has a history and this game does nothing to change that reality.That is the silliest argument yet! It is okay do call out Manning as a choker in this game where the Colts won and he completed 79% of his passes. Yet, Brady gets a pass on a game earlier in the year where his TEAM lost and he had 4 INTs, simply because he had won previous championships.You can't have it both ways. INTs by your definition mean a QB is a choker. Unless, they have won a Superbowl, then INTs are excused.
Koya
Footballguy
Well, you can assume that when I am watching a game I have in mind the context of the teams and players involved since it is not the first ever time I will have seen them play.Next time I will know to read what is written and then read between the lines and input all historical performances as your basis for the post.Thanks!While I appreciate you telling me what I meant, I dont look at any game in a vacuum. Im judging Manning's performance in the context of his career. In that context, he, once again, had major issues in a big game.Again.I looked at this game in a vacuum because that is how you referenced it in your initial post! I then brought in a different example from another SINGLE game this season. You said he "choked to a degree". That was in reference to this "game in a vacuum".If you want to reference historical performance, fine. But that isn't what you said in your original post.Um, you really want to go to the loco card?See, there is this thing called context.the context of this particular situation has Brady leading his team to three championships. He may have bad games, he may never win another championship, but he has proven to be a winning QB, a championship QB, under that pressure, not wilting. Even if sometimes he may wilt, we know he can also overcome.Manning, on the other hand, has never even reached a Championship game. He has had a number of examples, many in fact if you go back to college, of being unable to rise when the time most calls for it - a clutch moment/game in the playoff. He doesnt play better or even as good or close to as good as his "normal play" in these big games, he plays considerably worse.Why are you looking at this game as if it was played in a vacuum? Manning has a history and this game does nothing to change that reality.That is the silliest argument yet! It is okay do call out Manning as a choker in this game where the Colts won and he completed 79% of his passes. Yet, Brady gets a pass on a game earlier in the year where his TEAM lost and he had 4 INTs, simply because he had won previous championships.You can't have it both ways. INTs by your definition mean a QB is a choker. Unless, they have won a Superbowl, then INTs are excused.
To each their own I suppose.
x260bm
Footballguy
This is a great post.
Assani Fisher
Footballguy
This is a very cute post that has gotten a few laughs and all, but it doesn't really address the core issues. Bottom line: If Peyton would have great games AND win the Super Bowl then all of this talking would turn to silence. Look at how the public view of John Elway changed after he won. I know that PM is a great player. But you can't deny the facts: He constantly lost in big games in college and his team won the national title the very next year after he left. Then he gets to the pros and constantly has amazing regular seasons and very average(and thats being generous) performances in the postseason.
Seriously think about it- Peyton Manning is a very likeable person. Hes well spoken, never gets in off the field trouble, and is a great leader. Theres no reason that people would want to hate him. The criticism he gets is for a reason- its because he has choked in the past on multiple occassions and hasn't gotten it done when it has counted the most.
H.K.
Footballguy
Manning supporters need to realize one thing: Manning's lofty performance in the regular season are rarely met in the playoffs.All the facts support that statement.trader jake said:
Chris Collinsworth stated the same thing yesterday when he referred to "Manning's inexplicable playoff struggles".
Manning = great regular season QB that has usually struggled in the playoffs. When the team fails to advance in the playoffs, it has been the offenses fault, not the defenses. This is truth.
Hopefully Manning plays lights out in and wins a SB, or at least plays valiantly in a loss, because so far, neither have happened. That is reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
Very true. FWIW, I believe the Colts were better off with short completions in this game anyway. Who cares if his yardage was monstrous? Honestly, today the Defense won this for the team. Which isn't an insult to Peyton, as I believe he'll play better next week, and has carried the defense far too often. If both can click, who knows how far they can go? I doubt they'd beat San Diego, but it's possible.pizzatyme said:
RBM
Footballguy
Terrible performance. He threw three picks in a playoff game. If thats any other qb we are all in agreement that it was a terrible day. If the Chiefs were able to mount any kind of offense, they probably wouldve won this game. Very rare you see a qb throw 3 picks in a playoff game and win.
H.K.
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
Brady did have a bad game with the 4 INTs. What's your point? I think, at the time, people gave him a pass on a couple of the INTs because they were tipped by the receiver into the air, but that's irrelevant. Brady has put up a 4 INT game every season of his career except in 2002. So he's clearly had bad games before. The difference is, Brady tends not to make the big mistake in the playoffs. Manning tends to make several big mistakes, and because of the importance of his position, they've tended to cost his team the game. This is the first time that Manning has been able to make the huge mistakes, and it's the 200 yards he got from his running game and the 8 points allowed by his defense (or more realistically, the pitiful state of the Chiefs who tripped on the goal line and dropped passes all day) that bailed him out of the game. I do give Manning credit for completing 79% of his passes. That's enormous. But of his first 30 pass attempts, 4 were for negative yardage, three were intercepted, one was a sack and five were incomplete. It's also not the best representation to say that he "led them to five scoring drives". The first scoring drive, the Colts ran for 20 yards, passed for 19. A -2 yard run, a -4 yard pass, and an incomplete pass later, and Vinatieri's lining up for a 48 yarder. The second scoring drive, they get to the 10 yard line after Harrison's 42 yard reception. Addai runs for 9 yards on the first two plays. Manning passes incomplete on third down. Another field goal. Their third drive, Manning again crossed the 50, but Manning threw an interception to Ty Law. No receiver was close. Their fourth drive, Manning again crosses the 50, but is forced to punt.Their fifth drive, Manning again crosses the 50, and gets them into the red zone. His first two plays in the red zone, he takes a sack and throws an interception.Their sixth drive, with time running out in the half, Manning again crosses the 50, but with 22 seconds left and only one timeout, Manning throws a pass to the tight end over the middle and calls a run play from the no huddle. Vinatieri makes the 50 yard kick.Their seventh drive, Manning is intercepted for the third time. Their eighth drive, Addai and Rhodes ran the ball seven straight times from the 50, driving 50 yards and scoring. Their ninth drive, Manning looked excellent. The Chiefs had just scored to make it a one possession game, and Manning led a 9 play, 71 yard drive to put the game out of reach. He never threw another pass after that. So while you say Manning led his team to five scoring drives, I say Manning led his team to a key fourth quarter TD but gave up 3 INTs. Vinatieri made two long field goals, Addai and Rhodes scored another TD on their own, and Manning was 1 for 4 in the red zone with an interception. I want to be clear here though - Manning made some very good passes. For the most part, he looked good. It's the key mistakes that were the problem.pizzatyme said:That is the silliest argument yet! It is okay do call out Manning as a choker in this game where the Colts won and he completed 79% of his passes. Yet, Brady gets a pass on a game earlier in the year where his TEAM lost and he had 4 INTs, simply because he had won previous championships.You can't have it both ways. INTs by your definition mean a QB is a choker. Unless, they have won a Superbowl, then INTs are excused.
Sinrman
Footballguy
Wow. Slow down with the "Manning hater" speech.I was merely addressing the original posters "Highest completion percentage (78.9%) ever with three INT's?" question. I was pointing out the fact that his high % rate was due to a lot of dumps. I am fully aware that a lot of QBs do this and that he was taking advantage of what the defense gave him.pizzatyme said:
RBM
Footballguy
Nice deflection
bostonfred
Footballguy
Weiner Dog
Footballguy
So...
Has the NFL ever seen a 3-INT performance with a ~ 79% completion percentage?? I was hoping some stat freaks could tackle this.
T
trader jake
Guest
I know today vs. the Ravens D on the road wasn't a big game and Manning didn't have a huge statistic game and Billick sucks at calling plays and Ray Lewis knocked down some passes intended for Redd and...nevermind.
H.K.
Footballguy
While they are at it, check on a QB who threw five Int's and one TD pass and still won two games back to back in the playoffs.So...Has the NFL ever seen a 3-INT performance with a ~ 79% completion percentage?? I was hoping some stat freaks could tackle this.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=roethlisbergerBig Ben became the second QB since 1995 (min: 20 pass attempts) to throw more than 1 INT/ 10 ATT and to throw more than 2 CMP/3 ATT in the same game.
So...
Has the NFL ever seen a 3-INT performance with a ~ 79% completion percentage?? I was hoping some stat freaks could tackle this.
25/37, 4 INT.
(Chris Weinke, 24/35, 4 INT, 2001)
Ironically enough, Roethlisberger last year had a game against the Bengals when he threw for over 300 yards, completed over 70% of his passes, and threw three INTs. Only five other times since 1995 has a QB done that: Dave Krieg, 1995; Brian Griese, 2004; Kurt Warner, 2000; Mark Brunell, 1996; Brad Johnson, 2000.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Kurt Warner, week 17, 2001 against the Falcons: 25-30, 280, 3 TD, 3 INT.28 of 30 passes not hitting the ground there.Vinny Testaverde, week 8, 2004 against the Lions: 19/24, 235, 3 TD, 3 INTCarson Palmer, week 12, 2004, 22/29, 251, 4 TD, 3 INTThose are the only three since '95 with a 75+% completion rate and 3 INTs.Highest CMPRATE with 4 INTs? Brad Johnson, 34/48, 4 INTs (71%).5 INTs? Mark Brunell, 37/52, 421, 5 INT (71%)
T
trader jake
Guest
Good stuff Chase. 
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Terry Bradshaw. 1975 bal W,28-10 | 8 13 103 0 2 | 3 22 1 1975 oak W,16-10 | 15 25 215 1 3 | 2 22 0HTH.Jim Kelly and Joe Montana also threw five INTs in consecutive playoff wins.H.K. said:While they are at it, check on a QB who threw five Int's and one TD pass and still won two games back to back in the playoffs.
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
....as opposed to most INT's which were designed to be picked off, right?
H.K.
Footballguy
Chase, You are the man! Thank you! So this proves, at minimum, that Manning has the team around him to at least get to a SB, and most likely win it. Good work.
nightmare
Footballguy
As opposed to Manning floating a pass down the middle of the field into two defenders. Most int's are when a qb tries to "make something happen".
