He has ben spotty since the '04 run, there have been plays to make to win games and he hasn't come through as often. I give him the benefit of the doubt more b/c he has done more w/ less and he has done a lot more overall.
Well you never asked for context, you just never mentioned a drop and when I called you out you double down and said it didn't exist. That's why I bashed you, instead of you saying you don't know every drop like a normal conversation would go you wanted to pretend if one existed you would have discussed it. Instead of actually you know saying the normal stuff, you said the ridiculous stuff. The drop is on 4th and 5 at INDs own 37 with a minute left down 4 against SD. It doesn't guarantee a win or loss, it just extends the chances of IND winning like the Welker drop extends the chances of NE winning. Yeah that's what I mean, I don't know what failed first down means. If it means guaranteeing a victory, meaning the offense has 3 knees and it's game over, I don't think either QB has had that type of scenario. both have had a scenario where getting the first down would leave less time for a comeback, but I don't think either had a game clincher. And Peyton's "Failed first down" you sometimes mention against the Jets in 2010, wasn't really a failed first down. It might guarantee (how many TOs did the Jets have?) that AV kicks the FG at 0:00, but it doesn't guarantee the FG goes in. TB also had a failed first down against BAL in 2011 AFC champ game, including a brutal incomplete pass under 2 minutes, but the defense bailed him out and Cundiff. That technically should be included in his playoff resume post 2004 as a failed first down and equating losses/wins to QBs leaves out scenarios like that where the QB struggled but someone else helped out. That's what not talking about both QBs equally does, it leaves out gaps in how they actually played. Yeah I enjoy talking with you when you keep the theme straight. I definitely know from experience, talking face to face with you strengthen your arguments because you write as someone talks, jumping from point to point. In a conversation that definitely works a lot better than on a message board. It's also easier to keep a theme or exact idea going in a discussion because something you say 5 minutes ago in a conversation is still in my head where as in your last post I quoted, I barely recall what you wrote. Too much time evaporates in-between and too much thinking of stuff outside here. I don't think about here until I log in.
I wouldn't really say he's not good though or has played worse. If we over simplify it, the breaks he got in 2001-2004 haven't happened in post 2004. It's all about expectations I think. By leading a historic O, going from a consistently great to consistently elite QB post 2004, he has raised expectations, but his playoff play has not raised. Granted, if we are just judging him on his own play, it's good. If you go vs his sky high expectations, it's bad. But if we judge vs expectations, we aren't fairly judging the players in relation to their peers. He had his fair share of poor plays in 2001-2004, but overall the team was stronger and got a few bounces. (When I say a team gets a few bounces, I am NOT trying to downplay what they did. Nobody ever remembers the bounces if you don't take advantage of them) It goes back to a point I make sometimes, QB heavy teams struggle in the playoffs. Teams win the SB when they get balanced play. I don't think it's coincidence QBs recently rarely win the SB when they have their best regular seasons. Another point BeastBeach has made and I want to look into, what happens after the QB gets that LARGE contract. Do they not win SBs because it's hard to do, because their contract lessens the talent available at other positions, or because "old QBs don't win SBs". I think there's definitely a line of research that might show the large contracts negatively affect the team even if the QB is elite like Rodgers or Brees or Brady or Manning. And when the contract get given to someone who isn't elite like Flacco, instead of having a QB heavy unbalanced team in the playoffs, the team just struggles to make the playoffs.
Nice pass but tough catch and even if he catches it they are near midfield w/ no timeouts left needing a TD. a little different than being able to run out the clock in the SB if Welker catches that catchable(but not great) pass. Manning need one 1st down to end the game at SD 2008, one to ensure AV would kick a FG to beat us at the gun, one to end the game last year vs. Bal. Sometimes you get lucky, he did in 2011. manning has not been bailed out like that. I like to respond to everyone for some stupid reason so it can take things to different places.
He didn't get a ton of breaks early on, the one we all remember is the tuck rule but he still had to lead them to a tying FGA and winning FGA. The biggest break he probably ever got was in 2006 after the late INT at SD where Troy Brown ripped the ball out and they got it back. Outside of Eli manning and Flacco big time QBs have won pretty much every SB over the last decade and Flacco played like a big time QB in his SB run(probably better than any of the biggest QBs on their runs). I think some teams like Indy/Denver rely too much on their QB, they should try to run more. They should get Ds off balance more and take a little pressure off but I think some of the big time guys that struggle think they have to do it all by themselves. Look at Rivers vs. us '09 and his next playoff game last week. HUGE difference and the reason why they lost to us and won at Cincy.
The Tuck rule, the fumble, the defensive TDs and great FP in the SBs. Maybe breaks is the wrong world, but the rest of the team played at a high level. Big time QBs might have of won them, but they won them when their team played great overall is what I'm saying. The more they leaned on their QBs, the more unbalanced the team becomes, the harder it becomes to win in the playoffs. Obviously the other end of the spectrum is the team like the Bengals recently. They seem to have other pieces in place, but the QB play is inconsistent and the QB isn't causing the unbalanced team in a bad way. The interesting part of these AFC playoffs, is that no team out of NE, DEN, IND, and SD is a balanced team in my mind. It will come down to which defense and/or run game steps up the most and if special teams holds their end of the bargain. I don't buy DEN's defense, don't buy NE's defense, don't buy IND's defense and think they have a terrible run game, and don't buy SD's defense. According to FO, at the end of the year, all 4 defense are average to below average and all 4 defense played below average offenses in total. Obviously the team that played the hardest offensive schedule was SD since they had DEN x2, but even with DEN they ranked the 17th hardest offensive schedule. One of these units is going to have to play above their regular season level to help out. And I really don't know which one will. It will be interesting, maybe one of the offenses puts up 35+ and it isn't an issue, who knows. The NFC side is fun to analyze because of the 3 young QBs and what New Orleans can do with their run game against the SEA defense to open up the pass game (or vice versa). I'm rooting for SD from the AFC (I don't want the other 3 AFC teams winning it all) and rooting for the Saitns and Panthers in the NFC. Based on what I want, watch DEN, NE, SF, and SEA win :grin:
tuck rule - ok what fumble? defensive TDs? how many has he had 2-3? Manning has had a similar amount of non offensive TDs scored great FP in SBs? SB XXXVI avg. starting FP NE 29 SB XXXVIII NE 36 SB XXXIX NE 32 Manning SB XLI: Ind 40 give me SD or Ind(though I am sure we will hate to see Luck win in the coming years) in the AFC and I will be happy, don't care about the NFC though I'd like NO or Car to make it
I have to find the tally somewhere, but I believe the recovery of fumbles was above average for NE during that 3 year span (above 50%) but I might be thinking of something else. Field position also. I've written about it before, it's interesting, but considering all SB wins/losses for the Pats in the 2000s have been one possession, field position is very important. In the STL SB, 10 points starting in STL territory, 3 point win. In the CAR SB, 7 points starting at the CAR 20 in a 3 point win. In the PHI SB, 10 points starting in PHI territory in a 3 point win. In the first giants SB, 0 points starting in NYG territory, 3 point loss. In the second giants SB, 0 points starting in NYG territory, 4 point loss. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but unfortunately FP isn't a fun thing to talk about TV but it's important in deciding wins/losses. PM's SB win, 5 scoring drives, own 20, own 42 (x2), own 38, own 36. PM's SB loss, starting FP for all 8 drives, own 27, own 4, own 22, own 1, own 24, own 11, own 30, own 14. NO, scoring drives, own 48, own 42, own 34, own 41. (This looks similar to IND's first SB win drives closer to the 50 than the 20) Again, unfortunately this gets overlooked and lost in the shuffle, but I believe it's very important in deciding games. All the pieces matter, but we rarely talk about all of them. I'm not saying this is the only reason, just an overlooked reason at what decides games. Yeah, it's Chargers or bust for me in the AFC. If it's a Chargers/Colts AFC championship, that would be awesome. Rivers actually getting recognition for his great year would be cool but instead we would get a week about the legacy about Luck and how he's the next start QB in the league.
also in the Rams SB, D allowed late TD but gave him enough time Panthers SB, D allowed late TD but gave him enough time 1st Giants SB, D allowed late TD but didn't give him enough time 2nd Giants SB, D allowed late TD but didn't give him enough time that's great that those were his scoring drives but his avg. starting FP was greater than any of Brady's SBs in XLI. Should we hold it against Brady that he scored when getting the ball in opponents territory where Peyton failed? he had dives starting at the Chi 43, Chi 36, Chi 41 and Chi 47 w/ no pts. I will give him a break on the last one as they were running the clock out but that's 3 possessions starting in Chi territory w/ no pts. Those 3 possessions starting in Chi territory w/ no points are more than Brady's 5 SBs COMBINED. In 5 SBs he had just 2 possessions start in opposing territory w/ no points(and one was a 31 yd FG miss)
Here's a stat for all you Brady disciples. Next week the Pats are playing their first road playoff game since the 2006 AFC title game vs the Colts, which is also the last time the Pats were underdogs in a postseason game. Since that game in Indy, the Pats have played 11 postseason games - 9 at home and 2 on neutral fields. They have a stellar 6-5 record in those 11 games with losses at home to Baltimore twice (2009 and 2012) and the Jets (2010) and two losses to the Giants in the SB (2007 and 2011). They have 6 home wins against the following juggernauts Jacksonville (2007), SD (2007 with Rivers playing with a torn ACL and LT out with an injured knee), Denver (2011 with Tebow), Baltimore (2011 when Evans dropped the wining TD and Cundiff missed the tying chip shot FG), Houston (2012 who was fading quickly and was more like the 2013 team that won two games), and Indy (2013). Not exactly Ali - Frazier competition.
Irrelevant. If Brady wins next week, that alone invalidates EVERYTHING about this thread. Or so says you-know-who.
well unfortunately for the Pats they don't get awarded a bye and home game in the title game every year then I'm sure they'd have more championships but let's look closer at the Manning led teams and who they have beaten: You may want to check out who the Colts have beaten and include the juggernaut Charger team from yesterday. I suppose it would be better to go one and done most of the time like Peyton's teams against such juggernauts as the '00 dolphins, '02 Jets, '07 Chargers(who lost their QB in the game), '08 Chargers(8-8), etc... anyway, as far as peyton goes. THAT is how you close out a game, if he did that more often he'd have more SBs.
Denver has the FAR superior team and are at home. If Peyton and Den wins he gets closer to Brady, if Brady and the Pats win it's over. The gap would be too wide for Peyton to close. For Brady to bring that mediocre talent into Denver and win it the comparisons would be over.
I am not covering anything, I am dealing in reality. The manning backers will act like this validates Peyton if he his far superior team at home wins. It will get him closer but Den should cruise in this game. let's see what happens.
It will be a close game. The Broncos defense stinks and they just lost their best corner. Belichick will have a solid gameplan...if Manning can outsmart Belly then yes I expect Denver to win....but the Patriots run game has been rolling as has the Brady to Edleman short passing game. These teams are pretty close. Obviously Denver's WR's are better but I favor New England's defense right now. Talib has had a great year and will shadow Demaryius. New England wouldnt be in the title game if they werent good. No one will be cruising anywhere.
The defense that shut out SD for 3 qtrs. stinks? BB can have the greatest gameplan, w/o the horses it mans very little and he hasn't had them in a long time defensively. What I do like is they can control the clock w/ the run game, that gives them more of a chance but if it is a shootout it will be hard to keep up w/ the talent of Denver. Hopefully Peyton feels like he has to do it all himself rather than do what he did yesterday which was lean on the run game a bit and take plays as they came to him. Talent wise the teams are nowhere near each other. Talib is pretty good but Denver has too many weapons. It will take a great team defensive effort for them to have a chance.
Once Harris went down Allen started dominating. Queinten Jammer sucks. No where near each other is a stretch though. If Denver was playing with a full deck too you might have a point- but they lost their best player on defense and now just lost their best corner. They're both very good teams. Pats have the better defense and the better coach Denver has the better offense and passing game. You're trying to set this up where if the Broncos lose it will be a devastating blow to Peyton's legacy while if the Pats win it will be the underdog of the century pulling an upset led by Tom Brady. Neither should be the narrative.
I don't think we want to get in the "playing w/ a full deck" comparison. If Den loses it is absolutely a huge blow to Peyton UNLESS it is a high scoring game where Brady had the ball last and there as nothing he could do.
