Peyton Manning (3 Viewers)

[drummer]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

All this just makes me sick over the 49ers drafting Gio Carmazzi.

 

[bostonfred]

Cstu, montana didn't have rice for his whole career. The last talent manning ever had to work with was 1998, with marvin harrison and marshall faulk. Or maybe 1999, with harrison and edgerrin james. Either way, that's as bad as he ever had it. its unprecedented in nfl history, the collection of receivers he's thrown to. Just like rice has never played with a sucky qb - he went from montana, to young, to rich gannon who won an mvp with him. Amazing. And welker must feel pretty good, too. But for a qb to always have pro bowlers and hall of famers - its never happened like this before. Its not a knock on him, but it shouldn't be surprising that he put up all time great stats when he had this talent every year.

 

[MDSkinner]

Cstu, montana didn't have rice for his whole career. The last talent manning ever had to work with was 1998, with marvin harrison and marshall faulk. Or maybe 1999, with harrison and edgerrin james. Either way, that's as bad as he ever had it. its unprecedented in nfl history, the collection of receivers he's thrown to. Just like rice has never played with a sucky qb - he went from montana, to young, to rich gannon who won an mvp with him. Amazing. And welker must feel pretty good, too. But for a qb to always have pro bowlers and hall of famers - its never happened like this before. Its not a knock on him, but it shouldn't be surprising that he put up all time great stats when he had this talent every year.

I don't think that it is just coincidence that the guys playing around Peyton were all as good as they were. I think he had an awful lot to do with that. That is something that we will never know but to me it is just too coincidental to be any other way. JMO.

 

[Jrodicus]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think that it is just coincidence that the guys playing around Peyton were all as good as they were. I think he had an awful lot to do with that. That is something that we will never know but to me it is just too coincidental to be any other way. JMO.

That's not entirely speculation. Keep in mind that when Peyton got hurt, the Colts jumped directly from every-year super bowl contenders to #1 overall pick. That says a lot about how much value Manning personally added to their roster.

 

[bostonfred]

Cstu, montana didn't have rice for his whole career. The last talent manning ever had to work with was 1998, with marvin harrison and marshall faulk. Or maybe 1999, with harrison and edgerrin james. Either way, that's as bad as he ever had it. its unprecedented in nfl history, the collection of receivers he's thrown to. Just like rice has never played with a sucky qb - he went from montana, to young, to rich gannon who won an mvp with him. Amazing. And welker must feel pretty good, too. But for a qb to always have pro bowlers and hall of famers - its never happened like this before. Its not a knock on him, but it shouldn't be surprising that he put up all time great stats when he had this talent every year.

I don't think that it is just coincidence that the guys playing around Peyton were all as good as they were. I think he had an awful lot to do with that. That is something that we will never know but to me it is just too coincidental to be any other way. JMO.

I 100% agree. There's no question in my mind that Manning's receivers did better with him than they would have done with a replacement level quarterback, or even a decent starting quarterback. Just like there's no question in my mind that Moss would never have broken the WR TD record with a lesser QB. Great QBs absolutely elevate the players around them. But you're right that there's a chicken and egg situation here. The thing is, we have enough data points to suggest that those guys were, in fact, pretty good. All those guys were first round picks.

- Marshall Faulk is a hall of famer for what he did with the Rams, far more than for what he did with the Colts.

- Edge had 2800 yards and 13 TDs in Arizona.

- Harrison was on pace for a third year breakout, with over 1700 yards and 14 TDs in his first two seasons playing with a guy who was basically a replacement level QB.

- Wayne had 1355 yards in his last season with Manning, and had exactly 1355 yards in his first year with a rookie - it may have been a great rookie, but it's not Peyton Manning in his prime.

- Dallas Clark is one of a couple players credited with helping to revolutionize the tight end position, because he could move around the field and played more like a wide receiver than a tight end.

In Denver, we have a unique case, because Thomas and Decker played with Tebow, and Thomas was hurt often early in his career. But when Thomas returned healthy at the end of 2011, he played five games with Tebow in which he had 25 catches for 434 yards and 3 TDs - that's a pace for 80 catches, 1392 yards and 10 TDs. The following season, playing with Manning, Thomas had 94 catches for 1434 yards and 10 TDs. Don't get me wrong - doing it for a full season is far more impressive than catching some flukey passes from Tim Tebow. But there's no question that we had enough data to know that he was a good player.

In four games with Kyle Orton - another replacement level player - Eric Decker had 20 catches for 270 yards and 4 TDs. That's a pace for 80 catches, 1080 yards and 16 TDs. Denver then massively changed their offense, putting Tebow under center, but in his ensuing five game stretch with Tebow, but before Thomas returned healthy, as the starter, Decker had 15 catches for 261 yards and 4 TDs. That's a pace for 60 catches, 835 yards and 13 TDs. Average that out and you're looking at a pace of about 70 catches, 960 yards and 14 TDs with Orton and Tebow. With Manning, Decker put up 85 catches, 1064 yards and 13 TDs. That's not absurdly off pace.

Welker had an off year. It's not fair to compare his stats as the number one in Brady's offense with his stats as one of several guys in the 2013 offense. But in 13 games, Welker had 73/778/10, compared with 118/1354.6 the year before. We know Welker was talented, he just wasn't the number one guy in the offense anymore.

But anyways, I think your point about Manning elevating these guys is a good one - it's just not as big a factor as you might imagine. These guys all looked good in their opportunities to play before or after Manning. With the exception of Clark, who didn't leave the Colts until he was old enough that his numbers had already started to decline, all of them seemed to be on pace to have good careers with or without Manning.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't think that it is just coincidence that the guys playing around Peyton were all as good as they were. I think he had an awful lot to do with that. That is something that we will never know but to me it is just too coincidental to be any other way. JMO.

That's not entirely speculation. Keep in mind that when Peyton got hurt, the Colts jumped directly from every-year super bowl contenders to #1 overall pick. That says a lot about how much value Manning personally added to their roster.

Patriots are a class organization. They don't tank.

 

[parrot]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

 

[bostonfred]

Let's do the same thing for Brady's receivers (not to make this a Brady thread, but just to show the comparison).

Troy Brown was a 9th year receiver who had never had a 1000 yard season prior to playing with Brady. In their first year together, Brown went to his first Pro Bowl with 103 catches for 1199 yards, both career highs by about 25% over his best season.

Deion Branch had 78 catches for 998 yards in his best season with Brady, and won a Superbowl MVP. He went to Seattle, who traded a first rounder for him, and his best season was 53 catches for 725 yards.

David Givens led the Patriots in receiving in 2004. He never had a successful stints with any other team.

Reche Caldwell also led the Patriots in receiving. Brady took the Patriots to a fourth quarter lead in the AFCCG that season.

Prior to joining the Patriots, Randy Moss was playing badly in Oakland. He not only had his best season ever with Brady, he literally had the best season ever, catching an NFL record 24 TD passes a few months after the two of them met for the first time.

And of course Welker had his best seasons with Brady, setting a record for 100 reception seasons, despite never having 100 catches before or after.

Maroney, Watson, David Patten, Ochocinco - all those guys did pretty poorly the year before or after they had a chance to play with Brady.

So again, we know that Brady played with marginal talent, and we know that he substantially elevated that talent. And as I posted earlier, we know that Manning played with outstanding talent. They each elevated the guys around them, and their numbers reflect the caliber of guys they played with. That shouldn't be surprising. But since we saw that Brady could break NFL records the very first time he played with great receiving talent, we know to a certainty that he's more than capable of putting up the big stats. Which takes a little of the shine off the apple for Manning's statistical accomplishments, since he's had such great receivers his entire career. It doesn't mean Manning's not great, it just means that a great qb should be expected to put up huge stats in that situation, and Manning did. He clearly showed he's an all time great, but I'm not sure he showed that he's as much of an outlier as his statistics make him appear.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

 

[ShamrockPride]

In response to fred.....not to diminish anything from anyone, but if we go back and compare the numbers put up by Brady in 07, those big stats you speak of...and same goes for Moss' 07 numbers too. Those numbers come from a season of trying to do just that, to explode the offensive record books. A season of running up the score every week. I wouldn't say there is anything natural about those numbers. Looking back at the box scores and scoring times of that 07 season there just wasn't a natural progression to it, like there was no need to be putting a lot of those points up. Comparing that to the Denver season we just watched, I don't feel the same can be said for Peyton. And maybe it has to do with the quality of those team's defenses, but nothing (for the most part) this year felt like stat-boosting by Peyton.

 

[Tau837]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

The Colts also changed the GM, coaching staff, and more than half the roster between their 2-14 season and Luck's rookie season. It is much more valid to suggest that the 2-14 team was very similar to the Colts team from the previous season with Manning than to suggest the 2-14 team was very similar to the 11-5 team in Luck's rookie season.

 

[bostonfred]

In response to fred.....not to diminish anything from anyone, but if we go back and compare the numbers put up by Brady in 07, those big stats you speak of...and same goes for Moss' 07 numbers too. Those numbers come from a season of trying to do just that, to explode the offensive record books. A season of running up the score every week. I wouldn't say there is anything natural about those numbers. Looking back at the box scores and scoring times of that 07 season there just wasn't a natural progression to it, like there was no need to be putting a lot of those points up. Comparing that to the Denver season we just watched, I don't feel the same can be said for Peyton. And maybe it has to do with the quality of those team's defenses, but nothing (for the most part) this year felt like stat-boosting by Peyton.

I get that you believe that, but manning tied and broke the td record with a pair of fourth quarter tds in week 16, uncertain of whether he'd play in week 17, then in week 17, he literally played just long enough to pass the yardage mark by 1, then sat down, to the point where a stat correction almost cost him the record. Brady set the record with two td passes, both to moss, scoring the go ahead td to win a very close game against the giants and preserve the 16-0 season. If you want to go back earlier in the season, and compare some late tds by brady to, say, mannings sixth and seventh td on the Thursday night season opener, that's fine. Or look back at the last couple touchdowns on thanksgiving in a blowout against the lions back in 2004. The reality is that any record setting performance can be nitpicked. If you're able to do it, do it.

Which brings me to a different point. I've seen people criticize manning for caring more about stats than wins, and I think that's silly. I do think he occasionally changes plays at the line of scrimmage in a way that is more geared towards a successful play (like audibling to a run against soft coverage, or vice versa) than towards the game plan that a coach might prefer (like taking a shot deep when you're in long field goal range, or running your back so many times he can barely walk at the end). But I don't think that's the same thing - I think he is a very good coordinator on the field, and that wins him a lot of games, but like anyone, he has tendencies, and he can be baited into bad decisions in the flow of a game that he would like to take back afterwards. Sometimes that leads to an extra td, sometimes it leads to a pick or turnover on downs. I've seen it happen in a number of games and I believe that's part of the reason he has had some critical postseason mistakes. Kind of the flip side of what you get with that awesome field generalling.

 

[MDSkinner]

Cstu, montana didn't have rice for his whole career. The last talent manning ever had to work with was 1998, with marvin harrison and marshall faulk. Or maybe 1999, with harrison and edgerrin james. Either way, that's as bad as he ever had it. its unprecedented in nfl history, the collection of receivers he's thrown to. Just like rice has never played with a sucky qb - he went from montana, to young, to rich gannon who won an mvp with him. Amazing. And welker must feel pretty good, too. But for a qb to always have pro bowlers and hall of famers - its never happened like this before. Its not a knock on him, but it shouldn't be surprising that he put up all time great stats when he had this talent every year.

I don't think that it is just coincidence that the guys playing around Peyton were all as good as they were. I think he had an awful lot to do with that. That is something that we will never know but to me it is just too coincidental to be any other way. JMO.

I 100% agree. There's no question in my mind that Manning's receivers did better with him than they would have done with a replacement level quarterback, or even a decent starting quarterback. Just like there's no question in my mind that Moss would never have broken the WR TD record with a lesser QB. Great QBs absolutely elevate the players around them. But you're right that there's a chicken and egg situation here. The thing is, we have enough data points to suggest that those guys were, in fact, pretty good. All those guys were first round picks.

- Marshall Faulk is a hall of famer for what he did with the Rams, far more than for what he did with the Colts.

- Edge had 2800 yards and 13 TDs in Arizona.

- Harrison was on pace for a third year breakout, with over 1700 yards and 14 TDs in his first two seasons playing with a guy who was basically a replacement level QB.

- Wayne had 1355 yards in his last season with Manning, and had exactly 1355 yards in his first year with a rookie - it may have been a great rookie, but it's not Peyton Manning in his prime.

- Dallas Clark is one of a couple players credited with helping to revolutionize the tight end position, because he could move around the field and played more like a wide receiver than a tight end.

In Denver, we have a unique case, because Thomas and Decker played with Tebow, and Thomas was hurt often early in his career. But when Thomas returned healthy at the end of 2011, he played five games with Tebow in which he had 25 catches for 434 yards and 3 TDs - that's a pace for 80 catches, 1392 yards and 10 TDs. The following season, playing with Manning, Thomas had 94 catches for 1434 yards and 10 TDs. Don't get me wrong - doing it for a full season is far more impressive than catching some flukey passes from Tim Tebow. But there's no question that we had enough data to know that he was a good player.

In four games with Kyle Orton - another replacement level player - Eric Decker had 20 catches for 270 yards and 4 TDs. That's a pace for 80 catches, 1080 yards and 16 TDs. Denver then massively changed their offense, putting Tebow under center, but in his ensuing five game stretch with Tebow, but before Thomas returned healthy, as the starter, Decker had 15 catches for 261 yards and 4 TDs. That's a pace for 60 catches, 835 yards and 13 TDs. Average that out and you're looking at a pace of about 70 catches, 960 yards and 14 TDs with Orton and Tebow. With Manning, Decker put up 85 catches, 1064 yards and 13 TDs. That's not absurdly off pace.

Welker had an off year. It's not fair to compare his stats as the number one in Brady's offense with his stats as one of several guys in the 2013 offense. But in 13 games, Welker had 73/778/10, compared with 118/1354.6 the year before. We know Welker was talented, he just wasn't the number one guy in the offense anymore.

But anyways, I think your point about Manning elevating these guys is a good one - it's just not as big a factor as you might imagine. These guys all looked good in their opportunities to play before or after Manning. With the exception of Clark, who didn't leave the Colts until he was old enough that his numbers had already started to decline, all of them seemed to be on pace to have good careers with or without Manning.

I think you make great points all the way around and you do so in a way that is very intelligent and classy. I personally think that both Manning and Brady are two of the best ever. I think Manning is better, even given your arguments, for all of the various arguments that you can make the other way (it is easy to argue for either of them, since they are both great) but I certainly won't knock anyone that sees it differently. I feel like a lucky person to have been watching football intently through each of their entire careers and it will be a sad day when either of them retires.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

It's pretty simple. Cassel doing well helped the Patriots get a draft pick in return for him. The Colts sucking for Luck got them the most highly touted prospect since Peyton Manning. People do what's in their own best interests. For the Colts, that was losing lots of games, even though they were good enough to hang in there in some.

Manning's injury year was also near the trough of those Colts teams. The young undersized defense drafted for Dungy's system was no longer a great fit, Joseph Addai and Donald Brown hadn't really done much, and of course, the backup situation was horrendous.

The team left behind during Brady's injury was obviously pretty good. The 2007 Patriots had just gone 16-0, and it was arguably the best team they'd ever had. Cassel migjht not be a superstar, but his career got off to a nice start throwing to Moss and Welker. Painter, Orlovsky and Collins sucked, and they still helped Wayne and Garcon flirt with 1000 yard seasons. In fact, Garcon did more with Painter and Orlovsky and more with RG3 than he ever did with Manning. Weird how these things work.

But yes, Cassel was a better QB than Painter. Which is evidenced by the fact that Cassel went on to start for the Chiefs and was relatively good for a couple years, then got another chance with the Vikings. Painter and Orlovsky are still waiting by the phone. And yes, the Patriots wanted to win, because it helped their cause, while the Colts wanted to lose, because it helped their cause far more. They sucked for Luck. It is what it is.

 

[Jrodicus]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

It's pretty simple. Cassel doing well helped the Patriots get a draft pick in return for him. The Colts sucking for Luck got them the most highly touted prospect since Peyton Manning. People do what's in their own best interests. For the Colts, that was losing lots of games, even though they were good enough to hang in there in some.

Manning's injury year was also near the trough of those Colts teams. The young undersized defense drafted for Dungy's system was no longer a great fit, Joseph Addai and Donald Brown hadn't really done much, and of course, the backup situation was horrendous.

The team left behind during Brady's injury was obviously pretty good. The 2007 Patriots had just gone 16-0, and it was arguably the best team they'd ever had. Cassel migjht not be a superstar, but his career got off to a nice start throwing to Moss and Welker. Painter, Orlovsky and Collins sucked, and they still helped Wayne and Garcon flirt with 1000 yard seasons. In fact, Garcon did more with Painter and Orlovsky and more with RG3 than he ever did with Manning. Weird how these things work.

But yes, Cassel was a better QB than Painter. Which is evidenced by the fact that Cassel went on to start for the Chiefs and was relatively good for a couple years, then got another chance with the Vikings. Painter and Orlovsky are still waiting by the phone. And yes, the Patriots wanted to win, because it helped their cause, while the Colts wanted to lose, because it helped their cause far more. They sucked for Luck. It is what it is.

The Colts where only 2 years removed from going to the Super Bowl. That Super Bowl team went 14-2...and the 2 losses only happened because they decided to rest the starters. They legitimately should've been 16-0 in the regular season that year, the same as the Patriots the year before Brady got hurt.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think you guys are this close to persuading bostonfred. If only you try just a little harder, he'll come around.

 

[Jrodicus]

I think you guys are this close to persuading bostonfred. If only you try just a little harder, he'll come around.

Maybe if I yell, "Don't trip on the clam shells" a few times it'll help sway his decision.

 

[bostonfred]

I've provided reasonable answers to questions poised to me, including the one that started this conversation. If it seems like I've made my mind up, it's because I know more about this particular topic than most people from discussing it as much as I have over the years. But in this thread I've posted that my mind has been changed by this postseason, and I said it in response to someone who bumped my old post. So while you're welcome to imply that I'm intractable on the issue, I think I've set the bar for discourse a little higher than I'm given credit for. Good day.

 

[kegger]

With all the stats AND watching them play.

My top 2 are Montana and Manning as the best all time.

I believe Manning is the more "complete" QB and field general,

I would want him in his prime over anyone if I had to pick 1 to run my offense.

But the swagger an confidence Montana had in any big game was just unreal

to where you just felt there was no way he wouldn't get it done.

It's so close for me between those 2 for different reasons I truly can't pick just 1.

(I don't have a true 3rd either, but Brady would certainly be in that discussion)

 

[Pots]

If it seems like I've made my mind up, it's because I know more about this particular topic than most people from discussing it as much as I have over the years. you are one of the most biased Patriots/Brady homers on this board and have an excuse that you've already used numerous times in previous posts that you think backs up what you want to believe to be true. With Manning putting up the greatest single season a QB ever has AND beating Brady again, you needed to alter your excuses and reinforce the ones that can't be changed w/o a time machine (ex. Post season success from a decade ago on completely different teams for both). It's clear that after this season, nothing can sway your mind about Manning vs. Brady because you are simply biased towards Brady, and that's OK. You simply like Brady better as a player, you're a Pats homer, but you can't make an objective response on either one because of it.

That sounds more accurate.

 

[Jrodicus]

In response to fred.....not to diminish anything from anyone, but if we go back and compare the numbers put up by Brady in 07, those big stats you speak of...and same goes for Moss' 07 numbers too. Those numbers come from a season of trying to do just that, to explode the offensive record books. A season of running up the score every week. I wouldn't say there is anything natural about those numbers. Looking back at the box scores and scoring times of that 07 season there just wasn't a natural progression to it, like there was no need to be putting a lot of those points up. Comparing that to the Denver season we just watched, I don't feel the same can be said for Peyton. And maybe it has to do with the quality of those team's defenses, but nothing (for the most part) this year felt like stat-boosting by Peyton.

I get that you believe that, but manning tied and broke the td record with a pair of fourth quarter tds in week 16, uncertain of whether he'd play in week 17, then in week 17, he literally played just long enough to pass the yardage mark by 1, then sat down, to the point where a stat correction almost cost him the record. Brady set the record with two td passes, both to moss, scoring the go ahead td to win a very close game against the giants and preserve the 16-0 season.If you want to go back earlier in the season, and compare some late tds by brady to, say, mannings sixth and seventh td on the Thursday night season opener, that's fine. Or look back at the last couple touchdowns on thanksgiving in a blowout against the lions back in 2004. The reality is that any record setting performance can be nitpicked. If you're able to do it, do it.

Which brings me to a different point. I've seen people criticize manning for caring more about stats than wins, and I think that's silly. I do think he occasionally changes plays at the line of scrimmage in a way that is more geared towards a successful play (like audibling to a run against soft coverage, or vice versa) than towards the game plan that a coach might prefer (like taking a shot deep when you're in long field goal range, or running your back so many times he can barely walk at the end). But I don't think that's the same thing - I think he is a very good coordinator on the field, and that wins him a lot of games, but like anyone, he has tendencies, and he can be baited into bad decisions in the flow of a game that he would like to take back afterwards. Sometimes that leads to an extra td, sometimes it leads to a pick or turnover on downs. I've seen it happen in a number of games and I believe that's part of the reason he has had some critical postseason mistakes. Kind of the flip side of what you get with that awesome field generalling.

You mean that Thanksgiving game against Detroit where he came out of the game with 2:15 left in the 3rd quarter and didn't return? Yeah, what a jerk. Definitely paddig stats. Or that Oakland game when in the early 4th quarter he handed off for a 1 yard TD and only attempted 4 passes the last 13 minutes of the game (3 of them on 3rd and long)? Or the Titans game when he didn't play the last 13 minutes of the game? How about comparing how much playing time Jim Sorgi got in 2004 to that of Cassel in 2007?

You're really going to say that Peyton was padding stats late in the game vs. the Ravens - they team that knocked them out of the playoffs because of a busted coverage play the season before? Was he padding stats, or was team as a whole taking out frustration from the season before? It was a revenge game; that doesn't mean was trying to break a record.

If you look at the 4th quarter of that game, yes, Peyton had a TD early in the 4th - on a drive that took all of 5 plays. What did Denver do with the next posession? Handed it off to Ball for 3 straight runs, then punted. And the next posession? Ball up middle. Short, right pass to Decker - incomplete. Short, left pass to Demarius - who then ran it 88 yards for a TD. Are you really going to suggest that because Thomas took a short pass and ran it 88 yards, Peyton was trying to pad his stats?

C'mon man. Go sell crazy somewhere else.

 

[parrot]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

No it's not like they had Christian Ponder under center, it's also not like they had Curtis Painter under center either. Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with. The team was clearly not that bad to go 2-14, Painter was that bad.

Why would we compare Cassel to Luck, instead of to Painter? The Patriots had a backup QB who was at least marginally prepared to come in and lead the team, whereas the Colts put a guy out there who sometimes made people question whether he had ever played football before. Maybe that's part of the reason Caldwell got canned.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Obsess much?

Who posted in: Peyton ManningMember name Posts bostonfred 35 Just Win Baby 23 nashua55 21 twitch 17 JohnnyU 15 Wally Cleaver 13

 

[Tau837]

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

No it's not like they had Christian Ponder under center, it's also not like they had Curtis Painter under center either. Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with. The team was clearly not that bad to go 2-14, Painter was that bad.

Why would we compare Cassel to Luck, instead of to Painter? The Patriots had a backup QB who was at least marginally prepared to come in and lead the team, whereas the Colts put a guy out there who sometimes made people question whether he had ever played football before. Maybe that's part of the reason Caldwell got canned.

The Colts also changed the GM, coaching staff, and more than half the roster between their 2-14 season and Luck's rookie season. It is much more valid to suggest that the 2-14 team was very similar to the Colts team from the previous season with Manning than to suggest the 2-14 team was very similar to the 11-5 team in Luck's rookie season.

Also note that Painter only played 8 games. Kerry Collins and Dan Orlovsky combined to start the other 8.

 

[Jrodicus]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

No it's not like they had Christian Ponder under center, it's also not like they had Curtis Painter under center either. Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with. The team was clearly not that bad to go 2-14, Painter was that bad.

Why would we compare Cassel to Luck, instead of to Painter? The Patriots had a backup QB who was at least marginally prepared to come in and lead the team, whereas the Colts put a guy out there who sometimes made people question whether he had ever played football before. Maybe that's part of the reason Caldwell got canned.

"Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with."

You sure about that? Besides Peyton, here are some of the key guys on offense who were on the team in 2011 and either not on the team to start 2012 or did not contribute:

Addai (cut), Collie (hurt week 1), Garcon (FA), Clark (released), Saturday(FA), Diem (retired?), Pollak (Carolina).

So the starting RB, TE, 2 WRs, Pro Bowl Center, and 2 linemen from the 2011 squad weren't on the team in 2012.

After the Colts drafted Luck, their next picks were Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Chapman, Ballard, Brazill. With the exception of Brazil and Chapman (NT), all of those guys were regularly in the game.

If by "he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with" you mean "He still had Reggie Wayne on the team," then yeah, I'd agree. Otherwise, you're completely off base here.

 

[parrot]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

No it's not like they had Christian Ponder under center, it's also not like they had Curtis Painter under center either. Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with. The team was clearly not that bad to go 2-14, Painter was that bad.

Why would we compare Cassel to Luck, instead of to Painter? The Patriots had a backup QB who was at least marginally prepared to come in and lead the team, whereas the Colts put a guy out there who sometimes made people question whether he had ever played football before. Maybe that's part of the reason Caldwell got canned.

"Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with."

You sure about that? Besides Peyton, here are some of the key guys on offense who were on the team in 2011 and either not on the team to start 2012 or did not contribute:

Addai (cut), Collie (hurt week 1), Garcon (FA), Clark (released), Saturday(FA), Diem (retired?), Pollak (Carolina).

So the starting RB, TE, 2 WRs, Pro Bowl Center, and 2 linemen from the 2011 squad weren't on the team in 2012.

After the Colts drafted Luck, their next picks were Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Chapman, Ballard, Brazill. With the exception of Brazil and Chapman (NT), all of those guys were regularly in the game.

If by "he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with" you mean "He still had Reggie Wayne on the team," then yeah, I'd agree. Otherwise, you're completely off base here.

Okay, fair enough. Were those guys bad players? It seems like there are some pretty talented guys on that 2011 list. Were all the rookies a major step up in talent?

 

[Jrodicus]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

No it's not like they had Christian Ponder under center, it's also not like they had Curtis Painter under center either. Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with. The team was clearly not that bad to go 2-14, Painter was that bad.

Why would we compare Cassel to Luck, instead of to Painter? The Patriots had a backup QB who was at least marginally prepared to come in and lead the team, whereas the Colts put a guy out there who sometimes made people question whether he had ever played football before. Maybe that's part of the reason Caldwell got canned.

"Luck was good for a rookie, no question, but he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with."

You sure about that? Besides Peyton, here are some of the key guys on offense who were on the team in 2011 and either not on the team to start 2012 or did not contribute:

Addai (cut), Collie (hurt week 1), Garcon (FA), Clark (released), Saturday(FA), Diem (retired?), Pollak (Carolina).

So the starting RB, TE, 2 WRs, Pro Bowl Center, and 2 linemen from the 2011 squad weren't on the team in 2012.

After the Colts drafted Luck, their next picks were Fleener, Allen, Hilton, Chapman, Ballard, Brazill. With the exception of Brazil and Chapman (NT), all of those guys were regularly in the game.

If by "he was working with most of the same offensive skill guys that Painter worked with" you mean "He still had Reggie Wayne on the team," then yeah, I'd agree. Otherwise, you're completely off base here.

Okay, fair enough. Were those guys bad players? It seems like there are some pretty talented guys on that 2011 list. Were all the rookies a major step up in talent?

A lot of "experts" thought the 2012 Colts were worse than the 2011 team. Even after what they did last year, it seems like nobody thought they would make the playoffs this year.

I think the Colts are much more balanced in all 3 phases of the game than what the were before. I remember an interview with Reggie last year when he said that under the previous regime, they would only spend about 15 minutes on special teams during practice. Under Pagano, they put a lot more focus on it. How many games did the Colts lose due to special teams? A lot. How about Hank Baskett wiffing on the on-side kick in the Super Bowl?

The previous regime put all their chips on offense and hoped they could outscore the other team. This team is more balanced.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The Patriots had a backup QB who was at least marginally prepared to come in and lead the team, whereas the Colts put a guy out there who sometimes made people question whether he had ever played football before.

This is not really true. Remember, when Matt Cassel stepped in for New England he hadn't started a game since high school. He didn't really even get on the field at QB in college. In fact, had New England not been plugging in someone so ridiculously green they very well could have put together another record setting offense, at least yardage wise. Cassel started slowly and they protected him early, but once he got a few games under his belt that offense got ticking. In his last 8 full games that year Cassel threw for 2500 yards with a QB rating over 100. Over a full season his back half numbers would have prorated out to 5000/30, keeping in mind that at the time Brady's career high in yards at the time was 4800 (and he would throw for 4400 the next year when Cassel signed elsewhere).

That's not to say that Curtis Painter wasn't awful, but it's interesting that you mention that people questioned whether he had played football before when Cassel, outside of practice, literally hadn't. Had New England had a solid veteran backup QB instead of the guy who had the least playing experience among anyone in the entire NFL (even rookies), they very likely could have rolled to a solid 13-3 or 14-2 season with a 4500-5000 yard passer. The fact that they went 11-5 with a guy that had never played quarterback above high school (eight years prior) and who has since proven himself to be nearly as incompetent as Curtis Painter when placed on a team not made up of all stars, shows just how crazy good that team was at the time.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Peyton Manning has been fully cleared for the 2014 season following a Monday exam on his neck.
Because Manning underwent four neck surgeries in 2011, including a fusion, he has an annual checkup to ensure he's capable of taking the abuse an NFL quarterback absorbs weekly. As expected, doctors found no surprises or complications. Manning will turn 38 years old later this month and his arm strength leaves a lot to be desired, but he'll be our No. 1 fantasy quarterback in 2014 by a wide margin. With an elite supporting cast and a healthy Ryan Clady, he shouldn't fall too far short of the mind-blowing 55 touchdowns and 5,477 yards he posted last season. Manning is under contract through the 2016 season.

Source: Denver Post

 

[Neofight]

I don't think its punishing him, although it does take away some excuses. If manning has a bad day in the playoffs, it isn't noteworthy because he's peyton manning. Its noteworthy because the guy throwing to harrison, wayne, clark and edge just threw four interceptions when he had a chance to go to a superbowl. That's a bad individual performance, no matter how you slice it.

But I think you can compare what he did with other qbs by saying, what would they have done with his targets, and what would manning have done in the other guys shoes. We will never know if manning could have succeeded with those miserable receivers on the patriots in 2006 and 2013. But we do know what brady could do the vert first year he worked with true stud wrs. He broke nfl records, just like manning did when he had a couple years under his belt with his guys. To me, that's pretty impressive about brady - he didn't just do it one year and fade away like a one year wonder, he did it in his only real year playing healthy with those guys, and with no chance to get to know each other. Who knows how much further he could have gone with them if he hadn't hurt his acl. Its fun to think about. Sijilarly, we know that mannings great season wasn't a fluke, either. We know they can each do amazing things when paired with amazing talent. But we've never seen manning succeed without that talent, nor brady fail with great talent. You can make the case that brady should have won that superbowl in 2007, but he had the lead with two minutes left. Its not like he led them to three total points the way manning did in his 2004 afccg loss, or threw four picks like he did in his 2003 afccg loss. Manning did those things with great receivers. That's noteworthy when we are comparing two great players.

It's also noteworthy that they both missed a season due to injury. If you want to compare the talent that was on the rest of the team, why not look at how their respective teams did without them?

Pats sans Brady due to torn ACL: 11-5

Colts sans Peyton due to neck injury: 2-14

So, who had the more "talented" team?

That 2-14 Colts team was 11-5 the following year with a rookie at QB.

The rookie in question was one of the more heralded guys to enter the league in the past 10 or so years. It's not like they had Christian Ponder under center. That rookie also added a huge amount of value to the team.

(Also, if we're going to play that little game, who was Brady's replacement during the 11-5 season? What's that guy up to these days? How does he compare to Andrew Luck?)

Wrong comparison to make. The real question is what became of the "backups" (I use quotes because those guys really weren't replacement level NFL backups) that the Colts rolled out when Manning was out? How did they compare to Cassel, a multi year starter in the league with a couple seasons hovering around a 90 passer rating? It was clear that the Colts didn't have a plan B when Manning went down and the Pats did (and likely still do) for Brady being out an extended amount of time. That says nothing abou the respective starters, but everything about the two franchises.