MERGED thread to talk about Peyton's performance in the Super Bowl (1 Viewer)

[Junta]

So you are saying as a team, SF w/Peyton = Denver?

No. I am saying SEA yesterday >> all other 31 teams, even SF with Manning.SEA likely would not have hung 43 points on SF, but the same strategy would have worked against Manning no matter what team he was on. Get consistent pressure up the middle with 4 guys, don't let him have time or room to step up, and make him become mobile just to get a pass off. He was so far away from his comfort zone that I don't think the team he was on would have made all that much difference. Clearly no way to prove that, just IMO.

No doubt that Seattle is a force. My hypothetical was more about what Peyton's success might look like on a team with a defense of SF caliber and a more physical running game. Would his place among the greatest QBs be in question like it is now?

 

[Neofight]

That's an interesting question about Brady vs. the Seahawks.

If the Patriots had played the Seahawks last night, they would have lost. The only thing they'd have had going for them is that they would have been forced to run the ball, which was the only way to beat this Seahawks team. But I don't think they could have won this game.

If Tom Brady had taken Manning's place at the helm of Denver's offense last night, that's different. I doubt he would have put up 40+ points, but I doubt the Broncos would have given up 26 points on turnovers, either. I think we can say that the Seahawks would have won - they certainly earned the title and for my money they were the best team in the NFL this year. But it's an interesting idea.

I think this has more to do with coaching than it does the QB's. John Fox was in over his head.

So was Manning, clearly, from the very first snap of the game.

 

[bostonfred]

No doubt that Seattle is a force. My hypothetical was more about what Peyton's success might look like on a team with a defense of SF caliber and a more physical running game. Would his place among the greatest QBs be in question like it is now?

If you don't think he would have won a Superbowl with San Francisco, then the question is whether he would have set the yardage and TD records with them. Vernon Davis, Crabtree and Boldin are decent, but unless we assume that they also get Welker this year, and give him a fully healthy Crabtree, it's hard to picture them being better than the crew in Denver. He might still have won an MVP, but without the records, it would have been a much closer race. In Denver, he can claim more regular season accolades.And that's pretty consistently the story of his career - if you imagine a scenario where he plays with a better defense, then you have to also picture where his stats would be if he had a worse offensive team around him. Without the records, but with another ring, would he be as high on your list? And with so many of his postseason losses ending on his own mistakes - he's had games with 4 interceptions, 3 interceptions, 2 interceptions and a fumble, 2 interceptions and no TDs, an interception and a fumble, a game ending interception returned for a TD, a game ending interception at midfield for a field goal, 3 total points, 0 total points, and more - it's hard to imagine that his individual postseason performances would have been better with worse weapons around him.

Manning literally had his choice of teams to work with, though, and he chose Denver. Any hypothetical involving his situation needs to take into account the fact that he preferred going to a team with a good defense, good young receivers, great kicker, a willingness to keep adding weapons on offense, and a willingness to let him dictate their offensive system. This is exactly the kind of team he wanted to play for.

 

[PainTrain]

What is interesting to me, is that I think if the game had been closer, Manning would have been labeled a choker. Because it was so lopsided, it appears there was never a chance for him to succeed. I think that if he had managed to put up four times as many points, his reputation would have been damaged more.

 

[Neofight]

If Peyton chose SF instead of Denver and all else remains the same, who wins NFC last year and this year and who wins Super Bowl in same?

Manning likely contemplated San Fracisco and was openly courted by Seattle. He made the right decision playing in the AFC. He would have been subjected to three dominant front sevens in the NFC West, regardless of where he went in the division, and wouldn't have the WR core to execute his quick hitting passing scheme. The pressure he faced would have been much, much greater.It's possible that the 49ers would have fared worse with Manning as opposed to Kaepernick. He certainly would have been hit a lot more as a 49er.

ETA: both San Francisco and Seattle are run heavy as well, so changing that philosophy for a short term investment in Manning would have further complicated things for these offenses. Basically these two teams are, IMO, better off as they are currently formulated. I'm guessing Manning realized this.

 

[skinsrule05]

This is where I'm putting Manning:

Montana

Elway

Brady

Young

Farve

Manning

Marino

Just curious. Manning in what, year 16 of his career?

Where would Manning be on this list if they won the game yesterday and Manning did well?

What does the year of his career have to do with anything? This is an overall all time - This is my list... In my list the top 3 are set in stone, the rest can be moved around.

If Manning won and played well yesterday I have him and Brady probably equal.

The point is, as you just said, you would alter your rankings that drastically based on one game??

And to make it worse he doesn't alter Brady's ranking for his subpar post season play this year. I guess SB is the only playoff game that matters.

Not sure how Brady's post season play this year was so horrid. NE scored 43 on IND by running the ball. And he was off on a couple of passes in DEN playing with the weakest set of receivers of all the playoff teams.Manning was the one with the all time highest scoring offense in the history of all history. The Broncos scoring only 8 pts in the SB was way more shocking than how Brady performed in the post season.

Well Manning had an awful SB yet his post season QBR was higher then Brady this year.

 

[Vector]

Simple question:

If you put the "greatest QB of all time" (whoever you think that is) in place of Peyton tonight, would the result have been different?

Honestly, no. Whoever was playing QB for Denver could have played the best game of their career and it wouldn't have been enough.

That's not to say that Manning wasn't horrible -- he was of course.

It's impossible to say that. I think people are really understating how bad Peyton was last night.

The Broncos defense held tough in the first half. They stopped the run and held them to 2 early field goals.

What would have happened if a strong-armed QB had been in the game? It's already been said that Manning might have been responsible for the early safety. What about the pick 6? What if a QB had made the Seahawks respect the deep ball with the bevy of receivers that they have? What if a QB that had mobility had been able to escape the pocket and make plays?

Take away the pick 6, run for a first down or two, and soften up the defense by throwing the ball deep, and it might have been a different game.

In truth, one of the reasons the Seahawks looked so good is Peyton's lack of arm strength. They shortened the field as if they were playing against Chad Pennington, and it worked. That strategy would not have worked against Aaron Rodgers.

Nah, the entire Denver team just failed to show up last night. Manning was definitely bad, but Seattle out-played Denver in every possible phase of the game. Swapping out one guy at one position wasn't going to change the outcome.

I mostly agree that SEA was most likely going to win last night, but if on the first play from scrimmage would the game have played out differently if instead of a botched snap DEN hit DThomas along the sideline and the guy covering him slipped and fell and it went for an 86-yard TD? That would have been just as fluky and just as big a momentum boost for DEN as the safety was for SEA.

Anarchy..... you are better than this.

 

[Anarchy99]

Simple question:

If you put the "greatest QB of all time" (whoever you think that is) in place of Peyton tonight, would the result have been different?

Honestly, no. Whoever was playing QB for Denver could have played the best game of their career and it wouldn't have been enough.

That's not to say that Manning wasn't horrible -- he was of course.

It's impossible to say that. I think people are really understating how bad Peyton was last night.

The Broncos defense held tough in the first half. They stopped the run and held them to 2 early field goals.

What would have happened if a strong-armed QB had been in the game? It's already been said that Manning might have been responsible for the early safety. What about the pick 6? What if a QB had made the Seahawks respect the deep ball with the bevy of receivers that they have? What if a QB that had mobility had been able to escape the pocket and make plays?

Take away the pick 6, run for a first down or two, and soften up the defense by throwing the ball deep, and it might have been a different game.

In truth, one of the reasons the Seahawks looked so good is Peyton's lack of arm strength. They shortened the field as if they were playing against Chad Pennington, and it worked. That strategy would not have worked against Aaron Rodgers.

Nah, the entire Denver team just failed to show up last night. Manning was definitely bad, but Seattle out-played Denver in every possible phase of the game. Swapping out one guy at one position wasn't going to change the outcome.

I mostly agree that SEA was most likely going to win last night, but if on the first play from scrimmage would the game have played out differently if instead of a botched snap DEN hit DThomas along the sideline and the guy covering him slipped and fell and it went for an 86-yard TD? That would have been just as fluky and just as big a momentum boost for DEN as the safety was for SEA.

Anarchy..... you are better than this.

The fact is, individual plays can greatly impact momentum of games. Was DEN going to win? Probably not. SEA looked far and away to be the better team.

Look at the 2nd Pats/Giants SB. NE allowed a safety almost as quickly as DEN did this year, the Giants then went on a long scoring drive, and NE barely had the ball in the first quarter. That set the tone for the game and made NE have to play from behind most of the game. IMO, that game swung on the safety, as I think things would have been different if NE either got a first down or punted instead of giving up two points. Seattle more than likely would have won even without the gift safety, but it got DEN playing on their heels and hearing the footsteps early on.

 

[General Tso]

This is where I'm putting Manning:

Montana

Elway

Brady

Young

Farve

Manning

Marino

Just curious. Manning in what, year 16 of his career?

Where would Manning be on this list if they won the game yesterday and Manning did well?

What does the year of his career have to do with anything? This is an overall all time - This is my list... In my list the top 3 are set in stone, the rest can be moved around.

If Manning won and played well yesterday I have him and Brady probably equal.

The point is, as you just said, you would alter your rankings that drastically based on one game??

And to make it worse he doesn't alter Brady's ranking for his subpar post season play this year. I guess SB is the only playoff game that matters.

Not sure how Brady's post season play this year was so horrid. NE scored 43 on IND by running the ball. And he was off on a couple of passes in DEN playing with the weakest set of receivers of all the playoff teams.Manning was the one with the all time highest scoring offense in the history of all history. The Broncos scoring only 8 pts in the SB was way more shocking than how Brady performed in the post season.

Well Manning had an awful SB yet his post season QBR was higher then Brady this year.

How is that possible? Makes me question QBR as a viable metric. Brady certainly didn't light it up during the postseason, but I don't think he played badly either. Manning played great against New England, and then epically bad in the Super Bowl. He was favored to win the game and lost 43-8. He threw 2 interceptions, one for a TD, had another turnover via fumble, and (according to his center) was the one responsible for botching the first play of the game resulting in a safety. The magnitude of his mistakes was off the charts.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

What, besides big stats, makes Manning so great exactly?

Besides the obvious answer that the big stats (which are actually record breaking stats) are a result of being great:

1. 167-73-0 career record;

2. 3 Super Bowl apperances;

3. 13 playoff appearances in 15 seasons.

I mean let's not act like the guys isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer.

For the record, as much as I hate to say it as a Jets fan, I've always thought that Brady was the better QB - but bashing Peyton doesn't make Brady better.

 

[Anarchy99]

What, besides big stats, makes Manning so great exactly?

Besides the obvious answer that the big stats (which are actually record breaking stats) are a result of being great:

1. 167-73-0 career record;

2. 3 Super Bowl apperances;

3. 13 playoff appearances in 15 seasons.

I mean let's not act like the guys isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer.

For the record, as much as I hate to say it as a Jets fan, I've always thought that Brady was the better QB - but bashing Peyton doesn't make Brady better.

Here's what Brady has done . . .

1. 148-43 career record.

2. 5 Super Bowl appearances

3. 11 playoff appearance in 12 seasons

And I would still say Manning is a better overall QB when it comes to throwing the ball, touch, accuracy, audibling, not getting sacked, etc. Obviously Brady has more rings and a better career winning percentage (.775 vs. .696), but IMO NE won more games for reasons other than Brady (defense, coaching, running game, home field, etc.).

 

[Ghost Rider]

How is that possible? Makes me question QBR as a viable metric. Brady certainly didn't light it up during the postseason, but I don't think he played badly either. Manning played great against New England, and then epically bad in the Super Bowl. He was favored to win the game and lost 43-8. He threw 2 interceptions, one for a TD, had another turnover via fumble, and (according to his center) was the one responsible for botching the first play of the game resulting in a safety. The magnitude of his mistakes was off the charts.

I think it's impossible to say whose fault that first play was (but can you imagine the outrage if Manning would have come out and blamed it on his center?), but there is no doubt that Manning played very poorly on Sunday. In fact, the entire team, coaches and all, were terrible on Sunday. This isn't like Super Bowl 30 (Steelers/Cowboys) where the losing team played well and only lost because of bad QB play. The whole team was terrible.

As for Brady, in the Indy game, he played the role of Elway in this last season in Denver: he was there to pick up some key 3rd downs, but the running game was the force behind that win. Brady was pretty awful for the first 3 quarters against the Broncos, as he managed only 3 points in 3+ quarters against a defense that had just fallen apart against the Chargers in the 4th Q and was then responsible for some of the worst tackling ever seen in the Super Bowl in route to giving up 27 points to a Seahawks offense that was on cruise control for the bulk of the game (cause the game was in the bag before halftime). Brady doesn't get a pass for his poor performance in that game just because happen Manning was even worse two weeks later against a significantly better defense.

Brady and Manning both looked bad in their playoff losses this season, but in their playoff wins, Manning looked like a million bucks while Brady looked like a decent game manager. I get that the collective Patriots fan base got a raging boner as the Broncos were getting crushed on Sunday, but considering Brady hasn't exactly been money in the playoffs in quite a long time, I wouldn't be talking too much crap. I mean, when your QB's last title came when David Boston was a dominant receiver and Drew Brees was still a Charger, you know you are grasping for straws.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Not even the most hardcore Steelers fan would put Big Ben in the same tier as Manning. Roethlisberger is good, but come on. That's not even a serious comparison.

Agree

Look,

The whole point of all this posting I'm doing is I'm just trying to get a sense, in your opinions, what it is about Peyton that puts him on a pedestal above many of the other qb's in the game like Brady, Big Ben, Brees, Marino. Is it all just passing yards and td's? If so, then there are others in his realm (Brady, Brees). If it's wins, Then Big Ben is right there with him and Brady crushes him. Is it leadership? PLENTY of other qb's are great leaders and have led their teams to greatness (Elway, Rogers). Longevity? (Favre).

I may be implying it, but I'm not even making any definitive statements or opinions about Manning one way or another (other than I think Brady is better) I'm only asking what it is that you guys believe makes him so much better. All I can gather is that he's thrown for more yards and touchdowns, which certainly puts him near the top but not ON the top, like many here have argued.

So if you take away his record-breaking stats, his amazing winning %, durability and leadership abilities, what are you left with that makes Manning so great? Is that what you're asking? Really?

I guess I'd have to say it's his comedic timing in those Saturday Night Live skits.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Besides the obvious answer that the big stats (which are actually record breaking stats) are a result of being great:

1. 167-73-0 career record;

2. 3 Super Bowl apperances;

3. 13 playoff appearances in 15 seasons.

I mean let's not act like the guys isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer.

For the record, as much as I hate to say it as a Jets fan, I've always thought that Brady was the better QB - but bashing Peyton doesn't make Brady better.

Here's what Brady has done . . .

1. 148-43 career record.

2. 5 Super Bowl appearances

3. 11 playoff appearance in 12 seasons

And I would still say Manning is a better overall QB when it comes to throwing the ball, touch, accuracy, audibling, not getting sacked, etc. Obviously Brady has more rings and a better career winning percentage (.775 vs. .696), but IMO NE won more games for reasons other than Brady (defense, coaching, running game, home field, etc.).

As a football fan and someone who likes both of these QB's I still had no idea the W/L #'s were THAT good for both of these guys. Wow!

 

[kyoun1e]

I think in the end, Manning's performance doesn't change his legacy. It just cements what is already there.

He'll have an uphill battle to reverse perception.

I actually think Brady lucked out. His performance was sub-par, but who the heck remembers the AFC championship? They'll just remember Manning's performance in the Super Bowl.

Harsh reality.

 

[Anarchy99]

Ghost Rider -

If we were somehow able to put Manning on NE and Brady on DEN for the AFCC game, what numbers would you guess each would have posted? Don't you think Brady's overall numbers playing for DEN, the highest scoring team in history, at home, in good weather would have lapped those of Manning's playing for NE, on the road, with their motley receivers?

Yes, Manning on DEN put up much better numbers than Brady did playing for NE. But the two offenses were in completely different universes by then. NE had morphed into a running team (and then couldn't even do that in DEN). Not exactly apples to apples to expect equal numbers from Brady and Manning.

 

[Anarchy99]

I think in the end, Manning's performance doesn't change his legacy. It just cements what is already there.

He'll have an uphill battle to reverse perception.

I actually think Brady lucked out. His performance was sub-par, but who the heck remembers the AFC championship? They'll just remember Manning's performance in the Super Bowl.

Harsh reality.

I have been saying something similar for years. Everyone remembers what Montana did in 4 SBs. But no one remembers how things went the other 9 years he was a starter. He had some really good games in other years in the post season . . . but he had some REAL stinkers too. But we all will remember how well he did in the SB, so the rest gets swept under the rug and pretty much ignored. Doesn't mean he wasn't an all time great (maybe the all time great), but we all have selective memories.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Ghost Rider -

If we were somehow able to put Manning on NE and Brady on DEN for the AFCC game, what numbers would you guess each would have posted? Don't you think Brady's overall numbers playing for DEN, the highest scoring team in history, at home, in good weather would have lapped those of Manning's playing for NE, on the road, with their motley receivers?

Yes, Manning on DEN put up much better numbers than Brady did playing for NE. But the two offenses were in completely different universes by then. NE had morphed into a running team (and then couldn't even do that in DEN). Not exactly apples to apples to expect equal numbers from Brady and Manning.

Okay, but we could play this game with the 2003 and 2004 playoff games where Brady had the better defense, better running game, and best coach in the league, yet it is somehow a detriment to Manning that he played poorly in those games in bad weather with the inferior team on the road. Context matters, and everything is never completely equal. Can you imagine a Bill Belichick-team EVER coming out for a Super Bowl and getting dominated in every phase like John Fox's team did on Sunday? So, while Manning had the huge edge in WR/TE talent, Brady had the huge edge in coaching (just like he always has). And like the Seahawks just showed us, having great WR/TE talent is often overrated when it comes to winning Super Bowls. And coaching is vastly underrated, as hard as that is to believe. Even though Tony Dungy and John Fox are good coaches, I think it's a little ironic that a QB like Peyton has spent most of his career with coaches who are by and large very conservative by nature.

 

[Yenrub]

Does this loss affect the way Tony Dungy is looked at?

 

[Anarchy99]

Ghost Rider -

If we were somehow able to put Manning on NE and Brady on DEN for the AFCC game, what numbers would you guess each would have posted? Don't you think Brady's overall numbers playing for DEN, the highest scoring team in history, at home, in good weather would have lapped those of Manning's playing for NE, on the road, with their motley receivers?

Yes, Manning on DEN put up much better numbers than Brady did playing for NE. But the two offenses were in completely different universes by then. NE had morphed into a running team (and then couldn't even do that in DEN). Not exactly apples to apples to expect equal numbers from Brady and Manning.

Okay, but we could play this game with the 2003 and 2004 playoff games where Brady had the better defense, better running game, and best coach in the league, yet it is somehow a detriment to Manning that he played poorly in those games in bad weather with the inferior team on the road. Context matters, and everything is never completely equal. Can you imagine a Bill Belichick-team EVER coming out for a Super Bowl and getting dominated in every phase like John Fox's team did on Sunday? So, while Manning had the huge edge in WR/TE talent, Brady had the huge edge in coaching (just like he always has). And like the Seahawks just showed us, having great WR/TE talent is often overrated when it comes to winning Super Bowls. And coaching is vastly underrated, as hard as that is to believe. Even though Tony Dungy and John Fox are good coaches, I think it's a little ironic that a QB like Peyton has spent most of his career with coaches who are by and large very conservative by nature.

I was not looking at wins or losses, just looking at who should have put up better numbers in that one game. Sort of like how some people are suggesting that Peyton is now light years ahead of Brady (who seemingly had horrible numbers and has lost a step) using this season as the barometer when this was one of, if not the weakest receiving corps he's had to throw to. Combined with all the injuries, it's surprising he did as well as he did and I have no idea how they won 12 regular season games and a playoff game. BB certainly earned his money this year.

 

[General Tso]

How is that possible? Makes me question QBR as a viable metric. Brady certainly didn't light it up during the postseason, but I don't think he played badly either. Manning played great against New England, and then epically bad in the Super Bowl. He was favored to win the game and lost 43-8. He threw 2 interceptions, one for a TD, had another turnover via fumble, and (according to his center) was the one responsible for botching the first play of the game resulting in a safety. The magnitude of his mistakes was off the charts.

I think it's impossible to say whose fault that first play was (but can you imagine the outrage if Manning would have come out and blamed it on his center?), but there is no doubt that Manning played very poorly on Sunday. In fact, the entire team, coaches and all, were terrible on Sunday. This isn't like Super Bowl 30 (Steelers/Cowboys) where the losing team played well and only lost because of bad QB play. The whole team was terrible.

As for Brady, in the Indy game, he played the role of Elway in this last season in Denver: he was there to pick up some key 3rd downs, but the running game was the force behind that win. Brady was pretty awful for the first 3 quarters against the Broncos, as he managed only 3 points in 3+ quarters against a defense that had just fallen apart against the Chargers in the 4th Q and was then responsible for some of the worst tackling ever seen in the Super Bowl in route to giving up 27 points to a Seahawks offense that was on cruise control for the bulk of the game (cause the game was in the bag before halftime). Brady doesn't get a pass for his poor performance in that game just because happen Manning was even worse two weeks later against a significantly better defense.

Brady and Manning both looked bad in their playoff losses this season, but in their playoff wins, Manning looked like a million bucks while Brady looked like a decent game manager. I get that the collective Patriots fan base got a raging boner as the Broncos were getting crushed on Sunday, but considering Brady hasn't exactly been money in the playoffs in quite a long time, I wouldn't be talking too much crap. I mean, when your QB's last title came when David Boston was a dominant receiver and Drew Brees was still a Charger, you know you are grasping for straws.

I guess we'll just have to differ on what we consider "bad". Brady was 24-38 with 277 yards, a passing TD and a rushing TD. And no turnovers. Not great, but I don't think I'd call that bad. To me, bad is turning the ball over. That's the one thing you can't do as a QB.

 

[zilladog]

What, besides big stats, makes Manning so great exactly?

Besides the obvious answer that the big stats (which are actually record breaking stats) are a result of being great:

1. 167-73-0 career record;

2. 3 Super Bowl apperances;

3. 13 playoff appearances in 15 seasons.

I mean let's not act like the guys isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer.

For the record, as much as I hate to say it as a Jets fan, I've always thought that Brady was the better QB - but bashing Peyton doesn't make Brady better.

No doubt he's a great qb. But I don't see how he trumps many other great qb's, as many believe he is the greatest of all time, which is what I was questioning.

 

[zilladog]

Not even the most hardcore Steelers fan would put Big Ben in the same tier as Manning. Roethlisberger is good, but come on. That's not even a serious comparison.

Agree

Look,

The whole point of all this posting I'm doing is I'm just trying to get a sense, in your opinions, what it is about Peyton that puts him on a pedestal above many of the other qb's in the game like Brady, Big Ben, Brees, Marino. Is it all just passing yards and td's? If so, then there are others in his realm (Brady, Brees). If it's wins, Then Big Ben is right there with him and Brady crushes him. Is it leadership? PLENTY of other qb's are great leaders and have led their teams to greatness (Elway, Rogers). Longevity? (Favre).

I may be implying it, but I'm not even making any definitive statements or opinions about Manning one way or another (other than I think Brady is better) I'm only asking what it is that you guys believe makes him so much better. All I can gather is that he's thrown for more yards and touchdowns, which certainly puts him near the top but not ON the top, like many here have argued.

So if you take away his record-breaking stats, his amazing winning %, durability and leadership abilities, what are you left with that makes Manning so great? Is that what you're asking? Really?

I guess I'd have to say it's his comedic timing in those Saturday Night Live skits.

Fercryinoutloud,

What makes him any better than many other qb's that have achieved very similar things as him? I'm really not sure how many other ways I can ask the question before it sinks in.

Hes great. But what mars him the greatest? Or even in the conversation? Tons of stats coupled with tons of let downs topped off with an absolute embarrassment of an sb performance doesn't put you in the mix for all time best, IMO, and I'm curious to know why many of you think that it does.

 

[Kwai Chang Caine]

I had a very odd thing happen to today in a conversation with an acquaintance who is CONVINCED that the Super Bowl was fixed. The rational being Manning took a dive because "when has he ever soiled the bed like that?" I explained that Manning has in fact had poor performances in playoffs before and that this performance wasn't unusual for him. There was no convincing this person that the game was rigged for the NFL and vegus's sake. I even explained that Manning for the most part is so loved in this country that if anything most people were worried the refs would call an unbalanced game in Manning's FAVOR. There was just no convincing this person.

This is telling to me that Manning is so beloved, we now have in a perverse way people so stunned that they think he was leveraged into throwing the Super Bowl. They can't believe he could have played this bad. Nuts...

 

[General Tso]

I had a very odd thing happen to today in a conversation with an acquaintance who is CONVINCED that the Super Bowl was fixed. The rational being Manning took a dive because "when has he ever soiled the bed like that?" I explained that Manning has in fact had poor performances in playoffs before and that this performance wasn't unusual for him. There was no convincing this person that the game was rigged for the NFL and vegus's sake. I even explained that Manning for the most part is so loved in this country that if anything most people were worried the refs would call an unbalanced game in Manning's FAVOR. There was just no convincing this person.

This is telling to me that Manning is so beloved, we now have in a perverse way people so stunned that they think he was leveraged into throwing the Super Bowl. They can't believe he could have played this bad. Nuts...

If I've learned one thing the last few years it's how beloved Peyton Manning is. People really do like the guy.

 

[msudaisy26]

I had a very odd thing happen to today in a conversation with an acquaintance who is CONVINCED that the Super Bowl was fixed. The rational being Manning took a dive because "when has he ever soiled the bed like that?" I explained that Manning has in fact had poor performances in playoffs before and that this performance wasn't unusual for him. There was no convincing this person that the game was rigged for the NFL and vegus's sake. I even explained that Manning for the most part is so loved in this country that if anything most people were worried the refs would call an unbalanced game in Manning's FAVOR. There was just no convincing this person.

This is telling to me that Manning is so beloved, we now have in a perverse way people so stunned that they think he was leveraged into throwing the Super Bowl. They can't believe he could have played this bad. Nuts...

It seems like several fair weather football fans think the super bowl was fixed because they have only seen Denver dominate pretty much all season, all they heard on the news or read on sports page was how good Denver and Peyton Manning were all season, putting up all those gaudy numbers. So they go into this super bowl and say who is this upstart Seattle team, they probably didn't even know what the odds were that Vegas had put out, but there is no way these guys can keep up with Manning. Then when they make the Broncos and Manning look horrible they can't comprehend how this could happen so they believe the fix is in and read some crazy internet stories that say it is fixed and run with it.

 

[skinsrule05]

Ghost Rider -

If we were somehow able to put Manning on NE and Brady on DEN for the AFCC game, what numbers would you guess each would have posted? Don't you think Brady's overall numbers playing for DEN, the highest scoring team in history, at home, in good weather would have lapped those of Manning's playing for NE, on the road, with their motley receivers?

Yes, Manning on DEN put up much better numbers than Brady did playing for NE. But the two offenses were in completely different universes by then. NE had morphed into a running team (and then couldn't even do that in DEN). Not exactly apples to apples to expect equal numbers from Brady and Manning.

Okay, but we could play this game with the 2003 and 2004 playoff games where Brady had the better defense, better running game, and best coach in the league, yet it is somehow a detriment to Manning that he played poorly in those games in bad weather with the inferior team on the road. Context matters, and everything is never completely equal. Can you imagine a Bill Belichick-team EVER coming out for a Super Bowl and getting dominated in every phase like John Fox's team did on Sunday? So, while Manning had the huge edge in WR/TE talent, Brady had the huge edge in coaching (just like he always has). And like the Seahawks just showed us, having great WR/TE talent is often overrated when it comes to winning Super Bowls. And coaching is vastly underrated, as hard as that is to believe. Even though Tony Dungy and John Fox are good coaches, I think it's a little ironic that a QB like Peyton has spent most of his career with coaches who are by and large very conservative by nature.

I was not looking at wins or losses, just looking at who should have put up better numbers in that one game. Sort of like how some people are suggesting that Peyton is now light years ahead of Brady (who seemingly had horrible numbers and has lost a step) using this season as the barometer when this was one of, if not the weakest receiving corps he's had to throw to. Combined with all the injuries, it's surprising he did as well as he did and I have no idea how they won 12 regular season games and a playoff game. BB certainly earned his money this year.

But that's the thing, in this discussion it isn't about just this one game. Manning had a better QBR this year then Brady. But that is nothing new. Look over the last 7 or 8 years and it has always been that way.

Brady is a good game manager. He can make plays when needed but he doesn't carry a team. This post season he had one bad game and one average game. Yet the perception of him is that he is a top 3 QB all time. He may be but he hasn't played to that level in a long time.

In Manning's games it is up to him to win. Lucky for him he does it more often then not. But it does mean when he has a less then stellar game they lose. Brady had a less then stellar game and they still destroyed Indy.

 

[Yenrub]

I had a very odd thing happen to today in a conversation with an acquaintance who is CONVINCED that the Super Bowl was fixed. The rational being Manning took a dive because "when has he ever soiled the bed like that?" I explained that Manning has in fact had poor performances in playoffs before and that this performance wasn't unusual for him. There was no convincing this person that the game was rigged for the NFL and vegus's sake. I even explained that Manning for the most part is so loved in this country that if anything most people were worried the refs would call an unbalanced game in Manning's FAVOR. There was just no convincing this person.

This is telling to me that Manning is so beloved, we now have in a perverse way people so stunned that they think he was leveraged into throwing the Super Bowl. They can't believe he could have played this bad. Nuts...

It seems like several fair weather football fans think the super bowl was fixed because they have only seen Denver dominate pretty much all season, all they heard on the news or read on sports page was how good Denver and Peyton Manning were all season, putting up all those gaudy numbers. So they go into this super bowl and say who is this upstart Seattle team, they probably didn't even know what the odds were that Vegas had put out, but there is no way these guys can keep up with Manning. Then when they make the Broncos and Manning look horrible they can't comprehend how this could happen so they believe the fix is in and read some crazy internet stories that say it is fixed and run with it.

I remember catching an episode of Numbers Never Lie on ESPN prior to the Super Bowl

They mentioned that something like 70% of Denver’s passing yards came on YAC and that Denver was among the league leaders in pass thrown less than 10 yards in the air

I was leaning Seattle before that show because I prefer a good defense over a good offense and the Seahawks had more NC State guys on their roster but when I saw that stat I was convinced that Seattle would beat Denver…now I thought it would be something like 24-21 not the complete blow out that it was

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Not even the most hardcore Steelers fan would put Big Ben in the same tier as Manning. Roethlisberger is good, but come on. That's not even a serious comparison.

Agree

Look,

The whole point of all this posting I'm doing is I'm just trying to get a sense, in your opinions, what it is about Peyton that puts him on a pedestal above many of the other qb's in the game like Brady, Big Ben, Brees, Marino. Is it all just passing yards and td's? If so, then there are others in his realm (Brady, Brees). If it's wins, Then Big Ben is right there with him and Brady crushes him. Is it leadership? PLENTY of other qb's are great leaders and have led their teams to greatness (Elway, Rogers). Longevity? (Favre).

I may be implying it, but I'm not even making any definitive statements or opinions about Manning one way or another (other than I think Brady is better) I'm only asking what it is that you guys believe makes him so much better. All I can gather is that he's thrown for more yards and touchdowns, which certainly puts him near the top but not ON the top, like many here have argued.

So if you take away his record-breaking stats, his amazing winning %, durability and leadership abilities, what are you left with that makes Manning so great? Is that what you're asking? Really?

I guess I'd have to say it's his comedic timing in those Saturday Night Live skits.

Fercryinoutloud,What makes him any better than many other qb's that have achieved very similar things as him? I'm really not sure how many other ways I can ask the question before it sinks in.

Hes great. But what mars him the greatest? Or even in the conversation? Tons of stats coupled with tons of let downs topped off with an absolute embarrassment of an sb performance doesn't put you in the mix for all time best, IMO, and I'm curious to know why many of you think that it does.

I don't think Manning is the greatest of all time - but the reason many people think he's better than Roethlisberger, Bree's and Marino is because of the combination of better stats than all of them, better all time winning percentage and comparable Super Bowl appearances/wins. Now explain why you don't think he's better than Ben Roethlisberger?

 

[Ghost Rider]

How is that possible? Makes me question QBR as a viable metric. Brady certainly didn't light it up during the postseason, but I don't think he played badly either. Manning played great against New England, and then epically bad in the Super Bowl. He was favored to win the game and lost 43-8. He threw 2 interceptions, one for a TD, had another turnover via fumble, and (according to his center) was the one responsible for botching the first play of the game resulting in a safety. The magnitude of his mistakes was off the charts.

I think it's impossible to say whose fault that first play was (but can you imagine the outrage if Manning would have come out and blamed it on his center?), but there is no doubt that Manning played very poorly on Sunday. In fact, the entire team, coaches and all, were terrible on Sunday. This isn't like Super Bowl 30 (Steelers/Cowboys) where the losing team played well and only lost because of bad QB play. The whole team was terrible.

As for Brady, in the Indy game, he played the role of Elway in this last season in Denver: he was there to pick up some key 3rd downs, but the running game was the force behind that win. Brady was pretty awful for the first 3 quarters against the Broncos, as he managed only 3 points in 3+ quarters against a defense that had just fallen apart against the Chargers in the 4th Q and was then responsible for some of the worst tackling ever seen in the Super Bowl in route to giving up 27 points to a Seahawks offense that was on cruise control for the bulk of the game (cause the game was in the bag before halftime). Brady doesn't get a pass for his poor performance in that game just because happen Manning was even worse two weeks later against a significantly better defense.

Brady and Manning both looked bad in their playoff losses this season, but in their playoff wins, Manning looked like a million bucks while Brady looked like a decent game manager. I get that the collective Patriots fan base got a raging boner as the Broncos were getting crushed on Sunday, but considering Brady hasn't exactly been money in the playoffs in quite a long time, I wouldn't be talking too much crap. I mean, when your QB's last title came when David Boston was a dominant receiver and Drew Brees was still a Charger, you know you are grasping for straws.

I guess we'll just have to differ on what we consider "bad". Brady was 24-38 with 277 yards, a passing TD and a rushing TD. And no turnovers. Not great, but I don't think I'd call that bad. To me, bad is turning the ball over. That's the one thing you can't do as a QB.

The eyeball test told the tale. Brady missed a ton of passes in that game, including a wide open Edelman early in the game that could have given NE a 7-3 lead and completely changed the course of the game. Sure, Brady's overall numbers looked pretty good, thanks to two 4th Q scores when the Broncos were playing soft and trying to run out the clock by forcing NE to use up time on those drives, but when the game was competitive, Brady played poorly. For whatever reason, Brady has not faired well in AFC title games over the years individually (in other words, looking at his play, as opposed to W/L record).

 

[msudaisy26]

Ghost Rider -

If we were somehow able to put Manning on NE and Brady on DEN for the AFCC game, what numbers would you guess each would have posted? Don't you think Brady's overall numbers playing for DEN, the highest scoring team in history, at home, in good weather would have lapped those of Manning's playing for NE, on the road, with their motley receivers?

Yes, Manning on DEN put up much better numbers than Brady did playing for NE. But the two offenses were in completely different universes by then. NE had morphed into a running team (and then couldn't even do that in DEN). Not exactly apples to apples to expect equal numbers from Brady and Manning.

Okay, but we could play this game with the 2003 and 2004 playoff games where Brady had the better defense, better running game, and best coach in the league, yet it is somehow a detriment to Manning that he played poorly in those games in bad weather with the inferior team on the road. Context matters, and everything is never completely equal. Can you imagine a Bill Belichick-team EVER coming out for a Super Bowl and getting dominated in every phase like John Fox's team did on Sunday? So, while Manning had the huge edge in WR/TE talent, Brady had the huge edge in coaching (just like he always has). And like the Seahawks just showed us, having great WR/TE talent is often overrated when it comes to winning Super Bowls. And coaching is vastly underrated, as hard as that is to believe. Even though Tony Dungy and John Fox are good coaches, I think it's a little ironic that a QB like Peyton has spent most of his career with coaches who are by and large very conservative by nature.

I was not looking at wins or losses, just looking at who should have put up better numbers in that one game. Sort of like how some people are suggesting that Peyton is now light years ahead of Brady (who seemingly had horrible numbers and has lost a step) using this season as the barometer when this was one of, if not the weakest receiving corps he's had to throw to. Combined with all the injuries, it's surprising he did as well as he did and I have no idea how they won 12 regular season games and a playoff game. BB certainly earned his money this year.

But that's the thing, in this discussion it isn't about just this one game. Manning had a better QBR this year then Brady. But that is nothing new. Look over the last 7 or 8 years and it has always been that way.

Brady is a good game manager. He can make plays when needed but he doesn't carry a team. This post season he had one bad game and one average game. Yet the perception of him is that he is a top 3 QB all time. He may be but he hasn't played to that level in a long time.

In Manning's games it is up to him to win. Lucky for him he does it more often then not. But it does mean when he has a less then stellar game they lose. Brady had a less then stellar game and they still destroyed Indy.

This isn't even close to true. Look at Manning's playoff games.

2013 - loss Seattle 43 - 8 - you can't blame the defense for this, Manning gave the ball away and led a record setting offense to 8 points. As a matter of fact the defense played well at first giving up on a couple of field goals early with average field position and horrible field position, then the flood gates opened after the pick 6.

2013 - win Patriots 26 - 16 - Manning played awesome in this game but he didn't win it himself. The defense played great and didn't start allowing touchdowns until late in the fourth when they were playing prevent.

2013 - win Chargers 24 - 17 Manning played decent in this game, but his defense played well too and didn't allow touchdowns again until the fourth quarter. The Chargers made it a game late.

2012 - loss Ravens 38 - 35 Manning didn't play that well and he gave Baltimore 7 points on a pick 6 and his special teams gave him 2 touchdowns.

2010 - loss Jets 17 - 16 Not going to go into a ton of detail but if your defense gives up 17 points they did a good job.

2009 - loss Saints 31 - 17 Manning played decent but this was a Saints defense that thrived on turnovers, they still gave up a lot of points, they ranked 20th in points against and Manning was only able to put up 17.

2009 - Win Jets 30 - 17 Manning was great, the defense played good enough.

2009 - win Ravens 20 - 3 Manning was good enough and the defense was great that game

2008 - loss Chargers 23 - 17 Manning played ok but the Chargers weren't world beaters getting in at 8 - 8 these are the games superstars win. His defense did force 2 turnovers and 4 sacks but allowed 5.1 ypc.

2007 loss Charger 28 - 24 His defense didn't play well but Manning threw a pick before the end of the half that cost them at least a fg try, and another pick at the goal line that would have led to 3 points at least maybe 7.

2006 win Bears 29 - 17 He played good against a good defense, how he won the MVP is beyond me though.

2006 win Patriots 38 - 34 Manning played poor in the first half but he turned it around in the second half and led his team to a very big come back win against the Patriots.

2006 win Ravens 15 - 6 Manning was bad this game, and his defense bailed him out and put him on their backs this game.

2006 win Chiefs 23 - 8 Same as the above game, I remember this was a popular upset pick because the Colts were at the bottom of the league in run defense going against Larry Johnson and the Chiefs. Some how the Colts turned into the 85 Bears that game, I believe the addition of McFarland and the return of Sanders had something to do with it.

2005 loss Steelers 21 - 18 Peyton played ok, this was the Bettis fumble game. The defense played well that game allowed just over 300 total yards. The played really well after the first quarter and let the Colts back in the game. Manning didn't finish at the end when the defense got the ball back for him on a Bettis fumble.

2004 loss Patriots 20 - 3 Peyton played poorly, the defense was average but Peyton once again took a record setting offense up against a good defense and couldn't produce.

2004 win Broncos 49 - 24 Peyton was amazing, I am not sure if the defense was good or bad and I am not going to look because Peyton was so good I had to say it twice in one sentence.

2003 loss Patriots 24 - 14 The Colts are probably going to the super bowl if Manning even plays average. He was horrible on this day.

2003 win Chiefs 38 - 31 I am getting tired and looking at stats so correct me if I am wrong but Peyton was great, by the numbers the defense was bad.

2003 win Broncos 41 -10 Peyton was great and so was the defense

2002 loss Jets 41 - 0 Peyton was awful, and judging by the score so was the defense.

2000 loss Miami 23 -17 Peyton was average and the Indy rush defense was awful, I am not going to lie I don't remember this game.

199 loss Titans 19 - 16 Peyton was below average but it was his first playoff game, his defense did well on the score board but Eddie George killed him

Please don't say well Brady did this during so and so game and the Patriots still won, I am just showing that Peyton doesn't have to do it alone and hasn't done it alone. Actually his defenses over the years have given up around 20 points a game on average in the playoffs which is pretty much what they do in the regular season too if I recall correctly it is actually Manning's play that has been sub par to his standards in the playoffs.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Broncos defense played well early? Seattle punted once the entire game, scored on six of their first seven drives (not counting them killing the clock at the end of the 2nd Q), and they could have scored more in the 4th, but elected to call vanilla plays on 4th down twice deep in Denver territory so as not to pile on and make the final score even worse. Don't get me wrong, Manning played terrible, but let's not pretend like the Broncos defense was playing worth a damn either. Sure, they were stopping Lynch, but game planning to do nothing but stop Lynch and then letting everyone else light it up is NOT good defense.

 

[msudaisy26]

The Broncos defense played well early? Seattle punted once the entire game, scored on six of their first seven drives (not counting them killing the clock at the end of the 2nd Q), and they could have scored more in the 4th, but elected to call vanilla plays on 4th down twice deep in Denver territory so as not to pile on and make the final score even worse. Don't get me wrong, Manning played terrible, but let's not pretend like the Broncos defense was playing worth a damn either. Sure, they were stopping Lynch, but game planning to do nothing but stop Lynch and then letting everyone else light it up is NOT good defense.

I guess you missed the first quarter. That is my definition of early. Lets not forget that the Denver offense gave them 16 points, 2 off the safety, 7 off the int return and 7 more off the other int that gave the Seahawks the ball at the 37, and another 7 given up by the special teams. So I will say the defense played below average in total but well early.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Seattle's first two drives, before any Denver turnover, went for field goals after drives of 51 and 58 yards. The Broncos gave up 129 yards in the 1st Q. That is playing well?

 

[msudaisy26]

Seattle's first two drives, before any Denver turnover, went for field goals after drives of 51 and 58 yards. The Broncos gave up 129 yards in the 1st Q. That is playing well?

They held them to field goals and kept them in the game. They defense was without several starters as well. I would say that is well, not good.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The entire team stunk. No one gets a pass for that loss. Everyone is culpable.

 

[msudaisy26]

The entire team stunk. No one gets a pass for that loss. Everyone is culpable.

I never said they get a pass, a game is 4 quarters and playing well for 3 usually isn't good enough, playing well for 1 is never good enough.

 

[Anarchy99]

Ghost Rider -

If we were somehow able to put Manning on NE and Brady on DEN for the AFCC game, what numbers would you guess each would have posted? Don't you think Brady's overall numbers playing for DEN, the highest scoring team in history, at home, in good weather would have lapped those of Manning's playing for NE, on the road, with their motley receivers?

Yes, Manning on DEN put up much better numbers than Brady did playing for NE. But the two offenses were in completely different universes by then. NE had morphed into a running team (and then couldn't even do that in DEN). Not exactly apples to apples to expect equal numbers from Brady and Manning.

Okay, but we could play this game with the 2003 and 2004 playoff games where Brady had the better defense, better running game, and best coach in the league, yet it is somehow a detriment to Manning that he played poorly in those games in bad weather with the inferior team on the road. Context matters, and everything is never completely equal. Can you imagine a Bill Belichick-team EVER coming out for a Super Bowl and getting dominated in every phase like John Fox's team did on Sunday? So, while Manning had the huge edge in WR/TE talent, Brady had the huge edge in coaching (just like he always has). And like the Seahawks just showed us, having great WR/TE talent is often overrated when it comes to winning Super Bowls. And coaching is vastly underrated, as hard as that is to believe. Even though Tony Dungy and John Fox are good coaches, I think it's a little ironic that a QB like Peyton has spent most of his career with coaches who are by and large very conservative by nature.

I was not looking at wins or losses, just looking at who should have put up better numbers in that one game. Sort of like how some people are suggesting that Peyton is now light years ahead of Brady (who seemingly had horrible numbers and has lost a step) using this season as the barometer when this was one of, if not the weakest receiving corps he's had to throw to. Combined with all the injuries, it's surprising he did as well as he did and I have no idea how they won 12 regular season games and a playoff game. BB certainly earned his money this year.

But that's the thing, in this discussion it isn't about just this one game. Manning had a better QBR this year then Brady. But that is nothing new. Look over the last 7 or 8 years and it has always been that way.

Brady is a good game manager. He can make plays when needed but he doesn't carry a team. This post season he had one bad game and one average game. Yet the perception of him is that he is a top 3 QB all time. He may be but he hasn't played to that level in a long time.

In Manning's games it is up to him to win. Lucky for him he does it more often then not. But it does mean when he has a less then stellar game they lose. Brady had a less then stellar game and they still destroyed Indy.

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Brady

78-19 in regular season with a 102.2 rating

6-6 in postseason with a 88.7 rating

2-2 in AFCC games

0-2 in Super Bowls

Manning

75-21 in regular season with a 101.1 rating

4-6 in postseason with a 95.1 rating

2-0 in AFCC games

0-2 in Super Bowls

I'm not sure either guy could stake a claim that they outplayed the other one in that time.

 

[Andrew74]

Seattle's first two drives, before any Denver turnover, went for field goals after drives of 51 and 58 yards. The Broncos gave up 129 yards in the 1st Q. That is playing well?

They held them to field goals and kept them in the game. They defense was without several starters as well. I would say that is well, not good.

The only thing you can say positive about the defense in the 1st quarter is they didn't give up TDs. Seattle dominated them and had a massive TOP gap.

 

[msudaisy26]

Seattle's first two drives, before any Denver turnover, went for field goals after drives of 51 and 58 yards. The Broncos gave up 129 yards in the 1st Q. That is playing well?

They held them to field goals and kept them in the game. They defense was without several starters as well. I would say that is well, not good.

The only thing you can say positive about the defense in the 1st quarter is they didn't give up TDs. Seattle dominated them and had a massive TOP gap.

TOP isn't just a defensive stat. The offense went 1 and out, 3 and out and 3 and out.

 

[JuniorNB]

Summing up Peyton's clutch performance with a picture

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1010101_675182745858493_315825799_n.jpg

Have any cool pics of your boy, Brees, during his two Gabbert-like performances against Seattle this year?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

 

[Rove!]

Richard Sherman is saying that they deciphered Manning's hand signals and jumped all the routes.

This likely killed Denver YAC numbers too

 

[Anarchy99]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.

 

[kyoun1e]

Ghost Rider -

If we were somehow able to put Manning on NE and Brady on DEN for the AFCC game, what numbers would you guess each would have posted? Don't you think Brady's overall numbers playing for DEN, the highest scoring team in history, at home, in good weather would have lapped those of Manning's playing for NE, on the road, with their motley receivers?

Yes, Manning on DEN put up much better numbers than Brady did playing for NE. But the two offenses were in completely different universes by then. NE had morphed into a running team (and then couldn't even do that in DEN). Not exactly apples to apples to expect equal numbers from Brady and Manning.

Okay, but we could play this game with the 2003 and 2004 playoff games where Brady had the better defense, better running game, and best coach in the league, yet it is somehow a detriment to Manning that he played poorly in those games in bad weather with the inferior team on the road. Context matters, and everything is never completely equal. Can you imagine a Bill Belichick-team EVER coming out for a Super Bowl and getting dominated in every phase like John Fox's team did on Sunday? So, while Manning had the huge edge in WR/TE talent, Brady had the huge edge in coaching (just like he always has). And like the Seahawks just showed us, having great WR/TE talent is often overrated when it comes to winning Super Bowls. And coaching is vastly underrated, as hard as that is to believe. Even though Tony Dungy and John Fox are good coaches, I think it's a little ironic that a QB like Peyton has spent most of his career with coaches who are by and large very conservative by nature.

I was not looking at wins or losses, just looking at who should have put up better numbers in that one game. Sort of like how some people are suggesting that Peyton is now light years ahead of Brady (who seemingly had horrible numbers and has lost a step) using this season as the barometer when this was one of, if not the weakest receiving corps he's had to throw to. Combined with all the injuries, it's surprising he did as well as he did and I have no idea how they won 12 regular season games and a playoff game. BB certainly earned his money this year.

But that's the thing, in this discussion it isn't about just this one game. Manning had a better QBR this year then Brady. But that is nothing new. Look over the last 7 or 8 years and it has always been that way.

Brady is a good game manager. He can make plays when needed but he doesn't carry a team. This post season he had one bad game and one average game. Yet the perception of him is that he is a top 3 QB all time. He may be but he hasn't played to that level in a long time.

In Manning's games it is up to him to win. Lucky for him he does it more often then not. But it does mean when he has a less then stellar game they lose. Brady had a less then stellar game and they still destroyed Indy.

This is just foolishness.

In 2007 when Brady was given weapons and he threw for 50 TD passes and did a little more than "manage the game." He forced his will on the entire league.

He threw for 5,200+ yards as recently as 2011 and 4,800+ in 2012.

Funny how the whole game manager discussion re-emerges conveniently when he's throwing Moe, Curley, and Shemp for an entire season.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

 

[General Tso]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square?

I doubt it. At least there's enough doubt in my mind that I don't assign much weight to their post-Belichick, pre-Spygate accomplishments.

 

[kyoun1e]

Since people like to use the cut off as Spygate, since then . . .

Why would you use Spygate as a cut-off of some type when evaluating Manning's stats? Nobody is accusing Manning of having cheated in the years prior to Spygate, and none of his accomplishments has any sort of cloud following it around.

The poster I quoted said Manning was better than Manning over the past 7 years and had a way better QB rating. Others have indicated Brady hadn't done anything since Spygate. 7 years and Spygate were the same exact timeline.w

That's what I mean. Spygate doesn't have anything to do with Peyton Manning, so it seems silly artificially to truncate his career from that point forward. Manning won his SB fair and square.

And Brady didn't win his Superbowls fair and square? You do realize that the story of the Patriots videotaping the Rams walk-through before the Superbowl was thoroughly debunked, and that the Boston Harrald issued a front page apology for falsely running the story? The taping of the walk-through never happened. And that is an accepted fact -period, end of story. Even the ex film guy (Matt Walsh) who hates the Patriots acknowledged they never filmed the walk-through. Mike Martz and Arlen Specter also acknowledged as much after the investigation and closed the case. Yet the myth lives on.Totally ok to criticize the Pats for the 2006 season and the first game of 2007, and fine to wipe those numbers from the slate. But prior to the 2006 memo from the League clarifying the rules, what the Pats did (and what other teams were doing by the way) was not enforced by the league as illegal.

We probably need a sticky topic on Spygate. It's amazing ow many myths and misinformation are commonly floated in these rooms. To sum it up, what the Pats did that was wrong was this - they videotaped defensive signals (after the 2006 memo came out clearly outlawing this) and used them in subsequent games - not even during the games in which they were taped. Spygate was a non factor, plain and simple. Like I said, if anything should be thrown out it's the 2006 season.

Unfortunately nobody is going to pay attention to any of this.

For Brady haters and Manning lovers, this will always be their out.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why do people care so much who is perceived as better between Manning and Brady? Always has been a strange phenomenon for me.