The punter isn't pinning them back an additional 10-15 yards. Second you have no way of knowing that he wouldn't have found a 2nd reciever open becasue the back side TE missed his block which gave no time for Manning once his initial receiver was covered. You say all he needs to do is lead his team to a first down. He was trying to do that but now you are saying he should have thrown the ball away which would have not gotten them a first down. And around and around we go.
We have no idea wher he punts the ball if the ball is at the 9 BUT he would have had much more room to punt. Just using the additional 8 yds they lost PLUS the extra 4-5 yds he has to punt that right there is 12-13 yds and w/ the extra room he may have been able to get more into it as he wouldn't have been rushing. That's a huge difference. His job is to get the 1st down and win the game, he didn't do it. He then needs to make a qucik decision to give his D the best chance to succeed and he didn't do that. Everything is to black and white w/ you, stop playing Madden.
Stop playing Madden? :rofl: You've claimed I use fantasy stats in the past and now you claim I use Madden as the basis for my arguments. Enough with the personal attacks and stick to the argument. Stop blaming Manning for everything. He had time for one look. It wasn't there so he pulled the ball down and got sacked immediately after. You make a black and white statement then claim everything is black and white to me.
So it's ok for you to throw digs in but not me? Your argument is asinine, everything is black and white. For you to compare Brady '01 vs. oak to manning '08 vs. SD is ludicrous. To compare the INts of warner to what manning did is ludicrous. I don't blame Manning for everything but he has to lead his team to a 1st down and if not he cannot have his P punting from the back of the EZ. That's why they lost(that and he couldn't lead his high powered O to more points throughout the 2nd half- just like the other night!)
What digs? Don't lie. The INTs of Warner and Manning resulted in points for the other team. I see you had no problem mentioning it earlier when you posted about Manning's 2006 AFCCG performance. He has to lead them to a first down, but the backside TE has to make that block so he can get to his second reciever. The defense has to stop the Chargers offense from getting into FG range. The defense has to get the ball back for the offense in OT. Do you see how this works? It's not about one player. But because of your bias against Manning you don't see that.
W/ the "you can't make this stuff up" comments and things like that. Suck it up, you know I like you. Don't take anything personal. i'm not calling you an idiot or making fun of your dog. I mentioned the Manning INT in '06 b/c that was the first time he came through in a big spot in the title game. i gave him credit for overcoming that and stated a fact that they wouldn't have needed it if he didn't play so poorly in the 1st half- it wasn't just the INT for TD as he led them to 6 pts in the 1st half. He's smart enough to realize he has to make a very quick decision on that play. time wasn't the biggest factor w/ SD having already used their TOs. He did a bad job not leading them to the 1st down then did a bad job taking the sack. The only person here w/ a bias is you w/ Brady. I give Manning credit when he deserves, you don't do that w/ Brady. It's always someone else that deserves the credit when it comes to Brady.
Elway- First 14 seasons- 7-7 post season, 3 Super Bowl losses, two ghastly performances, no rings. Manning- First 12 seasons- 9-9 post-season, 1 Super Bowl win, 1 Super Bowl loss, 1 Super Bowl MVP. The difference is, when Elway did that, everyone made every excuse in the book for him. When Manning does it, he's lambasted as a choker. Elway might not have had the best talent, but it's pretty clear that he didn't do much to make that talent any better. Besides that, I made no other mention of those guys in your initial post. I didn't see Staubach or Bradshaw play, but you can't argue with the sheer number of Super Bowls they've won. I think they all belong in the conversation. On Aikman, you can. Aikman has some of the most mediocre numbers despite playing for one of the most talented teams in NFL history. It's almost a crime he's in Canton. -X-
In that 7-7 he led 3 teams to the SB that had no business making a SB. he won 2 playoff games 3 straight apps, manning has never won 2 playoff games in 2 straight playoff apps. manning has gone one and done 6 times already, Elway did it 4 times his entire career. Elway lost 2 home playoff games in his career, manning has already lost 3. Elway finished off w/ a 7 game postseason win streak. manning has won playoff games in back to back postseason just ONCE. By the way, before Elway won those 2 SBs he was labeled a choker and that was wrong b/c he took mediocre teams to SBs. I would definitely take Elway over Manning, I don't think it's even close.
This is a monster fallacy. In 1984 the Broncos had the 10th ranked running game. In 1987 they were 12th. 6th in 1989. 1991 they were 8th. For the most part, they were around league average, sometimes slightly above, sometimes slightly below. That they were never dominant shouldn't be a credit for Elway, because it's not as if they were consistently awful. Elway came into the league and had Steve Watson and Vance Johnson. Watson had a short, but solid prime. Johnson and Mark Jackson were inconsistent, but it's not like these guys didn't belong in the NFL. Moreover, Denver had a top 10 defense in 5 of his first 10 seasons. This cult of Elway is specifically because he made some very exciting plays. He was a great pressure quarterback, but he put himself in those situations with his shoddy decision making oftentimes. He definitely has some great moments, but his overall averageness thru most of his career keeps him out of the discussion. -X-
One of the reasons their run game was ranked higher than we'd think is b/c Elway could run. In '87 they averaged 3.9 YPC overall but take out Elway's # and replacement #s and their RBs ran it 330 times for 1268 yds and 3.8 YPC In 1991 minus Elway they ran it 442 times for 1702 yds, 3.8 YPC They were average running teams at best. Steve Watson was heading into the twilight of his career w/ Elway and while he was decent he wasn't Reggie wayne or Marvin Harrison. I agree w/ some of what yuo write as I don't have Elway top 5 but he was still a top 10 at worset and I don't have a problem w/ someone putting him in the top 5 like I do if someone put manning, Favre or Young in the top 5.
They never had a running game for Elway until 1995 when Terrell Davis got there. Sure they had a few bursts with Winder, Humphrey and Gaston Green but it wasn't much to write home about. The following is the rushing YPA 1985 - 3.7 1986 - 3.7 1987 - 3.9 1988 - 3.8 1989 - 3.8 1990 - 4.1 1991 - 4.0 1992 - 3.7 1993 - 3.6 1994 - 3.4 1995 - 4.5 1996 - 4.5 1997 - 4.6 1998 - 4.7 Those numbers include Elway's rushing stats. Elway was a great scrambler. Not just getting positive yards on the run but also buying him time to throw. Elway's GW/tying drives are legendary. His 1986 AFCCG drive to tie the game was a thing of beauty. Only matched by his 1991 AFCDG drive against the Oilers. The drive he led in the 3rd Qtr against the Packers in SB XXXII was also a thing of beauty (this is the drive where he dives for the first down and gets spun around).
In 1986, the Broncos had a top five run defense. They didn't run the ball well, but they weren't incredibly subpar. They had the 14th ranked scoring defense, which is league average. They sacked the quarterback 49 times, which was also top ten, in a season when the AFC as a whole was vastly inferior to the NFC. Elway beat the New England Patriots(16th total defense), Cleveland Browns(19th total defense) in the playoffs. What happened against the Giants was fairly predictable considering the competition they faced all year, but they were the class of a very subpar AFC on defense, and that's a large part of why they got there. In 1987 the Broncos overall defensive numbers weren't great, but they had the 7th ranked scoring defense and 9th ranked rushing defense. They were 12th in the league running the football, 6th in the AFC, so again, it's not like we're talking below average running game and below average defense. So this white knight image slowly fades.... oh, and in 1989, the Broncos had the NFL'S NUMBER ONE SCORING DEFENSE. NUMBER ONE. CAPPED BY A TOP TEN RUSHING DEFENSE. THEY WERE TOP FIVE IN SACKS!!! And they had a TOP TEN RUNNING GAME. 6th. 4th best overall in the AFC. So I'm wondering about how they had no business being in the Super Bowl that year, and how Elway's 18 TD-18 INT were more responsible than a top five defense for getting them there. I will give you the point about Elway and Manning with the one and dones, but Manning has also gotten his team there far more often than Elway, and he's got two more years to pile up even more wins and improve his record. -X-
Those numbers that you quote don't look good in context, but quite often they were around league average, or just below. Oftentimes they were amongst the best in the league, during a period of vast AFC inferiority. And that also doesn't account for the above average defense s during their Super Bowl years. -X-
he's fucking amazing, he wins game, after game, after game, after game. his receiver telegraphs the route and people wanna call him a choker???? don't we both fans wish we had manning on our team? the colts are the bills without manning, to me he's the best ever.
Those #s look nice but: 1986: Raiders: Marcus Allen 3.6 YPC for the season Chiefs: Mike Pruitt 3.2 YPC SD: Gary Anderson & Curtis Adamas 3.5 and 3.1 Seattle was the only div opponent who had a good running game that year so that will help the rush yds against #. They were 15th in PA in 1986 which was in the lower half of the league In '87, against Seattle was the only comptenet team finsihing 6th in points scored but the other 3 teams finished 17, 23 and 27- that will help a defensive #. In 1989: div opps ranked 18, 17, 23 and 27. In their 8 non div games they faced an average ranking of 12 and inclduing div and non div opps they faced an average ranking of 16- there were only 28 teams back then. In postseason against the 24th ranked Steelers they allowed 23 as Bubby Brister was tearing them apart. Then they faced the 14th ranked scoring O against Cle and allowed 21 pts. They faced both those teams in the reg season- in those 2 games their D allowed 23 pts total, in the 2 postseason games they allowed 44. reg season rankings are nice but if you can't do it in the big spot I'm not impressed. The rush O was ranked in the top 10 in yards but they were number THREE in attempts! that's not impressive, their RBs ran it 486 times for 1800 yds for a 3.7 YPC. Reg season rankings don't mean too much to me. In the playoffs w/ Manning the Indy D has allowed 338 pts in regulation in 18 games for an average of 18.8 per game while the Den D in postseason w/ Elway allowed 502 in reg in 22 games for an average of 22.9 PPG.
Junc never fails to amuse me. He's a Manning hater. His arguments are boring. Manning sucks because the Colts lost Super Bowl III and because he wore purple underwear on his 27th birthday and because Dan Marino played for Pitt. He only discusses what he wants to discuss which are rarely facts when it comes to this subject. Don't get dragged into his pigpen.
Do you EVER contribute to a discussion? Just stay out of these discussions, knowledgable fans are trying to discuss issues. When you learn a thing or two about this game and can intelligently discuss please come back and contribute.
:rofl: Jeez, don't cry. It'll be ok. I've made my points 100 times over, but you don't like arguing facts. When you become a knowledgable fan I'll quit bothering you. This might be a while. :drunk:
You bring nothing to a discussion, I have PROVEN my point ovber and over about manning and that was before he cost his team a chance to win the SB- that just reinforced everything I have said about him for years but he does have a high QB rating and he did throw alot of TDs in the regs season so to folks like you who only judge players based on fantasy #s he's the greatest. You can have that opinion, I'd just like to see you make some valid points instead of criticizing others who make valid points. Just bring something to a discussion- ANYTHING.
And you REALLY think people take you serious? How many times we gonna go over this? Anytime anybody makes a valid point that hurts it your argument, you omit it from the discussion or call it "fantasy numbers." You argue to argue, not because you have a valid point. I've tried to discuss things with you, as has about everybody else on this board, but you're an irrational know-it-all who can’t be wrong. So, why bother. I'd rather just sit back and throw in random commentary and advisories when you're talking out of your ass...which is often.
