West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: swangin and bangin on January 06, 2007, 07:36:46 PM
-
colts smashed the chiefs, i mean (http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e383/96nicholls96/thowned1.gif) the chiefs.
so whats up wit the colts VS ravens. who gona come out on top.
-
it should be a good game if the colts d can play like they did today, but then again, it was easier to prepare for the chiefs than it will be for the ravens..the ravens just have too good of a d and the fact that they can also get it done on offense makes them the choice to win...
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
-
i say the ravens will fucking destroy the Colts very easily.
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
-
he completed 30 passes not 25. And don't act like he hasn't had great games i nthe playoffs either. After the 3rd int he did not throw one incomplete pass the rest of the game, so whatever he was doing wrong he realized it and fixed it. Colts won and thats all that matters.
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
The second INT was a poor decision, the first and third were either blown routes or too much faith in Harrison. The first one Harrison faked outside then went in and Manning bought the fake I guess. The third INT Manning saw the drop back to the inside and knew that there was only an open play to the outside. I guess Harrison didn't see that, or thought Manning would risk throwing over the defense, and went inside. In both cases the ball would have been on target if Harrison moved out instead of in. When a QB and WR play together for so long they get a feel for each other. In this case each guy they felt wrong a couple of times. But in both cases Manning made the right move to the outside because that was the more playable throw and catch. If he threw it inside to Harrison the third INT probably would have been intercepted anyway by the guy that dropped back and the first would have been batted down or in the air. With a lesser receiver Manning may not have made those throws. But with the great Marvin Harrison he put faith in his number 1 guy. And while everyone notices that Manning drops down a notch in the big games no one notices that Harrison drops down as well. Instead we get Manning is choking again and Ty Law praise. Law didn't even have to move to the ball it was thrown right to him twice. Forget Payton under pressure, I wouldn't have made those throws, and I suck. Of course if I thought my golden WR would move that way then I would have. People should study these two guys more and you'll notice that Manning and Harrison make plays like that successfully. In this case it was a mis-read. Manning could have taken a better look at Harrison to know he wasn't going to go outside and Harrison could have looked at the D to realize he had no catch inside. That being said, the second INT was a complete mess and all Manning's fault.
Of course I still think think the Ravens will win, even though I want the Colts. Hope I'm wrong. Harrison doesn't have many years left and he deserves a ring and I don't want Manning to go down like Marino did. (Of course Manning isn't an athletic QB so unless he has a big injury he'll play until he's 40 if he doesn't win and by that time he'll end up leaving to go to a super Defense team and win the Tom Brady way; let the Defense and the O-Line win the games but get the glory, and the perfume commercials.)
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
The second INT was a poor decision, the first and third were either blown routes or too much faith in Harrison. The first one Harrison faked outside then went in and Manning bought the fake I guess. The third INT Manning saw the drop back to the inside and knew that there was only an open play to the outside. I guess Harrison didn't see that, or thought Manning would risk throwing over the defense, and went inside. In both cases the ball would have been on target if Harrison moved out instead of in. When a QB and WR play together for so long they get a feel for each other. In this case each guy they felt wrong a couple of times. But in both cases Manning made the right move to the outside because that was the more playable throw and catch. If he threw it inside to Harrison the third INT probably would have been intercepted anyway by the guy that dropped back and the first would have been batted down or in the air. With a lesser receiver Manning may not have made those throws. But with the great Marvin Harrison he put faith in his number 1 guy. And while everyone notices that Manning drops down a notch in the big games no one notices that Harrison drops down as well. Instead we get Manning is choking again and Ty Law praise. Law didn't even have to move to the ball it was thrown right to him twice. Forget Payton under pressure, I wouldn't have made those throws, and I suck. Of course if I thought my golden WR would move that way then I would have. People should study these two guys more and you'll notice that Manning and Harrison make plays like that successfully. In this case it was a mis-read. Manning could have taken a better look at Harrison to know he wasn't going to go outside and Harrison could have looked at the D to realize he had no catch inside. That being said, the second INT was a complete mess and all Manning's fault.
Of course I still think think the Ravens will win, even though I want the Colts. Hope I'm wrong. Harrison doesn't have many years left and he deserves a ring and I don't want Manning to go down like Marino did. (Of course Manning isn't an athletic QB so unless he has a big injury he'll play until he's 40 if he doesn't win and by that time he'll end up leaving to go to a super Defense team and win the Tom Brady way; let the Defense and the O-Line win the games but get the glory, and the perfume commercials.)
You make good points, however you can analyze Peyton's int's all day long, but neway you slice it HE ALWAYS Throws multiple INTS in the playoffs, When that type of shit happens its a mental thing. I saw how Him and Marvin messed up a few times yeah, but hes still throwing ints like he always does, and nobody can deny that. Some of it is in his head. Anybody that cant see that needs to get off Peytons nuts, and stop making excuses for him...
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
The second INT was a poor decision, the first and third were either blown routes or too much faith in Harrison. The first one Harrison faked outside then went in and Manning bought the fake I guess. The third INT Manning saw the drop back to the inside and knew that there was only an open play to the outside. I guess Harrison didn't see that, or thought Manning would risk throwing over the defense, and went inside. In both cases the ball would have been on target if Harrison moved out instead of in. When a QB and WR play together for so long they get a feel for each other. In this case each guy they felt wrong a couple of times. But in both cases Manning made the right move to the outside because that was the more playable throw and catch. If he threw it inside to Harrison the third INT probably would have been intercepted anyway by the guy that dropped back and the first would have been batted down or in the air. With a lesser receiver Manning may not have made those throws. But with the great Marvin Harrison he put faith in his number 1 guy. And while everyone notices that Manning drops down a notch in the big games no one notices that Harrison drops down as well. Instead we get Manning is choking again and Ty Law praise. Law didn't even have to move to the ball it was thrown right to him twice. Forget Payton under pressure, I wouldn't have made those throws, and I suck. Of course if I thought my golden WR would move that way then I would have. People should study these two guys more and you'll notice that Manning and Harrison make plays like that successfully. In this case it was a mis-read. Manning could have taken a better look at Harrison to know he wasn't going to go outside and Harrison could have looked at the D to realize he had no catch inside. That being said, the second INT was a complete mess and all Manning's fault.
Of course I still think think the Ravens will win, even though I want the Colts. Hope I'm wrong. Harrison doesn't have many years left and he deserves a ring and I don't want Manning to go down like Marino did. (Of course Manning isn't an athletic QB so unless he has a big injury he'll play until he's 40 if he doesn't win and by that time he'll end up leaving to go to a super Defense team and win the Tom Brady way; let the Defense and the O-Line win the games but get the glory, and the perfume commercials.)
You make good points, however you can analyze Peyton's int's all day long, but neway you slice it HE ALWAYS Throws multiple INTS in the playoffs, When that type of shit happens its a mental thing. I saw how Him and Marvin messed up a few times yeah, but hes still throwing ints like he always does, and nobody can deny that. Some of it is in his head. Anybody that cant see that needs to get off Peytons nuts, and stop making excuses for him...
He's only thrown multiple INTs in 3 of his 10 playoff starts and only lost twice so far with multiple INT games. I don't need to be on his nuts to see the stats. The fact remains that when Manning "slumps" in the playoffs his numbers are still slightly better than Brady's when Brady "excels" in the playoffs. Yet because Brady has that solid D and solid line to move the ball he always gets the praise. Indy is an offensive team so right away it's going to be harder to win as a QB because you don't have a strong D to win the game (usually, they did great against KC). If Peyton Manning had moved to Baltimore in 2000, NE in 2001, Tampa in 2002, and NE again in 2003 and 2004, he'd be a 5 years in a row champion and they'd have won pretty easily each Superbowl Game. The point of this is that those teams would have won anyway like they did win, but Manning would have gotten this false praise as Mr. Superbowl. His numbers in the playoffs are still great numbers no matter how you slice it. The problem is that his numbers in the season are on pace to break every record that exists so people hold him to such a high regard that when he drops from amazing to great they think he sucks.
I know Brady is good under pressure and I won't deny that, but everyone knows the majority of his passes are much safer with quick outs to open receivers and screen passes dominating his repertoire. He can still throw the great pass when he does, but if he threw as many risky passes down field as Manning he'd have at least as many INTs. Manning can't play the quick out to the side open man or the screen pass because 1) he doesn't have the O-line to force blitzes and pick them up leaving a guy open with time to throw and block like animals to give the screen more yards. He also doesn't have the Defense to fall back on that will create huge turnovers and score defensive TDs.
In the end, my point is that no QB in the league, not Brady, not McNabb, not Vick, not Favre, would have taken the Colts in any given year to the Superbowl. Last year the Steelers rushed the line so well no one would have found time to make plays. The year before that the Pats D wouldn't let up a play downfield or let anyone get anywhere. The year before that his WRs were getting thrown around by NE and getting no calls. People brag about the 4 INTs but forget about how manhandled the receivers were getting to make those INTs possible. Two years before that the Jets scored 41 points. Two years before that Miami was the number 3 Defense and they still got 17 points which a better Manning still could have won, but beating high powered Oakland that year was unlikely and beating Baltimore was next to impossible. Only in his first year in the playoffs, second year in the league, could the Manning of today have had a chance to get to the Superbowl. They could have beaten the Titans that year with a better Manning, an they could have beaten the Jags. Beating the Rams with with Indy's ranked 17 points allowed defense would have been tricky though, but do-able. Of course I still think that year would have been Buffalo's all the way if Wade Phillips hadn't made the stupidest coaching decision in the history of football and replaced his proven winner with a proven klutz for the playoffs then keep that klutz the next year because you blame the loss on a trick play.
-
Lets take a look at Mannings receiving core to the Patriots that also gives you a clue..
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
The second INT was a poor decision, the first and third were either blown routes or too much faith in Harrison. The first one Harrison faked outside then went in and Manning bought the fake I guess. The third INT Manning saw the drop back to the inside and knew that there was only an open play to the outside. I guess Harrison didn't see that, or thought Manning would risk throwing over the defense, and went inside. In both cases the ball would have been on target if Harrison moved out instead of in. When a QB and WR play together for so long they get a feel for each other. In this case each guy they felt wrong a couple of times. But in both cases Manning made the right move to the outside because that was the more playable throw and catch. If he threw it inside to Harrison the third INT probably would have been intercepted anyway by the guy that dropped back and the first would have been batted down or in the air. With a lesser receiver Manning may not have made those throws. But with the great Marvin Harrison he put faith in his number 1 guy. And while everyone notices that Manning drops down a notch in the big games no one notices that Harrison drops down as well. Instead we get Manning is choking again and Ty Law praise. Law didn't even have to move to the ball it was thrown right to him twice. Forget Payton under pressure, I wouldn't have made those throws, and I suck. Of course if I thought my golden WR would move that way then I would have. People should study these two guys more and you'll notice that Manning and Harrison make plays like that successfully. In this case it was a mis-read. Manning could have taken a better look at Harrison to know he wasn't going to go outside and Harrison could have looked at the D to realize he had no catch inside. That being said, the second INT was a complete mess and all Manning's fault.
Of course I still think think the Ravens will win, even though I want the Colts. Hope I'm wrong. Harrison doesn't have many years left and he deserves a ring and I don't want Manning to go down like Marino did. (Of course Manning isn't an athletic QB so unless he has a big injury he'll play until he's 40 if he doesn't win and by that time he'll end up leaving to go to a super Defense team and win the Tom Brady way; let the Defense and the O-Line win the games but get the glory, and the perfume commercials.)
You make good points, however you can analyze Peyton's int's all day long, but neway you slice it HE ALWAYS Throws multiple INTS in the playoffs, When that type of shit happens its a mental thing. I saw how Him and Marvin messed up a few times yeah, but hes still throwing ints like he always does, and nobody can deny that. Some of it is in his head. Anybody that cant see that needs to get off Peytons nuts, and stop making excuses for him...
He's only thrown multiple INTs in 3 of his 10 playoff starts and only lost twice so far with multiple INT games. I don't need to be on his nuts to see the stats. The fact remains that when Manning "slumps" in the playoffs his numbers are still slightly better than Brady's when Brady "excels" in the playoffs. Yet because Brady has that solid D and solid line to move the ball he always gets the praise. Indy is an offensive team so right away it's going to be harder to win as a QB because you don't have a strong D to win the game (usually, they did great against KC). If Peyton Manning had moved to Baltimore in 2000, NE in 2001, Tampa in 2002, and NE again in 2003 and 2004, he'd be a 5 years in a row champion and they'd have won pretty easily each Superbowl Game. The point of this is that those teams would have won anyway like they did win, but Manning would have gotten this false praise as Mr. Superbowl. His numbers in the playoffs are still great numbers no matter how you slice it. The problem is that his numbers in the season are on pace to break every record that exists so people hold him to such a high regard that when he drops from amazing to great they think he sucks.
I know Brady is good under pressure and I won't deny that, but everyone knows the majority of his passes are much safer with quick outs to open receivers and screen passes dominating his repertoire. He can still throw the great pass when he does, but if he threw as many risky passes down field as Manning he'd have at least as many INTs. Manning can't play the quick out to the side open man or the screen pass because 1) he doesn't have the O-line to force blitzes and pick them up leaving a guy open with time to throw and block like animals to give the screen more yards. He also doesn't have the Defense to fall back on that will create huge turnovers and score defensive TDs.
In the end, my point is that no QB in the league, not Brady, not McNabb, not Vick, not Favre, would have taken the Colts in any given year to the Superbowl. Last year the Steelers rushed the line so well no one would have found time to make plays. The year before that the Pats D wouldn't let up a play downfield or let anyone get anywhere. The year before that his WRs were getting thrown around by NE and getting no calls. People brag about the 4 INTs but forget about how manhandled the receivers were getting to make those INTs possible. Two years before that the Jets scored 41 points. Two years before that Miami was the number 3 Defense and they still got 17 points which a better Manning still could have won, but beating high powered Oakland that year was unlikely and beating Baltimore was next to impossible. Only in his first year in the playoffs, second year in the league, could the Manning of today have had a chance to get to the Superbowl. They could have beaten the Titans that year with a better Manning, an they could have beaten the Jags. Beating the Rams with with Indy's ranked 17 points allowed defense would have been tricky though, but do-able. Of course I still think that year would have been Buffalo's all the way if Wade Phillips hadn't made the stupidest coaching decision in the history of football and replaced his proven winner with a proven klutz for the playoffs then keep that klutz the next year because you blame the loss on a trick play.
real spit man damn +1
I just wouldnt want Peyton Manning leading me...He hasnt proven it in the big games yet, and yesterday proved my point even more. You make great points tho..This is My opinion...
-
i'm going to make the bold prediction of picking indy over baltimore. i think the colts have momentum going into this game that will carry over. also for some reason i have a feeling that the bye week will hurt the ravens
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
The second INT was a poor decision, the first and third were either blown routes or too much faith in Harrison. The first one Harrison faked outside then went in and Manning bought the fake I guess. The third INT Manning saw the drop back to the inside and knew that there was only an open play to the outside. I guess Harrison didn't see that, or thought Manning would risk throwing over the defense, and went inside. In both cases the ball would have been on target if Harrison moved out instead of in. When a QB and WR play together for so long they get a feel for each other. In this case each guy they felt wrong a couple of times. But in both cases Manning made the right move to the outside because that was the more playable throw and catch. If he threw it inside to Harrison the third INT probably would have been intercepted anyway by the guy that dropped back and the first would have been batted down or in the air. With a lesser receiver Manning may not have made those throws. But with the great Marvin Harrison he put faith in his number 1 guy. And while everyone notices that Manning drops down a notch in the big games no one notices that Harrison drops down as well. Instead we get Manning is choking again and Ty Law praise. Law didn't even have to move to the ball it was thrown right to him twice. Forget Payton under pressure, I wouldn't have made those throws, and I suck. Of course if I thought my golden WR would move that way then I would have. People should study these two guys more and you'll notice that Manning and Harrison make plays like that successfully. In this case it was a mis-read. Manning could have taken a better look at Harrison to know he wasn't going to go outside and Harrison could have looked at the D to realize he had no catch inside. That being said, the second INT was a complete mess and all Manning's fault.
Of course I still think think the Ravens will win, even though I want the Colts. Hope I'm wrong. Harrison doesn't have many years left and he deserves a ring and I don't want Manning to go down like Marino did. (Of course Manning isn't an athletic QB so unless he has a big injury he'll play until he's 40 if he doesn't win and by that time he'll end up leaving to go to a super Defense team and win the Tom Brady way; let the Defense and the O-Line win the games but get the glory, and the perfume commercials.)
You make good points, however you can analyze Peyton's int's all day long, but neway you slice it HE ALWAYS Throws multiple INTS in the playoffs, When that type of shit happens its a mental thing. I saw how Him and Marvin messed up a few times yeah, but hes still throwing ints like he always does, and nobody can deny that. Some of it is in his head. Anybody that cant see that needs to get off Peytons nuts, and stop making excuses for him...
He's only thrown multiple INTs in 3 of his 10 playoff starts and only lost twice so far with multiple INT games. I don't need to be on his nuts to see the stats. The fact remains that when Manning "slumps" in the playoffs his numbers are still slightly better than Brady's when Brady "excels" in the playoffs. Yet because Brady has that solid D and solid line to move the ball he always gets the praise. Indy is an offensive team so right away it's going to be harder to win as a QB because you don't have a strong D to win the game (usually, they did great against KC). If Peyton Manning had moved to Baltimore in 2000, NE in 2001, Tampa in 2002, and NE again in 2003 and 2004, he'd be a 5 years in a row champion and they'd have won pretty easily each Superbowl Game. The point of this is that those teams would have won anyway like they did win, but Manning would have gotten this false praise as Mr. Superbowl. His numbers in the playoffs are still great numbers no matter how you slice it. The problem is that his numbers in the season are on pace to break every record that exists so people hold him to such a high regard that when he drops from amazing to great they think he sucks.
I know Brady is good under pressure and I won't deny that, but everyone knows the majority of his passes are much safer with quick outs to open receivers and screen passes dominating his repertoire. He can still throw the great pass when he does, but if he threw as many risky passes down field as Manning he'd have at least as many INTs. Manning can't play the quick out to the side open man or the screen pass because 1) he doesn't have the O-line to force blitzes and pick them up leaving a guy open with time to throw and block like animals to give the screen more yards. He also doesn't have the Defense to fall back on that will create huge turnovers and score defensive TDs.
In the end, my point is that no QB in the league, not Brady, not McNabb, not Vick, not Favre, would have taken the Colts in any given year to the Superbowl. Last year the Steelers rushed the line so well no one would have found time to make plays. The year before that the Pats D wouldn't let up a play downfield or let anyone get anywhere. The year before that his WRs were getting thrown around by NE and getting no calls. People brag about the 4 INTs but forget about how manhandled the receivers were getting to make those INTs possible. Two years before that the Jets scored 41 points. Two years before that Miami was the number 3 Defense and they still got 17 points which a better Manning still could have won, but beating high powered Oakland that year was unlikely and beating Baltimore was next to impossible. Only in his first year in the playoffs, second year in the league, could the Manning of today have had a chance to get to the Superbowl. They could have beaten the Titans that year with a better Manning, an they could have beaten the Jags. Beating the Rams with with Indy's ranked 17 points allowed defense would have been tricky though, but do-able. Of course I still think that year would have been Buffalo's all the way if Wade Phillips hadn't made the stupidest coaching decision in the history of football and replaced his proven winner with a proven klutz for the playoffs then keep that klutz the next year because you blame the loss on a trick play.
If I could i'd prop you a million times right about now.
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
The second INT was a poor decision, the first and third were either blown routes or too much faith in Harrison. The first one Harrison faked outside then went in and Manning bought the fake I guess. The third INT Manning saw the drop back to the inside and knew that there was only an open play to the outside. I guess Harrison didn't see that, or thought Manning would risk throwing over the defense, and went inside. In both cases the ball would have been on target if Harrison moved out instead of in. When a QB and WR play together for so long they get a feel for each other. In this case each guy they felt wrong a couple of times. But in both cases Manning made the right move to the outside because that was the more playable throw and catch. If he threw it inside to Harrison the third INT probably would have been intercepted anyway by the guy that dropped back and the first would have been batted down or in the air. With a lesser receiver Manning may not have made those throws. But with the great Marvin Harrison he put faith in his number 1 guy. And while everyone notices that Manning drops down a notch in the big games no one notices that Harrison drops down as well. Instead we get Manning is choking again and Ty Law praise. Law didn't even have to move to the ball it was thrown right to him twice. Forget Payton under pressure, I wouldn't have made those throws, and I suck. Of course if I thought my golden WR would move that way then I would have. People should study these two guys more and you'll notice that Manning and Harrison make plays like that successfully. In this case it was a mis-read. Manning could have taken a better look at Harrison to know he wasn't going to go outside and Harrison could have looked at the D to realize he had no catch inside. That being said, the second INT was a complete mess and all Manning's fault.
Of course I still think think the Ravens will win, even though I want the Colts. Hope I'm wrong. Harrison doesn't have many years left and he deserves a ring and I don't want Manning to go down like Marino did. (Of course Manning isn't an athletic QB so unless he has a big injury he'll play until he's 40 if he doesn't win and by that time he'll end up leaving to go to a super Defense team and win the Tom Brady way; let the Defense and the O-Line win the games but get the glory, and the perfume commercials.)
You make good points, however you can analyze Peyton's int's all day long, but neway you slice it HE ALWAYS Throws multiple INTS in the playoffs, When that type of shit happens its a mental thing. I saw how Him and Marvin messed up a few times yeah, but hes still throwing ints like he always does, and nobody can deny that. Some of it is in his head. Anybody that cant see that needs to get off Peytons nuts, and stop making excuses for him...
He's only thrown multiple INTs in 3 of his 10 playoff starts and only lost twice so far with multiple INT games. I don't need to be on his nuts to see the stats. The fact remains that when Manning "slumps" in the playoffs his numbers are still slightly better than Brady's when Brady "excels" in the playoffs. Yet because Brady has that solid D and solid line to move the ball he always gets the praise. Indy is an offensive team so right away it's going to be harder to win as a QB because you don't have a strong D to win the game (usually, they did great against KC). If Peyton Manning had moved to Baltimore in 2000, NE in 2001, Tampa in 2002, and NE again in 2003 and 2004, he'd be a 5 years in a row champion and they'd have won pretty easily each Superbowl Game. The point of this is that those teams would have won anyway like they did win, but Manning would have gotten this false praise as Mr. Superbowl. His numbers in the playoffs are still great numbers no matter how you slice it. The problem is that his numbers in the season are on pace to break every record that exists so people hold him to such a high regard that when he drops from amazing to great they think he sucks.
I know Brady is good under pressure and I won't deny that, but everyone knows the majority of his passes are much safer with quick outs to open receivers and screen passes dominating his repertoire. He can still throw the great pass when he does, but if he threw as many risky passes down field as Manning he'd have at least as many INTs. Manning can't play the quick out to the side open man or the screen pass because 1) he doesn't have the O-line to force blitzes and pick them up leaving a guy open with time to throw and block like animals to give the screen more yards. He also doesn't have the Defense to fall back on that will create huge turnovers and score defensive TDs.
In the end, my point is that no QB in the league, not Brady, not McNabb, not Vick, not Favre, would have taken the Colts in any given year to the Superbowl. Last year the Steelers rushed the line so well no one would have found time to make plays. The year before that the Pats D wouldn't let up a play downfield or let anyone get anywhere. The year before that his WRs were getting thrown around by NE and getting no calls. People brag about the 4 INTs but forget about how manhandled the receivers were getting to make those INTs possible. Two years before that the Jets scored 41 points. Two years before that Miami was the number 3 Defense and they still got 17 points which a better Manning still could have won, but beating high powered Oakland that year was unlikely and beating Baltimore was next to impossible. Only in his first year in the playoffs, second year in the league, could the Manning of today have had a chance to get to the Superbowl. They could have beaten the Titans that year with a better Manning, an they could have beaten the Jags. Beating the Rams with with Indy's ranked 17 points allowed defense would have been tricky though, but do-able. Of course I still think that year would have been Buffalo's all the way if Wade Phillips hadn't made the stupidest coaching decision in the history of football and replaced his proven winner with a proven klutz for the playoffs then keep that klutz the next year because you blame the loss on a trick play.
Thats the same shit Montana did. Short passes, slants, screens, etc...You gonna take anything away from him? People are always looking for ways to dogg Tom Brady, yet these are the same people sticking up for Peyton when he fucks up ::)
-
One more thing, there is always GONNA Be something standing in Peyton's way, one days hes just gonna have to overcome it and get the job done...
-
lol at the people that said I'm a moron for thinking Indy was gonna kill KC today.
If you looked at all the factors before the game, you wouldnt have thought that ;D
But nice call anyways, but this game was the COMPLETE opposite then both teams have played all year..Crazy Game. The Chiefs offense looked scared..The defense was on the field ALL Day but played well nonetheless. LOL@ Peyton Manning..Guys a joke in the playoffs i dont care if he completed 25 passes, he threw 3 pics that were AWFUL. Poor Decisions. The Defense bailed him out, for probably the first time ever in a big game. If he does this shit next week they will get ran the fuck outta there. Why does peyton have mulitple INT games almost ALWAYS in the playoffs, yet NEVER has multiple INT games in the reg season? Cuz its in his head. Hes not a winner, and he gets shook in big games. LOL@ anyone saying Manning is better then Brady, GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK...
The second INT was a poor decision, the first and third were either blown routes or too much faith in Harrison. The first one Harrison faked outside then went in and Manning bought the fake I guess. The third INT Manning saw the drop back to the inside and knew that there was only an open play to the outside. I guess Harrison didn't see that, or thought Manning would risk throwing over the defense, and went inside. In both cases the ball would have been on target if Harrison moved out instead of in. When a QB and WR play together for so long they get a feel for each other. In this case each guy they felt wrong a couple of times. But in both cases Manning made the right move to the outside because that was the more playable throw and catch. If he threw it inside to Harrison the third INT probably would have been intercepted anyway by the guy that dropped back and the first would have been batted down or in the air. With a lesser receiver Manning may not have made those throws. But with the great Marvin Harrison he put faith in his number 1 guy. And while everyone notices that Manning drops down a notch in the big games no one notices that Harrison drops down as well. Instead we get Manning is choking again and Ty Law praise. Law didn't even have to move to the ball it was thrown right to him twice. Forget Payton under pressure, I wouldn't have made those throws, and I suck. Of course if I thought my golden WR would move that way then I would have. People should study these two guys more and you'll notice that Manning and Harrison make plays like that successfully. In this case it was a mis-read. Manning could have taken a better look at Harrison to know he wasn't going to go outside and Harrison could have looked at the D to realize he had no catch inside. That being said, the second INT was a complete mess and all Manning's fault.
Of course I still think think the Ravens will win, even though I want the Colts. Hope I'm wrong. Harrison doesn't have many years left and he deserves a ring and I don't want Manning to go down like Marino did. (Of course Manning isn't an athletic QB so unless he has a big injury he'll play until he's 40 if he doesn't win and by that time he'll end up leaving to go to a super Defense team and win the Tom Brady way; let the Defense and the O-Line win the games but get the glory, and the perfume commercials.)
You make good points, however you can analyze Peyton's int's all day long, but neway you slice it HE ALWAYS Throws multiple INTS in the playoffs, When that type of shit happens its a mental thing. I saw how Him and Marvin messed up a few times yeah, but hes still throwing ints like he always does, and nobody can deny that. Some of it is in his head. Anybody that cant see that needs to get off Peytons nuts, and stop making excuses for him...
He's only thrown multiple INTs in 3 of his 10 playoff starts and only lost twice so far with multiple INT games. I don't need to be on his nuts to see the stats. The fact remains that when Manning "slumps" in the playoffs his numbers are still slightly better than Brady's when Brady "excels" in the playoffs. Yet because Brady has that solid D and solid line to move the ball he always gets the praise. Indy is an offensive team so right away it's going to be harder to win as a QB because you don't have a strong D to win the game (usually, they did great against KC). If Peyton Manning had moved to Baltimore in 2000, NE in 2001, Tampa in 2002, and NE again in 2003 and 2004, he'd be a 5 years in a row champion and they'd have won pretty easily each Superbowl Game. The point of this is that those teams would have won anyway like they did win, but Manning would have gotten this false praise as Mr. Superbowl. His numbers in the playoffs are still great numbers no matter how you slice it. The problem is that his numbers in the season are on pace to break every record that exists so people hold him to such a high regard that when he drops from amazing to great they think he sucks.
I know Brady is good under pressure and I won't deny that, but everyone knows the majority of his passes are much safer with quick outs to open receivers and screen passes dominating his repertoire. He can still throw the great pass when he does, but if he threw as many risky passes down field as Manning he'd have at least as many INTs. Manning can't play the quick out to the side open man or the screen pass because 1) he doesn't have the O-line to force blitzes and pick them up leaving a guy open with time to throw and block like animals to give the screen more yards. He also doesn't have the Defense to fall back on that will create huge turnovers and score defensive TDs.
In the end, my point is that no QB in the league, not Brady, not McNabb, not Vick, not Favre, would have taken the Colts in any given year to the Superbowl. Last year the Steelers rushed the line so well no one would have found time to make plays. The year before that the Pats D wouldn't let up a play downfield or let anyone get anywhere. The year before that his WRs were getting thrown around by NE and getting no calls. People brag about the 4 INTs but forget about how manhandled the receivers were getting to make those INTs possible. Two years before that the Jets scored 41 points. Two years before that Miami was the number 3 Defense and they still got 17 points which a better Manning still could have won, but beating high powered Oakland that year was unlikely and beating Baltimore was next to impossible. Only in his first year in the playoffs, second year in the league, could the Manning of today have had a chance to get to the Superbowl. They could have beaten the Titans that year with a better Manning, an they could have beaten the Jags. Beating the Rams with with Indy's ranked 17 points allowed defense would have been tricky though, but do-able. Of course I still think that year would have been Buffalo's all the way if Wade Phillips hadn't made the stupidest coaching decision in the history of football and replaced his proven winner with a proven klutz for the playoffs then keep that klutz the next year because you blame the loss on a trick play.
real spit man damn +1
I just wouldnt want Peyton Manning leading me...He hasnt proven it in the big games yet, and yesterday proved my point even more. You make great points tho..This is My opinion...
And I understand what you mean, and why a lot of people think that but let's look at the great QBs in the NFL starting from the first Superbowl (the ones who have proven it;
Bart Starr - Superbowl 1 - 16 of 23 for 250 yards with 2TDs and 1 INT
- Superbowl 2 - 13 0f 24 for 202 yards with 1TD
Great performances but not mind boggling. His real feats came in the Ice Bowl despite being sacked 8 times. Starr was a war horse that lead his team to 5 Championships, but remember that Greenbay's Defense was always better then their offense. Something that could never be said for Manning.
Joe Namath - Superbowl 3 - 17 for 28 with 202 yards.
No interception but almost no long passes. People praise Broadway Joe for beating the "unstoppable" Colts but they seem to forget that the Jets kept the Colts to 7 points after Baltimore had just scored 34 against Cleveland in the NFL Championship. And the great Johnny Unitas was hurt all season and only played at the very end of this game. His replacement Morall who played great in the season couldn't put anything up in the Superbowl. Also Unitas in first Superbowl win at Superbowl 5 threw two INTs and fumbled.
Roger Staubach - Superbowl 6 - 12 for 19 with 119 yards.
- Superbowl 12 - 17 for 25 and 183 yards
He won MVP for the first win. Not exactly numbers to die for in either game.
Terry Bradshaw(4 rings) - Superlbowl 9 - 9 for 14 with 96 yards
- Superbowl 10 - 9 for 19 with 209 yards
- Superbowl 13 - 17 for 30 with 318 yards and 1 INT
- Superbowl 14 - 14 for 21 with 309 yards and 3 INTs
I'd day only one of those was an exceptional performance and that was Superbowl 13. Also his offense was also never has strong as the defense in any of his Superbowl wins, and the run and screen passes were high on the repertoire. And the road to the second and third Superbowl wins were plagued with Bradshaw INTs.
Joe Montana - (4 rings) - Superbowl 16 - 14 for 22 with 157 yards
- Superbowl 19 - 24 for 35 with 331 yards (exceptional game)
- Superbowl 23 - 23 for 36 with 357 yards (another great one)
- Superbowl 24 - 22 for 29 with 297 yards (back to back strong showings)
Monatana is certainly one of the very best, but we also have to remember that the fist two wins were plagued with Montana INTs in the playoffs; 4 in the first win and 5 in the second. And they had number 2 and 1 ranked defenses as far as letting points up was concerned. The third was almost thrown away by Montana when he threw an almost INT late in the game but it was dropped by the DB (Lewis Billips). The 4th win was simply stunning. Maybe the greatest overall team in NFL history won that year.
Bret Favre - Superbowl 31 - 14 for 27 with 247 yards.
Decent numbers, but amazing team. Number 1 offense and defense that year. In the playoffs Favre was 11 for 15 with 79 yards in the first game (with two defensive TDs to help win) and 19 for 29 with 292 yards and 1 INT in the second game. And the superbowl game could have went either way until Howard had the kick return TD.
John Elway - Superbowl 32 - 12 for 22 with 123 yards and 1 INT
- Superbowl 3 - 18 for 229 with 336 yards and 1 INT
Both years and both games relied heavily on the amazing lie and running by Terrell Davis. 1750 the first year and 2008 in the second year. 157 yards, 3 TDS and MVP in the first Superbowl, and 102 yards in the second.
I've already talked about Brady so I won't go into him again. I think I have shown that there is a lot of myth behind the great quarterbacks that lead their teams to Superbowls. Starr, Namath, and Bradshaw won with big defensive teams and few pass attempts. Staubach had decent defense but a lot of runners and threw little. Monatana and Favre had great Ds, and Monatana played west coast style with a lot of shot passes make his stats seem a lot higher. None of these QBs have ever had to rely on a big play pass offense as the key to the team. The running is secondary and the defense was never all that great. The first year in the playoffs the Colts were ranked 17th in letting up points. The second year 15th. The year after that year they were the 2nd highest scoring team but ended up 6-10. The next year Dungy came with a new defense and got them as high as 7th. But the year after that it was back down to 20. Then 19th. And this year they are ranked 23rd. Last year is a bit tricky, because they didn't let up many points but they didn't play many winning or high scoring teams either. The handful of offensive teams they did play all scored over 20 points on them. Cinci as high as 37 points. Manning is the only great that had to rely on a pass first defense that wasn't based on screen passes and quick outs and a team that has very questionable Defense more often than not. There is one other QG great that had to face this that I can think of; Dan Marino.
-
One more thing, there is always GONNA Be something standing in Peyton's way, one days hes just gonna have to overcome it and get the job done...
You really think Brady in his prime or Montana in his prime could have taken the Colts to the Superbowl and won with the Colts team and Colts system? Manning is just the QB, and his job is to throw the ball. I'm positive Manning on any of the 49ers or Pats Superbowl teams would have won. I'm not so sure the Colts would have with Montana or Brady.
-
^^ There is no doubt about it. To bad the media never acknowledges this.
-
^^ There is no doubt about it. To bad the media never acknowledges this.
Because the media needs to sell games, and they love the idea of the "struggling" Manning vs the poise of Brady. QBs in general get way too much credit when the teams win and too much blame when they lose. The two most important parts of a great team are the O-Line and the D-Line. If you have the best O-Line in the league you can create time for a mediocre QB to look great, create time for middle of the road route runners to get open, and create holes for any back to run clean through. If you have the best D-Line in the league you can always put pressure on a QB, making him rush the pass, and leaving little time for route runners to finish their routes, and cover up any hole leaving even the greatest back with nowhere to run. You could have Bret Favre '95, Ladanian Tomlinson '06, Jerry Rice '89, Randy Moss '98, and Shannon Sharpe '97 all on the same team, but if you have the worst O-line in the league you aren't going anywhere. The NFL doesn't really acknowledge that because Offensive Tackles aren't stars and can't be promoted. There are other politics too that come from having the right agent and the right friends in the booth. Emmit Smith gets mentioned as one of the very best tens times more than Barry Sanders and anyone that thinks Smith is a better runner than Sanders is an idiot. ESPN did their top guys from each era on a spot for LT this year and they went from Brown to Sayers to Payton to Smith, not even mentioning Sanders.
-
One more thing, there is always GONNA Be something standing in Peyton's way, one days hes just gonna have to overcome it and get the job done...
You really think Brady in his prime or Montana in his prime could have taken the Colts to the Superbowl and won with the Colts team and Colts system? Manning is just the QB, and his job is to throw the ball. I'm positive Manning on any of the 49ers or Pats Superbowl teams would have won. I'm not so sure the Colts would have with Montana or Brady.
who knows? We can speculate all we want, but When the COLTS Lose Peyton throws pics that are very untimely. And Montana and Brady dont. Thats my point...I think Peyton is great, dont get me wrong. Id just rather have Brady in a big game, wheres the crime in that?
-
^^ There is no doubt about it. To bad the media never acknowledges this.
Because the media needs to sell games, and they love the idea of the "struggling" Manning vs the poise of Brady. QBs in general get way too much credit when the teams win and too much blame when they lose. The two most important parts of a great team are the O-Line and the D-Line. If you have the best O-Line in the league you can create time for a mediocre QB to look great, create time for middle of the road route runners to get open, and create holes for any back to run clean through. If you have the best D-Line in the league you can always put pressure on a QB, making him rush the pass, and leaving little time for route runners to finish their routes, and cover up any hole leaving even the greatest back with nowhere to run. You could have Bret Favre '95, Ladanian Tomlinson '06, Jerry Rice '89, Randy Moss '98, and Shannon Sharpe '97 all on the same team, but if you have the worst O-line in the league you aren't going anywhere. The NFL doesn't really acknowledge that because Offensive Tackles aren't stars and can't be promoted. There are other politics too that come from having the right agent and the right friends in the booth. Emmit Smith gets mentioned as one of the very best tens times more than Barry Sanders and anyone that thinks Smith is a better runner than Sanders is an idiot. ESPN did their top guys from each era on a spot for LT this year and they went from Brown to Sayers to Payton to Smith, not even mentioning Sanders.
LOL. Anyone that knows me, knows that i dont judge football off the MEDIA, and i never would! I watch so much football its disgusting, so i make my claims based off what i see..you make many great points. Ill be the first one to say its CRAP that Namath is in the hall of fame, hes really ONE guy that didnt derserve it he trhew more career INTS then TD's and never threw more td's in a season then INTS...HOF MY ASS! But guys like Tom Brady are great and make plays, you cant hold anyting against him because he didnt always have to throw 40 times a game, well niether did Aikman but does that mean he doesnt deserve to be in the HOF either? And last year Peyton had the #1 offense and #3 defense in the NFL and fucked up vs Pitt with 2 pics, NO EXCUSES they should have won it all last year. And yes PITT had a great run game, but how many points did the offense put up? If peyton does throw those pics they dont lose..
we both are gonna argue all day about this. Shallow you make great points as do i...
-
please dont tell me that youre blaming Peyton's losses on a bad O-LINE??? ???
YEAH RIGHT! They just got outcoached and outplayed by Pitt last year, his O-Line was great all year, and its not like he had no time to throw, he just couldnt sit back there ALL Day and throw deep posts to Marvin...
-
1. Montana did throw picks in big games. Quite a few of them. But the team still won. On road to his first Superbowl he threw 1 against the Giants and an INT TD return by SF defensive back Ronnie Lott helped give them the win. Lott had an earlier INT that led to a TD drive as well. Montana then threw 3 picks against Dallas in the next game, but SF won anyway thanks to a key sack and fumble near the end of the game kept Dallas from getting to kick a winning FG (as well as a great tackle before that prevented a Cowboys game winning TD). On route to his next Superbowl Montana threw three picks against the Giants and 2 gainst the Bears. Luckily the teams were held to 10 and 0 points respectively. (Also in the Superbowl that year the 9ers held the Miami powerhouse offense that averaged 32 points a game and never scored less than 21 points in any game of the season to a season low 16 points). Montana then threw some INTs in the next three years during the games they were eliminated in, and didn't go INT free until his '89 run. This was in his 11th year. (Manning's still in his 9th year).
Also, there's no crime in wanting Brady. Go ahead and take him. His team can win with him. I just think that, like I said about McNabb for years, his team can win with out him, like they did when Bledsoe came in for the AFC Championship victory against the Steelers (a game they never should have been in by the way, thanks to the "tuck rule". Three names are the reason for 3 NE Superbowls in my opinion; Belichick, Weiss, and Mangini.
2. I was responding to "The Big Bad Ass" and his post on media. I never said you were duped by the media. I also never said I don't think Aikman or Brady should be left out of the Hall of Fame. I'd vote for both those guys if I was one of the voters. You are losing me with the 2 picks in the Pit game. I don't remember 2 picks. I remember the 1 INT that was wrongfully overturned but not the other two. When were these picks thrown? For the record I'm certain Indy would have won if their O-Line outplayed Pit's D-line. I'm also cxertain they would have won if Nick Harper ran to the outside after the fumble, but all in all Pit outplayed Indy and deserved that win. Snd to answer your question, Pit scored 21 points (14 right off the bat) on the supposed #3 Defense in the league
3. Watch the game again. The O-Line was dismantled by Pittsburgh. 1500 yard runner James could barely get 50 yards in that game, and Manning had less than 3 seconds in the pocket. I know that for a fact because after the first two drives I brought out my stop watch to time each play and 3 seconds was on a good play. The O-line fell apart and the DBs were fooled one too many times on up the middle long passes that gave Pit their first two TDs. According to every sourrce I check (because I was trying to find the two picks you said Manning threw) Manning threw for nearly 300 yards with a TD and no picks that I can see recorded anywhere. I do see that he got sacked 5 times in that game, which is odd since his O-Line was "great all year".
-
1. Montana did throw picks in big games. Quite a few of them. But the team still won. On road to his first Superbowl he threw 1 against the Giants and an INT TD return by SF defensive back Ronnie Lott helped give them the win. Lott had an earlier INT that led to a TD drive as well. Montana then threw 3 picks against Dallas in the next game, but SF won anyway thanks to a key sack and fumble near the end of the game kept Dallas from getting to kick a winning FG (as well as a great tackle before that prevented a Cowboys game winning TD). On route to his next Superbowl Montana threw three picks against the Giants and 2 gainst the Bears. Luckily the teams were held to 10 and 0 points respectively. (Also in the Superbowl that year the 9ers held the Miami powerhouse offense that averaged 32 points a game and never scored less than 21 points in any game of the season to a season low 16 points). Montana then threw some INTs in the next three years during the games they were eliminated in, and didn't go INT free until his '89 run. This was in his 11th year. (Manning's still in his 9th year).
Also, there's no crime in wanting Brady. Go ahead and take him. His team can win with him. I just think that, like I said about McNabb for years, his team can win with out him, like they did when Bledsoe came in for the AFC Championship victory against the Steelers (a game they never should have been in by the way, thanks to the "tuck rule". Three names are the reason for 3 NE Superbowls in my opinion; Belichick, Weiss, and Mangini.
2. I was responding to "The Big Bad Ass" and his post on media. I never said you were duped by the media. I also never said I don't think Aikman or Brady should be left out of the Hall of Fame. I'd vote for both those guys if I was one of the voters. You are losing me with the 2 picks in the Pit game. I don't remember 2 picks. I remember the 1 INT that was wrongfully overturned but not the other two. When were these picks thrown? For the record I'm certain Indy would have won if their O-Line outplayed Pit's D-line. I'm also cxertain they would have won if Nick Harper ran to the outside after the fumble, but all in all Pit outplayed Indy and deserved that win. Snd to answer your question, Pit scored 21 points (14 right off the bat) on the supposed #3 Defense in the league
3. Watch the game again. The O-Line was dismantled by Pittsburgh. 1500 yard runner James could barely get 50 yards in that game, and Manning had less than 3 seconds in the pocket. I know that for a fact because after the first two drives I brought out my stop watch to time each play and 3 seconds was on a good play. The O-line fell apart and the DBs were fooled one too many times on up the middle long passes that gave Pit their first two TDs. According to every sourrce I check (because I was trying to find the two picks you said Manning threw) Manning threw for nearly 300 yards with a TD and no picks that I can see recorded anywhere. I do see that he got sacked 5 times in that game, which is odd since his O-Line was "great all year".
+1
Only giving up 21 pts for the amount of time they were on the field was impressive...
And not giving Brady any credit is obsurd...
-
And of course the Media downplays the people DONT win, like they should. When you are an NFL qb and you dont win, youre gonna get criticized. No team is perfect and there are always gonna be obstacles, but Peyton has had as good of talent as anyone, and still hasnt got it done..
-
I'll take it by your lack of response that the two picks you mentioned didn't exist. Peyton had no time in the pocket which was shown by the 5 sacks. WRs had no time to run routes, yet two great passes and a 2 point conversion by Manning still put them with in 3 points. And Indy would have won by 4 points if Nick Harper ran to the outside.
So 21 points is impressive for a defense, particularly when you take in the fact that the first 14 came the firt 2 or 3 drives? Then Pit sat on the lead and played conservatively while Indy had to take chances to catch up. It wasn't just the 2 TDs they let up, it was the lzy way they defend the up the middle pass. It was done time and again and they didn't do anything to stop it. Pit played the exact same game SD did against Indy and Indy couldn't learn from those mistakes. Manning isn't Superman. 23 comps for 290 yards and no INTs despite being rushed each play and sacked 5 times is as good a performance as any of the greats put up in big games. Much better than a 3 INT game by Montana.
Could you explain to me what you think Brady would have done in that game to make Indy win? He's great at buying time by stepping up into the pocket. Not so much when he has to run around it. There was no pocket to step up into because Pit walked right through the line. The only QB I could see making Pit's D-line look silly and still hit WRs on target is Doug Flutie. And I'll admit right now that the natural athletic talent he had cannot be matched by Manning. I just don't see how Brady would have made plays happen in that game with that team.
And if you really think you can compare Indy's defense last year to any of the Superbowl winning Pats or 9ers defenses then I just don't know what to say to you. 9 of their 16 games were against teams who were 6-10 or lower by the end of the year with 7 of those 9 having offenses not even in the top 20. Of the teams that were winning teams the indy D they averaged about 23 points against per game. Just about tied with the ranked 21 defense of the Detroit Lions. The D was ranked number 2 with points against with 16 per game, and if they could match that against Pit then Indy would have won, but everyone knew after the Cinci game that the D wasn't all is was cracked up to be, and after the SD game that it was not all that great. And that's just points. Really take a look at those teams that Brady, Favre, Aikman, and Montana were on you'll see teams much greater than the Colts.
Lastly, I said I'd vote Brady into the HoF. How is that not giving him any credit?
-
I'll take it by your lack of response that the two picks you mentioned didn't exist. Peyton had no time in the pocket which was shown by the 5 sacks. WRs had no time to run routes, yet two great passes and a 2 point conversion by Manning still put them with in 3 points. And Indy would have won by 4 points if Nick Harper ran to the outside.
So 21 points is impressive for a defense, particularly when you take in the fact that the first 14 came the firt 2 or 3 drives? Then Pit sat on the lead and played conservatively while Indy had to take chances to catch up. It wasn't just the 2 TDs they let up, it was the lzy way they defend the up the middle pass. It was done time and again and they didn't do anything to stop it. Pit played the exact same game SD did against Indy and Indy couldn't learn from those mistakes. Manning isn't Superman. 23 comps for 290 yards and no INTs despite being rushed each play and sacked 5 times is as good a performance as any of the greats put up in big games. Much better than a 3 INT game by Montana.
Could you explain to me what you think Brady would have done in that game to make Indy win? He's great at buying time by stepping up into the pocket. Not so much when he has to run around it. There was no pocket to step up into because Pit walked right through the line. The only QB I could see making Pit's D-line look silly and still hit WRs on target is Doug Flutie. And I'll admit right now that the natural athletic talent he had cannot be matched by Manning. I just don't see how Brady would have made plays happen in that game with that team.
And if you really think you can compare Indy's defense last year to any of the Superbowl winning Pats or 9ers defenses then I just don't know what to say to you. 9 of their 16 games were against teams who were 6-10 or lower by the end of the year with 7 of those 9 having offenses not even in the top 20. Of the teams that were winning teams the indy D they averaged about 23 points against per game. Just about tied with the ranked 21 defense of the Detroit Lions. The D was ranked number 2 with points against with 16 per game, and if they could match that against Pit then Indy would have won, but everyone knew after the Cinci game that the D wasn't all is was cracked up to be, and after the SD game that it was not all that great. And that's just points. Really take a look at those teams that Brady, Favre, Aikman, and Montana were on you'll see teams much greater than the Colts.
Lastly, I said I'd vote Brady into the HoF. How is that not giving him any credit?
LOL!!!! Yeah he did! Watch the game!! I dont need to write an Essay for every response doggy. Anybody that knows me knows i know my shit..I write long comments when needed. We are going into circles with our arguments...
And about not giving brady credit you said 3 guys were the reason for the title
MANGINI, WEIS, AND BELLICHECK
NOT BRADY...thats how you gave him no credit. Ive agreed with alot of what you said. But this Peyton argument aint ever gonna end. So im not trying to keep arguing.
-
I'll take it by your lack of response that the two picks you mentioned didn't exist. Peyton had no time in the pocket which was shown by the 5 sacks. WRs had no time to run routes, yet two great passes and a 2 point conversion by Manning still put them with in 3 points. And Indy would have won by 4 points if Nick Harper ran to the outside.
So 21 points is impressive for a defense, particularly when you take in the fact that the first 14 came the firt 2 or 3 drives? Then Pit sat on the lead and played conservatively while Indy had to take chances to catch up. It wasn't just the 2 TDs they let up, it was the lzy way they defend the up the middle pass. It was done time and again and they didn't do anything to stop it. Pit played the exact same game SD did against Indy and Indy couldn't learn from those mistakes. Manning isn't Superman. 23 comps for 290 yards and no INTs despite being rushed each play and sacked 5 times is as good a performance as any of the greats put up in big games. Much better than a 3 INT game by Montana.
Could you explain to me what you think Brady would have done in that game to make Indy win? He's great at buying time by stepping up into the pocket. Not so much when he has to run around it. There was no pocket to step up into because Pit walked right through the line. The only QB I could see making Pit's D-line look silly and still hit WRs on target is Doug Flutie. And I'll admit right now that the natural athletic talent he had cannot be matched by Manning. I just don't see how Brady would have made plays happen in that game with that team.
And if you really think you can compare Indy's defense last year to any of the Superbowl winning Pats or 9ers defenses then I just don't know what to say to you. 9 of their 16 games were against teams who were 6-10 or lower by the end of the year with 7 of those 9 having offenses not even in the top 20. Of the teams that were winning teams the indy D they averaged about 23 points against per game. Just about tied with the ranked 21 defense of the Detroit Lions. The D was ranked number 2 with points against with 16 per game, and if they could match that against Pit then Indy would have won, but everyone knew after the Cinci game that the D wasn't all is was cracked up to be, and after the SD game that it was not all that great. And that's just points. Really take a look at those teams that Brady, Favre, Aikman, and Montana were on you'll see teams much greater than the Colts.
Lastly, I said I'd vote Brady into the HoF. How is that not giving him any credit?
of course not but u cant compare the Pats OFFENSE to the Colts either, so it goes both ways...
-
Could you atleast show me some stats that say he threw two INTs? Both Fox Sports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/69814 ) and Pro-Football reference ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm ) show know INTs thrown by Manning against the Steelers. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying both my memory and htese websites are in agreement. Could you show me a site or sourxe that shows the INTS. You don't need to write essays, but I asked a question and you didn't answer so I figured you may not have had one.
I think the Pats offense can easily be compared to the Colts. NE would get as much yards rushing among there rotating backs, and in 2004 Dillon had more yards than James. I don't need stats to show that the NE O-Line is far better than Indy's. BRady may not put uup the same numbers as Manning but the passing yards are still very high.
I didn't mention Brady because I didn't mention any player. If I were to mention players I'd put guys like Harrison, Seymour and Izzo above Brady. Like I showed, NE could win an AFC conference game with out Brady.
-
+1 Well end it wit that!
I dont need to get in the last word, im glad i have someone to talk football with on here besides jacob or sparegizzl and Jat.. :raisetheroof: :cheers:
-
Could you atleast show me some stats that say he threw two INTs? Both Fox Sports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/69814 ) and Pro-Football reference ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm ) show know INTs thrown by Manning against the Steelers. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying both my memory and htese websites are in agreement. Could you show me a site or sourxe that shows the INTS. You don't need to write essays, but I asked a question and you didn't answer so I figured you may not have had one.
I think the Pats offense can easily be compared to the Colts. NE would get as much yards rushing among there rotating backs, and in 2004 Dillon had more yards than James. I don't need stats to show that the NE O-Line is far better than Indy's. BRady may not put uup the same numbers as Manning but the passing yards are still very high.
I didn't mention Brady because I didn't mention any player. If I were to mention players I'd put guys like Harrison, Seymour and Izzo above Brady. Like I showed, NE could win an AFC conference game with out Brady.
I think the biggest diffrence between the Colts and Pats offense would be that the Pats throw shorter passes and dont have the big play capability of the Colts, wouldnt you agree? Plus the Colts could never run the ball like the Pats. But they have 2 different style of offenses that are perfect for each qb!
-
For the record I have no desire in getting you to say Manning is better than BRady. To each his own. I'm just expressing my opinions on football.
Could you atleast show me some stats that say he threw two INTs? Both Fox Sports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/69814 ) and Pro-Football reference ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm ) show know INTs thrown by Manning against the Steelers. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying both my memory and htese websites are in agreement. Could you show me a site or sourxe that shows the INTS. You don't need to write essays, but I asked a question and you didn't answer so I figured you may not have had one.
I think the Pats offense can easily be compared to the Colts. NE would get as much yards rushing among there rotating backs, and in 2004 Dillon had more yards than James. I don't need stats to show that the NE O-Line is far better than Indy's. BRady may not put uup the same numbers as Manning but the passing yards are still very high.
I didn't mention Brady because I didn't mention any player. If I were to mention players I'd put guys like Harrison, Seymour and Izzo above Brady. Like I showed, NE could win an AFC conference game with out Brady.
I think the biggest diffrence between the Colts and Pats offense would be that the Pats throw shorter passes and dont have the big play capability of the Colts, wouldnt you agree? Plus the Colts could never run the ball like the Pats. But they have 2 different style of offenses that are perfect for each qb!
I agree that the offenses are different. I just meant that if I had to choose between offenses I wouldn't mind getting stuck with the Pats if the Colts were taken. But I'd avoid the Colts D a lot more than I would the Pats D. It's a very different system in both teams. Belichick works with a system that relies on the defense to keep the game in control and a very well paced offense. While the Colts rely on an offense to put up points early and force the other team to take chances. When the Colts don't put up two or three TDs right away they have a hard time. Sometimes they step up in the 4th and win, and sometimes they don't. With NE style they are more consistent because it's a much more practical system, and I greatly would have preferred if Indy had spent the last 6 years building a Defense that you can work around like that. Bob Sanders is a good start but it should have started years ago. It's less likely for a power defense and strong O-line pushing offense to break down than it is for a speed defense and gunslinging offense to break down. I can only imagine what would have happened if the Ravens had lost a few more games in '97 and picked up Manning in '98. He would have had atleast 1 Superbowl ring for sure, maybe 2 or 3.
-
For the record I have no desire in getting you to say Manning is better than BRady. To each his own. I'm just expressing my opinions on football.
Could you atleast show me some stats that say he threw two INTs? Both Fox Sports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/69814 ) and Pro-Football reference ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm ) show know INTs thrown by Manning against the Steelers. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying both my memory and htese websites are in agreement. Could you show me a site or sourxe that shows the INTS. You don't need to write essays, but I asked a question and you didn't answer so I figured you may not have had one.
I think the Pats offense can easily be compared to the Colts. NE would get as much yards rushing among there rotating backs, and in 2004 Dillon had more yards than James. I don't need stats to show that the NE O-Line is far better than Indy's. BRady may not put uup the same numbers as Manning but the passing yards are still very high.
I didn't mention Brady because I didn't mention any player. If I were to mention players I'd put guys like Harrison, Seymour and Izzo above Brady. Like I showed, NE could win an AFC conference game with out Brady.
I think the biggest diffrence between the Colts and Pats offense would be that the Pats throw shorter passes and dont have the big play capability of the Colts, wouldnt you agree? Plus the Colts could never run the ball like the Pats. But they have 2 different style of offenses that are perfect for each qb!
I agree that the offenses are different. I just meant that if I had to choose between offenses I wouldn't mind getting stuck with the Pats if the Colts were taken. But I'd avoid the Colts D a lot more than I would the Pats D. It's a very different system in both teams. Belichick works with a system that relies on the defense to keep the game in control and a very well paced offense. While the Colts rely on an offense to put up points early and force the other team to take chances. When the Colts don't put up two or three TDs right away they have a hard time. Sometimes they step up in the 4th and win, and sometimes they don't. With NE style they are more consistent because it's a much more practical system, and I greatly would have preferred if Indy had spent the last 6 years building a Defense that you can work around like that. Bob Sanders is a good start but it should have started years ago. It's less likely for a power defense and strong O-line pushing offense to break down than it is for a speed defense and gunslinging offense to break down. I can only imagine what would have happened if the Ravens had lost a few more games in '97 and picked up Manning in '98. He would have had atleast 1 Superbowl ring for sure, maybe 2 or 3.
I agree with everything you said. I like Bob Sanders alot and you can tell how much of a difference he had on stopping the run game, since he was healty last week against KC. I thought he was the biggest difference on defense for the Colts in stopping the run against NE, he was in on every fuckin tackle against the run it seemed like and 30-40 percent of the time he was the first one there. Him staying in the lineup for the Colts will be huge next year. Great defenes usually have a great safety almost always! Dawkins, Ed Reed, Etc...Maybe pick up a few more lb's or dl and there defense should be much improved with Sanders healthy..
-
Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.
-
Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.
I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.
-
Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.
I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.
exactly! The only thing we do know is what has happened. And Superbowls Brady=3 Manning=0 all factors aside..But yeah this argument could go on for days..
And i dont believe that you dont need a good Qb stuff, Trent Dilfer was good, not great but good. Hostetler was good for that run, Brad Johnson went to the pro bowl...Joe Namath was garbage, but shit hes in the HOF
-
Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.
I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.
exactly! The only thing we do know is what has happened. And Superbowls Brady=3 Manning=0 all factors aside..But yeah this argument could go on for days..
And i dont believe that you dont need a good Qb stuff, Trent Dilfer was good, not great but good. Hostetler was good for that run, Brad Johnson went to the pro bowl...Joe Namath was garbage, but shit hes in the HOF
Anyone that makes an NFL starting roster is a good QB. Baltimore had 2 QBs that year and both were in the bottom of the list that year for QBs. Banks went on to Washington and put up terrible numbers (among trhe lowest in the league for a starter), and Dilfer went on to second string in Seattle. If he was a good NFL QB that lead a team to the Superbowl you'd think 1) he'd be baack the next year, and 2) he'd atleast start a season on the next team he went to. Grossman has not so great numbers yet his team went 13-3, and Kyle Orton had worse numbers last year and they still went 13-3. Hostetler wasn't hardly good for that run. He only got to start because Simms was out, and of the 3 playoff games he played only the 1 against Buffalo did he have even decent numbers. They held Chicago to 3 points. They beat SF with 5 FGs (no TDs) and 4 of them were long field goals. And when he came back to start the next year the Giants finished 8-8, and the year after that 6-10. He did much better in LA with numbers but couldn't get through the Bills. and after that he never saw the playoffs again.
-
Theres absolutely no way that Matt Cassell could come in and take over Bradys job in a conference game, your kidding me right. Brady has excellent pocket presence and mechanics. This can go both ways, and can argued forever like the Montana/Marino argument.
I never said any QB could walk into NE and win AFC conference games. That being said I will not say anything bacd about Cassel because I simply don't know. No one would have said Brady would have done anything when he was backing Bledsoe. So I wouldn't be shocked if Brady went down and Cassel stepped up because if Belichick picked him he may be worth something. My point originally was with regards to Bledsoe. He was winning conference championships going to the Superbowl in the NE system (and did it once before in a very similar NE system with Parcells), and look what happened when he left that system 5 years and no playoffs and only one season over 500 with a 9-7. Of course if Rex Grossman can take a defensive powerhouse like the Bears to 13-3 seasons, and Tret Dilfer can win Superbowl rings, than who's to say even Rob Johnson couldn't have started for atleast 1 NE Superbowl season. If you have the line and have the Defense you don't need a good QB. I'm telling you right now that I could have been the QB for Baltimore's playoff run in 2000 and they still would have won a Superbowl.
exactly! The only thing we do know is what has happened. And Superbowls Brady=3 Manning=0 all factors aside..But yeah this argument could go on for days..
And i dont believe that you dont need a good Qb stuff, Trent Dilfer was good, not great but good. Hostetler was good for that run, Brad Johnson went to the pro bowl...Joe Namath was garbage, but shit hes in the HOF
Anyone that makes an NFL starting roster is a good QB. Baltimore had 2 QBs that year and both were in the bottom of the list that year for QBs. Banks went on to Washington and put up terrible numbers (among trhe lowest in the league for a starter), and Dilfer went on to second string in Seattle. If he was a good NFL QB that lead a team to the Superbowl you'd think 1) he'd be baack the next year, and 2) he'd atleast start a season on the next team he went to. Grossman has not so great numbers yet his team went 13-3, and Kyle Orton had worse numbers last year and they still went 13-3. Hostetler wasn't hardly good for that run. He only got to start because Simms was out, and of the 3 playoff games he played only the 1 against Buffalo did he have even decent numbers. They held Chicago to 3 points. They beat SF with 5 FGs (no TDs) and 4 of them were long field goals. And when he came back to start the next year the Giants finished 8-8, and the year after that 6-10. He did much better in LA with numbers but couldn't get through the Bills. and after that he never saw the playoffs again.
Yeah but niether Dilfer nor Hostetler cost there team. Dude you cant hate on Dilfer he was very solid during that whole run and even made plays in the Superbowl, he had like a 50 yd td pass early in the game..Hostetler wasnt the best example but he did go on to get a starting job for a few years, so thats saying something ;D
-
yeah but about Grossman, hes had BAD Games, but hes had GREAT Games so it evens out. He still threw 25 td passes and over 3000 yds, when they went off on offense this year Grossman was the Catalyst..
-
Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.
In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.
-
Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.
In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.
oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense >:(
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...
-
Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.
In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.
oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense >:(
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...
Taking something away from someone is not the same as saying they are not nearly as good as Manning. You want to say Brady, fine. I stongly disagree but atleast there has been a lot of evidence to support how great he is. To say a guy like Dilfer is even in Manning's league is just absurd. It's like saying Antowain Smith with his 2 superbowl wins is better than Barry Sanders because he got the job done in big games and Barry never won a Superbowl. Are you really going to sit here and say you'd take Dilfer on your team before Manning?
And Mike Tyson did fight a lot of junk coming up, but it's not like he avoided a whole class to make sure he won. He fought whatever Heavyweight they pout infront him. He could have tried a hand at Foreman when Foreman came back but that was a lose/lose business decision for Boxing. Tyson wins, and he beat an old man. Tyson loses and an old man beat him. Either way Boxing would lose a big draw. I don't call Tyson the best ever, but I won't say he avoided big fights.
-
Im gonna pick my Colts I think there gonna win by a field goal Adam V. gonna take care of it.
-
Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.
In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.
oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense >:(
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...
Taking something away from someone is not the same as saying they are not nearly as good as Manning. You want to say Brady, fine. I stongly disagree but atleast there has been a lot of evidence to support how great he is. To say a guy like Dilfer is even in Manning's league is just absurd. It's like saying Antowain Smith with his 2 superbowl wins is better than Barry Sanders because he got the job done in big games and Barry never won a Superbowl. Are you really going to sit here and say you'd take Dilfer on your team before Manning?
And Mike Tyson did fight a lot of junk coming up, but it's not like he avoided a whole class to make sure he won. He fought whatever Heavyweight they pout infront him. He could have tried a hand at Foreman when Foreman came back but that was a lose/lose business decision for Boxing. Tyson wins, and he beat an old man. Tyson loses and an old man beat him. Either way Boxing would lose a big draw. I don't call Tyson the best ever, but I won't say he avoided big fights.
whoa whoa whoa, i never ever ever put Dilfer in Mannings league. I just said he was good the year they won the SB, and you cant deny that. And comparing Antwan Smith to Barry Sanders is different then Brady vs Manning and you know it. Brady has the record for completions is a SB (32) so he is winning games for his team...
-
Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.
In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.
oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense >:(
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...
Taking something away from someone is not the same as saying they are not nearly as good as Manning. You want to say Brady, fine. I stongly disagree but atleast there has been a lot of evidence to support how great he is. To say a guy like Dilfer is even in Manning's league is just absurd. It's like saying Antowain Smith with his 2 superbowl wins is better than Barry Sanders because he got the job done in big games and Barry never won a Superbowl. Are you really going to sit here and say you'd take Dilfer on your team before Manning?
And Mike Tyson did fight a lot of junk coming up, but it's not like he avoided a whole class to make sure he won. He fought whatever Heavyweight they pout infront him. He could have tried a hand at Foreman when Foreman came back but that was a lose/lose business decision for Boxing. Tyson wins, and he beat an old man. Tyson loses and an old man beat him. Either way Boxing would lose a big draw. I don't call Tyson the best ever, but I won't say he avoided big fights.
whoa whoa whoa, i never ever ever put Dilfer in Mannings league. I just said he was good the year they won the SB, and you cant deny that. And comparing Antwan Smith to Barry Sanders is different then Brady vs Manning and you know it. Brady has the record for completions is a SB (32) so he is winning games for his team...
Sorry, I thought you were trying to say Dilfer could do what Maning couldn't because he won the big one, and just about everyone should agree that Manning on that same Superbowl team would have still equaled a Superbowl win. I think he was okay the year they won. He never had a full chance. Remember they were rotating QBs that year. But even in the playoffs they were beating teams like the Titans 24-10 with only 5 completions from Dilfer. When you are 5 for 16 in the NFL playoffs I tend to hold off using the word good.
And I wasn't saying Brady is like Antowain. Remember I just think Manning is better. I still think Brady is Hall of Fame material and a top 3 QB. I was comparing Smith to guys like Hostetler and Brad Johnson. Decent players but clearly not at the elite level reserved for players like Barry Sanders.
-
Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.
In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.
oh thats not fair, you cant take away what someone does because of there defense >:(
What superbowl team hasnt had a good to great defense?
In that case take away what Mike Tyson has done too, because he has never really beat a good fighter he was fighting in such a weak era...
Taking something away from someone is not the same as saying they are not nearly as good as Manning. You want to say Brady, fine. I stongly disagree but atleast there has been a lot of evidence to support how great he is. To say a guy like Dilfer is even in Manning's league is just absurd. It's like saying Antowain Smith with his 2 superbowl wins is better than Barry Sanders because he got the job done in big games and Barry never won a Superbowl. Are you really going to sit here and say you'd take Dilfer on your team before Manning?
And Mike Tyson did fight a lot of junk coming up, but it's not like he avoided a whole class to make sure he won. He fought whatever Heavyweight they pout infront him. He could have tried a hand at Foreman when Foreman came back but that was a lose/lose business decision for Boxing. Tyson wins, and he beat an old man. Tyson loses and an old man beat him. Either way Boxing would lose a big draw. I don't call Tyson the best ever, but I won't say he avoided big fights.
whoa whoa whoa, i never ever ever put Dilfer in Mannings league. I just said he was good the year they won the SB, and you cant deny that. And comparing Antwan Smith to Barry Sanders is different then Brady vs Manning and you know it. Brady has the record for completions is a SB (32) so he is winning games for his team...
Sorry, I thought you were trying to say Dilfer could do what Maning couldn't because he won the big one, and just about everyone should agree that Manning on that same Superbowl team would have still equaled a Superbowl win. I think he was okay the year they won. He never had a full chance. Remember they were rotating QBs that year. But even in the playoffs they were beating teams like the Titans 24-10 with only 5 completions from Dilfer. When you are 5 for 16 in the NFL playoffs I tend to hold off using the word good.
And I wasn't saying Brady is like Antowain. Remember I just think Manning is better. I still think Brady is Hall of Fame material and a top 3 QB. I was comparing Smith to guys like Hostetler and Brad Johnson. Decent players but clearly not at the elite level reserved for players like Barry Sanders.
good points, and no Hostetler wasnt anything special and Brad wasnt HOF good, but Brad Johnson did start in the pro bowl during that SB run, and he made plays..
-
Dilfer, Hostetler, and Grossman have different objectives than Manning. Manning is supposed to win the game for the team, as opposed to just don't lose the game. He has to take risks that those three don't. It'd be real nice if Manning could throw 12 for 25 for 150 yards and win a superbowl, or 9 for 18 for 190 and an INT and win the AFC Championship. But he cannot. For Indy the way the team is built Manning could go 22 for 30 with 300 yards 3 TD passes no INTs and have the game be close till the end. I can't imagine Dilfer or Grossman having to engineer 5 TD drives as a necessity. I could see the D of both those teams getting 5 TD returns before I could ever see Dilfer doing it.
In my opinion a QB on a team with a defense that owns every part of the field is like a light heavyweight boxer who is protected in a weak division. They can still be great boxers but we don't know what they're really made of until they step up and win the heavyweight wars. Will they end up like Holyfield and make a real mark against the big boys,or will they show up for one goofy fight and then step back like Roy Jones. Jones is great for the division he's in. Maybe the best. But everyone that knows boxing knows that if he had to step up and fight Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson he'd get killed. Manning has to fight Lewis more often than he doesn't. He doesn't have the luxury of being protected with fights against ex-police officers.
;D
Saturday he was 15 of 30 for 175 and 2 ints..Even the "Great" Peyton Manning can get a great defensive performance sometimes, thats 5 INTS in 2 weeks! But the defense has only given up 14 pts, the Colts are in the AFC Championship because of the defense and running game NOT because of Peyton Manning..