Results of All-Pro voting (1 Viewer)

[Carter_Can_Fly]

SSOG

 

[Ghost Rider]

Well said, SSOG.

And I still find it hilarious that craxie hasn't posted since the day before the Chargers lost in the playoffs (yes, I looked it up; it took about eight seconds).

 

[Chase Stuart]

So why do you prefer Manning to Rivers?

I'm not Carter, and I know I've already weighed in, but I wanted to answer anyway. Like I said earlier, the fact that Indy throws a higher percentage of the time probably has an impact on their efficiency stats. What really impressed me about Manning this year, though, is that he once again made Indy an unstoppable offense with an endless parade of new faces. Indy is a team with an average defense, a pair of average (at best) RBs, and a below-average offensive line. They lost Gonzalez before the season started and were forced to roll with unheralded 2nd-year guy Garcon and unheralded rookie Collie. Despite all of that, Indy started the season 14-0 and probably could be facing a perfect season right now if they cared more. On paper, you're looking at a mediocre defense and an offense that'd be entirely mediocre if not for Manning and Wayne. Manning's probably the difference between 16-0 and 8-8.Manning's the ultimate NFL cure-all. Build a mediocre squad? Add Peyton Manning and you've got one of the best teams in the league. Play a game where you only have 15 minutes in ToP? Add Manning and walk away with a win. Field the second most injured team in the league? Add Manning and threaten perfection. Your offense gets the ball while trailing or tied 9 times on the season? Add Peyton Manning and score on 7 of those 9 drives. Rivers is awesome, but he hasn't yet reached that Peyton Manning "the answer to every question" level.

The comebacks this season were especially incredible, and were deservedly recognized in end-of-year awards.

I don't agree that Manning's the difference between 8-8 and 16-0. The Colts won half of their games this year when trailing in the 4th quarter. A lot of that is because they have Manning, a great QB, but don't be fooled: Manning isn't going to get the job done ten times out of ten. If you repeated the 2009 season 1,000 times, the Colts wouldn't start 14-0 very often. They were "lucky" to be 14-0, in the sense that they won more games than a team that plays like that usually does.Consider that when the Pats went 11-5, many noted that Cassell played fine but "Tom Brady won five more games with the same group." Well, look how Brady did this year. The 2007 Patriots -- who played at a higher level, IMO, than the 2009 Colts -- weren't an unbeatable team, either. They were lucky to be 16-0, just like the Colts were lucky to be 14-0. Based on their points scored/points allowed numbers through 14 games, the Colts more closely resembled a 12 win team than a 16 win team. That's what the number say; you can choose to believe that Manning's greatness ist he reason the Colts won more games than expected, or that the Colts had some bounces go their way during some opportune times.

Or, to put it another way, how many wins do you expect the Colts to have next season assuming they try to win every game and Manning is healthy? For me, I'd stick with that 12 number. I suspect Las Vegas would agree. So no, the Colts aren't a 16 win team thanks to Manning and an 8-8 team without him; they're a 12-win team with Manning, and with some good bounces at key moments, they could be a 14-0 team.

Without Manning, I agree the Colts would probably be around an 8-8 team. But I don't agree that the Chargers have more talent surrounding Rivers than the Colts do surrounding Manning. The Colts' D is pretty underrated; the Chargers D is average.

But I don't tend to focus on wins and losses, since it involves a lot of things outside of the control of any one player. **** Butkus and Gale Sayers couldn't make the late '60s Bears into winners. The Patriots won 11 games without Tom Brady. Football's a team sport. If you don't like using stats to grade QBs -- because things like 'the talent of the OL/WR/RB/TE and the scheme matter' -- then how can you use wins, which involve things like 'the talent of the OL/WR/RB/TE/DL/LB/DB/PK/P/ST'?

Look at Rivers' numbers the past two seasons and Manning's numbers. Rivers averages a full adjusted net yard per attempt more than Manning. And Rivers has had over 1,000 pass plays during that span. Even looking at just net yards per pass attempt, Rivers has an advantage. Now ANY/A doesn't always tell us which QB is better, but over a large sample size, it does a pretty good job. I'd need to see some argument as to why Manning -- who has worse passing numbers than Rivers the last two years -- is better than Rivers, besides the fact that Manning has won more games (which isn't surprising since he has a better defense). I'm open to the possibility, but I haven't heard a persuasive argument on this just yet.

 

[gandalas]

I think Peyton Manning is the best player in the NFL right now

He isn't even in the top 3 QBs right now.

Well, he is one of 2 QBs still playing, so I would say that for this season at least, he is in the top 2 QBs...

 

[SSOG]

I don't agree that Manning's the difference between 8-8 and 16-0. The Colts won half of their games this year when trailing in the 4th quarter. A lot of that is because they have Manning, a great QB, but don't be fooled: Manning isn't going to get the job done ten times out of ten. If you repeated the 2009 season 1,000 times, the Colts wouldn't start 14-0 very often. They were "lucky" to be 14-0, in the sense that they won more games than a team that plays like that usually does.

Almost certainly... but when last I checked, they don't award end-of-year awards based on what a guy would have done if they played the season 1,000 times. They award them based on what actually happened the one time they did play the season. And the one time they DID play the season, Manning set NFL records for comebacks and the Colts started 14-0 before deciding they didn't care anymore.