None of the QBs you mentioned would be ranked all-time over Brees or Manning, you know that. Anyone who would say otherwise would be a fool. You want to call Manning a choker, go right ahead, but what does that make McNabb and Gannon? Were they known for "clutch" playoff play, that's certainly news to me. At the end of the day, the Seahawks D shut down 2 QBs in the playoffs that are going to either be at or near the top of every passing record known to man. That ain't too shabby, even if you want to only look at the playoffs in determining a D's greatness.
Forced Seattle to punt? Forced Seattle to turn it over? Niners got a turnover out of Wilson on the very first play. Also, are you really placing 100% blame on the safety on Manning? We'd all be ripping Mangold as much as the QB if that play happened to us. Denver was very overmatched in all 3 phases in that game. If you can't see a game like that and come to that conclusion, you're just not viewing the game the right way.
Lets look at the first half, the Broncos had FIVE possessions Drive 1: 1 play, Safety Drive 2: 3 plays, 1:50 off the clock, punt Drive 3: 3 plays, Interception (leads to FG 8-0) Drive 4: 15 plays, Interception (pick 6) Drive 5: 9 plays, turnover on downs (failed to convert on 4th) The Broncos offense ran a total of 31 plays in the first half off of 5 drives. Like I said, if Peyton kneels the ball, we have a ballgame at halftime. If Peyton plays moderately good and converts a few first downs and gets a FG or two we have a close game at halftime. This game is squarely on Peyton, the only other argument is that Fox should have kicked the FG but other than that its all on the QB.
how did they shut down a QB that had the ball in his hands in the final minute in a 1 score game? McNabb and Gannon have winning records in postseason unlike Manning Seattle only shut down eyton Manning something the '99 Titans, '00 dolphins, '02 Jets, '03 Pats, '04 Pats, '05 Steelers, '08 Chargers and '10 Jets have done. It's not a big accomplishment.
They were not outmatched. The only reason they were outmatched is because they went into a game with a QB that played one of the worst halves in the history of the Super Bowl.
So you are telling me the Broncos defense didnt do well in the first half because they didnt turn the ball over on every possession? The Broncos defense gave up one TD drive in the first half, give me a break. Every Broncos fan and player would have signed up for 10 points at halftime and it would have been 10 points if it werent for the QB.
Do you consider the Saints scoring 15 points to be a normal performance for them? Do you consider Brees getting shut out for 3 quarters normal? Are you familiar with this guy's freakin career? Brees would be the first to tell that his offense couldn't do squat against the Seahawks this season, he does not or would not want you to defend his team's offensive performance against Seattle this season. He also isn't an internet troll, so there is that too. They also threw 9 combined INTs in 2 SBs. McNabb lost 3 straight home NFC CGs. Gannon had arguably the worst SB performance ever for a QB, something if Manning had done you would have made about 800 threads about and brought it up in every other inane post you make. OK, but Manning didn't throw 55 TDs and score 600+ points in those other seasons.
I am telling you that the Broncos D was giving up huge chunk plays and could not get off the field on 3rd down because of Wilson. Where do you get 10 points from anyway? Seattle's O scored 13 points and was denied another possession because of the pick-6. They had already scored 13 points with 11 minutes remaining in the 2nd quarter, then never saw the ball again in a meaningful possession until the mid-3rd quarter where they promptly (and easily) scored 2 more TDs in their next 3 drives. Denver's D was terrible in that game, and then to compound it, they start the 2nd half off by allowing a kick-return TD. They were seemingly either unprepared or just not good enough to handle a player with Harvin's speed and a QB with Wilson's scrambling ability. Your recollection of this game seems suspect to me, I've said my piece, either open up a drive chart and re-familiarize yourself with it or just let it go, you've made your views on Manning's performance known at this point.
I think you guys are both ignoring the aspect unique to football that it's one game, one shot, and not a best of seven series or something. Upsets happen. The Patriots are probably a half dozen plays away from being 0-5 in these Super Bowls, and a half dozen plays away from being 5-0. Brady won the first 10 playoff games of his career, which is something that probably won't be duplicated in our lifetimes. Water finds its level, eventually. Of course as a NE fan I'd rather see them undefeated in championship games, but getting there is difficult enough. Super Bowl losses suck, but with the passage of time you realize that getting there and falling short is still better than not getting there in the first place.
I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded. That's why Peyton should take pride in having a historic regular season and getting the Broncos to the SB this year. Not many QBs his age have ever done so. And he got to beat his archrival Brady on the way there. Disappointing ending, but if you're overmatched sometimes things snowball (I've seen enough Jet blowout losses past two years to know that!)
Definitely man. There was a time that a side of me sort of enjoyed watching Manning fall short, but I've learned (the hard way!) that reveling in someone else's failure is a bad thing, lol... It takes some time after the loss, no doubt. I look back at the Patriots' 2007 season now and while the disappointment is still there, it's cool that they managed to go 16-0 in the regular season. There's a Super Bowl champion every year, but no other team's gone undefeated in the 16-game schedule format. For a Pats fan, I'm not actually a Manning-basher guy. I think Brady's better, but Manning is still easily in my top five all-time.
I'm not ignoring it, it just isn't the topic I am discussing. I am discussing that Brady hasn't been very good in 3 of his 5 Super Bowls, not whether the format of the Super Bowl makes it more adept to upsets.
Feels like we're going in circles here, but... Brady was great against the Panthers and Eagles, very good against St. Louis (and I know you don't agree, but he did walk away with the MVP in that one, deservedly or not), and above-average against the Giants. Not God-like, but not God-awful either. Difference is, the Pats teams in '07 and '11 had a much smaller margin for error offensively because of the weaker defenses. I wouldn't call a single one of those games a "poor" performance, personally. Not even close to the woeful SB performance that Manning just put up.
Look, I'm really happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Peyton Manning had one of the best superbowl wins of all time!
I thought he played poorly in both SBs against the Giants, never more apparent when you contrast the stark difference in his play against the Giants in 2007 between week 17 and the SB. He looked like a different player, ineffective and easy to contain. Brady hasn't played a D anywhere near the Seahawks D in a SB, and thus has avoided a truly disastrous performance. His lackluster play against a mediocre Broncos D saved him from embarrassment in this SB. He isn't "great" by not being good enough to get to a game where the potential for being embarrassed was high. Maybe fortunate to avoid that black mark on his resume, but his own futility (and his team's) is the reason he got to avoid it. Much like Eli gets to avoid playoff losses because he just simply isn't good enough to even get his team to the playoffs. Brady has also played very poorly against great Ds in the playoffs in the past, so I'm not sure why you think he has a magical ability to avoid a total clunker in the SB just because the game happens to be the SB. He's just never faced a great D in the SB. Nothing more to it than that.
Haha, nice... I lol'd. These are all subjective points, so there aren't any "facts" to really support your argument or mine. The performance that Seattle put up on defense two weeks ago was one of the best single-game performances, ever, in the Super Bowl. I agree that he hasn't gone up against D that was as tough as the Seahawks were two weeks ago. But we haven't seen that kind of performance more than, what, maybe two or three times in the history of the league? I do disagree that he's never faced a high-quality defense. Carolina in 2003, Philly in 2004 were both solid. The Giants' teams didn't have great seasons, but by the time they got to the Super Bowl they were firing on all cylinders on D. Sometimes momentum counts and you more or less have to throw 16 weeks of regular season stats and rankings out the window. Brady definitely could have been better in both of the Super Bowls against the Giants. I think I said it earlier in this thread... the Patriots are a half dozen plays from being 0-5 in Super Bowls with Brady/Belichick, and a half dozen plays away from being 5-0. They're tough to win!
He's played some solid Ds, but the best Ds he's faced in the postseason were not in the SB. All subjective though for the most part.
I actually was thinking, during the Super Bowl, that I was sort of glad the Patriots didn't make it that far only to be crushed by the 'Hawks, lol...
I can't even believe the Pats made it as far as they did. They didn't have a SB roster this season, definitely not. And once the injuries set in, they really had about .500 talent (or worse) but got the most out of it with Belicheck and Brady.
