He also posts like this on a Dolphins board from what I understand. If your boss(es) don't come around often and you have very little work to do it is possible to waste your day with this football stuff.
He scored on a blown coverage. It was a perfect pass from Manning. The play that helped set up a FG was on a quick slant where Cro was off coverage. Big deal. No doubt that Brady made quicker decisions than Bledsoe did, but they weren't calling that OL terrible before then. They rebuilt that line. They only had 2 starters return from the year before. They brought in guys to improve the team. They weren't "hold the fort" guys. Pleasant had a very solid 2001 season and was a big reason for the imporvement in the D. Brown finally got an opportunity and took advantage of it. Prior to 2000 he only had one career start. He proved he could play w. Bledsoe when he got hs chance. Pathon was not better in NO than he was in INdy w/ Manning. Now you're being ridiculous. He had 50 catches TWICE w/ Indy and NEVER w/ NO and was on pace to EXCEED that number before getting injured in 2001. Watson was a pass threat that was NEVER utilized in NE. He got a chance and put up better numbers than he ever did in NE w/ Brady. Harrison was not on his way to being a start. At least not w/o Manning.
Who blew the coverage? cro was one of two guys to blow and it was a big deal to allow that 3rd and 8 to set up the FG to pull w/in 1. Luckily it didn't cost us the game. They were whining about the OL for years and it continued into 2001 until magically the OL became good when Brady stepped on the field. They broight in vets to improve short term while they drafted and groomed replacements- that is what a hold the fort guy is. Why did he have only one career start? and why was his window so small? he proved he could play w/ Bledsoe then had his best year w/ Brady. he was an average player. Pathon was on pace for 50 catches in 2002 w/ NO, he only played 14 games and despite playing 2 less games he had more Tds than any season in Indy. The man averaged 2 more yards per rec in NO w/ a MUCH worse QB. Watson is on a team w/ poor QB play and few weapons on O. He was a dump off option, nothing more. Harrison was well on his way to being a star before manning was even drafted. I find it comical that the Manning fellaters can cliam that manning made Marvin Harrison.
Please don't comment on this nonsense, none of you guys have any idea what I do for a living and how much I work.
Crop was off coverage and Garcon ran a quick slant. I would hardly call that beating him. He didn’t beat him all night long as you are trying to claim. They brought in 3 new starters for 2001 and Compton was one of them who helped solidify the OL. The OL was CONSIDERABLY upgraded from 2000 to 2001. They brought in vets to improve the team which is what those guys did. Brown was an above average player who was instrumental in the Patriots success on offense. TD’s is statistic that doesn’t prove a receivers value. He was not a better player with NO than he was with Indy. Watson proved he is a reliable weapon on offense that was not utilized by Brady. Harrison was on his way to being an above average player before Manning. He improved in every category statistically while Manning was a ROOKIE, and then exploded after one full year with Manning. And debate the topic. There’s no need for personal attacks.
How do you know what the coverage was supposed to be? the bottom line is he was beat and beaten badly and the one player on Indy's O that hurt us consistently was Garcon who Cro was matched up w/ all night. They were still complaining about the OL after 2 games then magically it all came together in game 3. Yep, vets being used as stopgaps hoping to replace them w/ younger, better players in the next year or 2. Brown was a good player, he was nothing special as a WR. he wasn't reggie Wayne or marvin harrison, I'm not even sure he was as good as Garcon. Doesn't 2 more yards per reception tell us something? isn't the goal to gain yards and score TDs? I realize TD recs are not the be all end all but they tell us something and when you combine that w/ 2 more yards per that will make a player appear to be better. Awesome, Brady sucks. Players get better when they leave NE, it's all about the great belichick who can win w/ any QB(as long as that QB's name is Tom Brady) Harrison was on his way to being an ELITE player before Manning was drafted. 1997 w/o Manning vs. 1998 w/Manning: recs: 73 to 59, how was that better? yds: 866 to 776, how was that better? rec TDs: 6 to 7, he improved by 1(his career high was 8). There wasn't a personal attack in that post, the point is it's downright hysterical for the Manning excuse makers(is this better for you?) to give peyton all the credit when Indy wins and none of the blame when they lose. Now you are giving Manning credit for harrison who was well on his way to being an elite WR before Manning and we didn't see any real difference from his last year w/o Manning and 1st year w/o him yet Manning gets all the credit. Isn't it amazing how he can turn average players into elite players yet he still can't win when it matters?
Cro wasn’t lined up anywhere near Garcon on that 3rd and 8 play. It’s pretty obvious that he was defending a deep route and Garcon ran a quick slant. Garcon did not consistently beat Cro all night long. And on the most important play of the game Garcon was blanketed by Cromartie. The OL was improved by the addition of 3 new starters. They brought in all of those FA’s to improve the team. Brown was a good player If that’s what you are basing your opinion on when you say that Pathon was better with NO than w/ Indy then I have to seriously question your football opinion. Pathon was not better with NO than he was w/ Indy. No Harrison was not on his way to being ELITE. I may have understated him by saying above average. He was on his way to being a good player, but definitely not elite. I love how you hide facts to make your argument. In 1997 Harrison played 16 games and in 1998 he played in 12. 1997 4.3 Rec/Gm 53.2 Yds/Gm 0.4 TDs/GM 1998 4.9 Rec/Gm 64.7 Yds/Gm 0.6 TDs/GM Harrison was not well on his way to becoming elite. When he got Manning to throw him the ball he became elite. If that wasn’t a personal attack, then you are acting like a child. Either way, it’s off point. Calling Manning supporters Manning fellaters or “excuse makers” is childish.
Always excuses for you. The most important play of the game the choking QB called a rollout for some reason and that isn't his strength. That improved Ol sure didn't look improved the first 2 weeks for some strange reason. They brought in those FAs to make the team more competitive not to win a SB in 2001, they won b/c they hit the jackpot w/ a QB they drafted to be a career backup. Brown was a good player. How is 2 more yards per rec and more TDs in less games not better? You criticize Brady for dinking and dunking but Pathon was better averaging 12 yards per vs. 14 yards per w/ NO? Pathon also played 16 games when he ahd those 50 catch seasons, if he played 16 games in '02 he has 49 recs along w/ a similar average and more TDs- how is that not better? and he did so w/ a MUCH worse QB. Harrsion was on his way to being one of the best WRs in the game, there is no doubt about that. How come we can prorate for Harrison and not for Pathon? Why were his #s very similar from 1997 w/o Peyton to 1998 w/ peyton? Please stop being silly, you jhave posted much worse in all of these debates. Stop trying to pretend like you are above it. you are always throwing shots in. The manning backers are Manning excuse makers. Sorry if the truth hurts. No matter what fact is presented you guys always have excuses why it is the fault of someone else. Isn't it funny how in playoff losses they average 14 PPG(10 losses) and have only scores more than 20 in one playoff loss? yet they average typically close to 30 PPG in the reg season, yet every time they lose someone else is to blame- even when he throws the INt that cost his team the game the manning excuse makers tell us it was Wayne's fault. it's hysterical.
So if I've got this straight, your contention is that Manning makes the players around him much better, while Brady does not. Is that correct? If so, then do you apply that standard all around? For instance... Vernon Gholston has played for Rex Ryan for two seasons. He still hasn't even come close to being the player everyone thought he would be. He has undeniable physical gifts and was a top-10 draft pick. Does that, therefore, mean that Rex Ryan is a bad defensive coach? I'm just trying to see if your logic applies across the board, or if it's more selective than that.
I know, I know- facts are excuses. The most important play of the game and the player you say was the best on the field that day and who was burning Cro “all game long” couldn’t get open. The fact is he wasn’t burning Cro all game long. The OL was much improved in 2001 They brought in those Free Agents to improve the team. Nearly every player they brought in was an upgrade over what they had the year before. He wasn’t better w/ NO. in 2001 he had 22 receptions in the first 3 games before getting injured. Twice he had 50 receptions seasons which he never had in NO (even if you prorate it). YPC doesn’t tell me he was better in NO, especially considering he only had one season that was well above what he did in Indy. Harrison was on the verge of being a good receiver. That’s true. But you have to be very careful when you throw the word elite around. He wasn’t near that point until 2001. Who said we can’t prorate Pathon? Harrison had very similar number in 1997 vs. 1998? 1997 – 73 rec 866 yds 11.9 ypc 6 TDs 1998 (prorated for 16 games) – 79 rec 1035 yds 13.2 ypc 9 TDs What shots have I thrown in? Have I called you a Brady fellater? The problem is you see it as all Manning’s fault if they lose, and when they win you don’t give him the credit.
Where are these facts? Brady leads a GW drive in the SB and you credit all the receivers, Manning leads a late leading FG where he set up a 50 yd attempt and you act like he led a GW drive in a SB even though he left a minute on the clock. You do nothing but make excuses to take away credit from Brady and give credit to Manning. If Indy wins it's all Manning, if they lose it is everyone but Manning. Manning was rolling out and threw a quick pass, he panicked w/ the game on the line(shocking! I know). if not for Garcon they wouldn't have had a chance to win. Much improved from week 3 on or from the end of week 2 on. Amazingly they started playing well the second Brady stepped on the field. They brought in vets to be stopgap players until they could find younger, more talented replacements. I love how you prorate when it works for you but don't when it does not. 3 games isn't a season. 2 more yards per and more TDs w/ much worse QB- he was better in NO. Harrison became elite in 1999 along w/ Peyton. he was getting close, he was already a borderline top 10 WR when Peyton took over. You have us confused, when Brady sucks I can admit it. When Peyton costs his team games you cannot admit and you blame everyone else. Brady was terrible his last 2 postseason games and didn't give his team a chance to win, that has been the case for for Peyton in most of his postseason games. He has played Peyton like in about 4 1/2 or 5 games in his 19 postseason games. if he played like he did in the reg season in postseason he'd have 3-4 SBs already.
Brady dumps the ball off to the receivers and they pick up a majority of the yards. Manning makes much tougher throws. I'm more impressed w/ Manning's game than Brady's. Garcon was hardly the reason that the Colts were in it. He had one big play where the coverage was terrible. Big deal. You WAY overrate Garcon. The OL was MUCH IMPROVED over 2000 They brought in veterans because they were upgrades over what they had the year before. They made the Patriots a better team. I still don't recall having an issue with you prorating anything. Pathon was not better in NO. 1998 IND 16 Games 50 Rec 511 Yds 10.2 YPC 1 TD 3.1 Rec/Gm 31.9 Yds/Gm 1999 IND 10 Games 14 Rec 163 Yds 11.6 YPC 0 TD 1.4 Rec/Gm 16.3 Yds/Gm 2000 IND 16 Games 50 Rec 646 Yds 12.9 YPC 3 TD 3.1 Rec/Gm 40.4 Yds/Gm 2001 IND 4 Games 24 Rec 330 Yds 13.8 YPC 2 TD 6.0 Rec/Gm 82.5 Yds/Gm 2002 NO 14 Games 43 Rec 523 Yds 12.2 YPC 4 TD 3.1 Rec/Gm 37.4 Yds/Gm 2003 NO 16 Games 44 Rec 578 Yds 13.1 YPC 4 TD 2.8 Rec/Gm 36.1 Yds/Gm 2004 NO 15 Games 34 Rec 581 Yds 17.1 YPC 1 TD 2.3 Rec/Gm 38.7 Yds/Gm Harrison was not borderline top 10 before Manning got there. He was moving up, but he was not that high.
Brady has three Super Bowls. And Manning has one Super Bowl. Manning was #8 in the active players in the top ten of the NFL Network's Top 100 players. While Brady was on the list, forget which number he was but think he was #20 or something like that. But they are half and half. But Brady is a much more clutch player.
So if Manning is the smartest QB on the planet and he sees how Brady won w/ dump offs and sees how his way hasn't worked wouldn't it be smart of him to try the dump off route? especially since it is so "easy"? Garcon was THE reason, he made the 2 biggest plays of the game against us. Much improved from week 3 on. They brought in vets to get better short term while developing prospects long term. It's a .3 difference in recs per game from Indy to NO, not that big of a deal but a 2 yards per yards per rec is a big deal. he was better in NO w/ a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse QB. Harrison was borderline top 10, he was creeping up on the top 10 and would have been there very shortly. obviously Manning helped him get there and he helped manning become a great QB but he was going to be top 10 soon enough as long as a solid NFL QB was in Indy.
It’s an interesting question. How many teams won Championships with down the field passing? The truth is not many. When the Jets won the Super Bowl w/ Joe Namath, they didn’t win with down the field passing. Garcon wasn’t the reason. He beat horrible coverage on the touchdown and the 3rd and 8 play that you have referred to over and over again was a quick slant with Cromartie on way off coverage. Much improved from 2000. What prospects were they developing? They brought in vets because they were significant improvements over the players they had the year before. I posted the year by year stats that showed Pathon as being a better player with Indy than he was with NO. Outside of one really good year from a YPC perspective, his averages were about the same in NO as they were in Indy. He caught more passes and was more of a weapon with Indy. His first 3 games in 2001 prove this when he caught 22 passes in 3 games before getting injured. Injuries held him back in 2000 as well. Pathon’s average 16 games season w/ Indy 55 rec 684 yds 3 TDs and his average 16 game season w/ NO 43 rec 598 yds 3 TDs. He was better in Indy in every way possible. The following is not borderline top 10: 1996- 64 rec 836 Yds 13.1 avg 8 Tds 1997- 73 rec 866 Yds 11.9 avg 6 Tds
Then shouldn't the smartest QB on the planet adjust? Garcon made the 2 biggest plays of the game for Indy, w/o those plays the game isn't close. much improved from 2000 from week 3 of 2001 on. prospects they drafted or planeed on drafting. Those guys were not signed to be there long term. About the same w/ a muich worse QB, doesn't that give the edge to NO? especially when his YPR was 2 yards better and he scored more TDs in less games? The great peyton Manning makes players around him great, how come Pathon was a little better in No than he was in Indy w/ a much worse QB? 1996 he was a rookie and he was tied for 15th in TD recs, just 1 away from the top 10. in 1997 he was 14th in recs, just 6 behind #10. he was a borderline top 10 guy by the time Peyton was drafted, Peyton helped elevate him as Marvin helped elevate Peyton but let's not act like he inherited Charles Wilson and turned him into a star.
Manning’s strength is getting the ball down the field. Checkdowns and dumpoffs are what Brady does best. You act like Garcon beat tough coverage. He didn’t. The coverage on the TD was terrible. Pool went to Revis’ side initially while Cromartie was expecting help from the inside and on the other play Cromartie was 8 yards off of Garcon who ran a quick slant. Big in the biggest play of the game he was blanketed by Cromartie. He didn’t beat Cromartie all night long Much improved from 2000. Let me ask you who would you rather have. 2000 LT – Bruce Armstrong – well past his prime LG – Joe Andruzzi – Good young prospect C – Damien Woody RG – Sale Isaia – Horrible RT – Grant Williams – Awful Or 2001 LT – Matt Light – Played well as a rookie LG – Mike Compton – FA signing who had been a solid starter for 6 seasons C – Damien Woody RG – Joe Andruzzi RT – Greg Robinson-Randall – had a good year in 2001 but lost his job in 2002. What prospects? The FA's were brought in because they were upgrades over what they had. Pathon wasn’t better in NO no matter how many times you say it. You keep relying on the one year that he put up a big YPC and his TDs stats. But neither proves he was better in NO. I’ll post it again. His 16 game season averages w/ Indy and NO Average 16 game season w/ Indy 55 rec 684 yds 3 TDs average 16 game season w/ NO 43 rec 598 yds 3 TDs So what? Jeff George had the most passing yards that year, does that mean he’s borderline top 5 QB in 1997? Harrison only had 4 games w/ 6 or more catches and didn’t have a single game where he had 100 yards receiving. He was not borderline top 10. Not at that point he wasn’t. When he had Manning as his QB his game went to a whole new level. I never said Harrison was Charles Wilson.
But it's easy to dump off and check down so the great peyton Manning shouldn't have any problem. You would think after so many playoff failures he'd adapt. Who cares what coverage he beat? he beat Cromartie on the 2 biggest plays for Indy all night. The biggest play for Indy on that final 3rd down manning panicked by rolling out and throwing the ball too quickly. The 2001 OL was better, that's not the issue. isn't it interesting how that OL struggled the first 2 weeks then the moment Brady enters the game they all of a sudden look like a quality OL? They were brought in as temporary solutions, most didn't make it beyond 2 years. I'm relying on his career stats in NO vs. his career stats in Indy. 2 more yards per is better than a few more recs especially when you add in more TDs in less games. He was on his way to being an elite WR. he was already a borderline top 10 guy being near the top 10 in a bunch of categories his first 2 years. Manning didn't make him, he would have been great w/ any QB throwing to him.
Dump offs work, but they don't make one QB better than another. I'm not impressed w/ a QB who dumps the ball off. Who cares what coverage he beat? The only reason he made those plays were because A- the coverage was terrible and B - he had off coverage on a quick slant. The biggest play of the game and he couldn't get open which forced Manning to go to a second receiver. The OL was better in 2001 than in 2000. That's been my point all along. They were huge upgrades over what they had before they got there. He had only one season where his YPC was significantly better than anything he put up in Indy. I repeat: Average 16 game season w/ Indy 55 rec 684 yds 3 TDs average 16 game season w/ NO 43 rec 598 yds 3 TDs He was not on his way to being an elite receiver. He was not a borderline top 10 receiver. He was an up and coming receiver but putting him near the elite status before Manning got there is overstating where he was. Again, in 1997 he only had 4 games w/ 6 or more receptions and zero games w/ over 100 yards.
