Context. One can realistically assume the Pasts would've gone something like 14-2/13-3 in 2008 with TB. They weren't gonna run the table again, the league catches up to everyone and we all saw how they were squeaking out wins late in 07 until ultimately losing the most important one. So it's realistic to think they'd go something like 14-2/13-3/even 12-4 in 2008. Instead they went 11-5, and lost out on the playoffs on a technicality. I credit that scheme and Belicheat's prep for salvaging that season. That was a good coaching job, yes Cassell played well but compared to Brady's production it was a huge hit. In the NE* "dynasty" years Brady wasn't a stat machine, those teams were some of the most opportunistic I've ever seen. Fundamentally sound and solid in all phases. At this point in his career, Brady is a goddam surgeon, but he hasn't won shit since 2004 and a playoff game since 07. I bring these points up to reiterate that I think Brady (while clearly an all-time great) is second to Manning, because his production has been insane with, in my opinion, worse teams. You mention Clarke, Wayne, Harrison, James, and for some reason Faulk. I think all of their numbers (not Faulk) are inflated, to a degree, because of having played with P Manning.
14-2 is better than 11-5, right? 14-2 gets them homefield instead of missing the playoffs. Clark, wayne, harrison, James, etc..(Faulk was on the team as a rookie) are all elite talents. Sure Peyton made them better but they made Peyton better too. Both QBs had talent around them, manning much more on o, NE more on D BUT NE's supposed great D's choked on numerous occasions and have allowed more points per game in the playoffs than the supposed crappy Colts D's. Manning's lone SB title was b/c of the D, Brady wo TWO SBs w/ GW drives in the final minute and nearly won a 3rd in the final 3 mins but he left too much time for his choking D to allow a mediocre offense to march down the field and win the game w/ a TD. Manning' #s are better(though Brady is closing in) but keep in mind he has played ore than half his games in domes and w/ better talent- that is a HUGE advantage and despite more talent he has come up short in postseason far too often. Manning has lost 9 postseason games and led his high powered offenses to just 14 PPG. Brady has lost 5 postseason games and led his O to 19 PPG including 27 w/ reche Caldwell & Jabar Gaffney as his top weapons and an 80 yd drive to take a 14-10 lead in the final 2+ mins of a SB. What BS, people atre going to overreact b/c a team that wasn't supposed to be good w/ Manning this year is bad w/ a QB they got a couple of weeks before the season, a guy that is 40+ and was sitting on his couch. Obviously Peyton is vital to them winning but they are going from a top QB to awful QB play, they aren't going to decent QB play. W/ decent QB play and that talent they'd win 10 games. I thought Collins would be decent, I was wrong on that but it doesnt' change the fact he's had immense talent around him. look at the other night, garcon had almost 100 yds receiving and he was wide open on that deep pass but painter missed or he has close to 150 rec yds and Indy wins. By the way, Indy's averaging 4.3 yards per carry this year, the last few years w/ Peyton? 2010: 3.8 2009: 3.5 2008: 3.4 2007: 3.8 so i guess that invalidates #2? and having indecisive QBs will always make an OL look worse. Peyton always knew what he wanted to do w/ the ball and unloaded quickly which did make the OL look better but now they have 2 QBs who don't have any idea what they are doing and it makes the OL look worse. Also, Wayne is on pace for 75 recs and over 1,000 yds. Not typical #s but let's not act like all of a sudden he can't play.
Wondering: Is it too soon to add Rogers to this discussion? I will admit, I am very biased against Manning. That said, Rogers may well be on his way to passing Manning as an all time great, making the discussion Brady v. Rogers. Or is it too soon?
He still has a long way to go, right now he's the best QB in the game for this season but he has to sustain this for years and years to come to get on a all time level w/ the other 2.
At this point in time he's as good or better, his career isn't even close to Brady or Manning yet and we don't know if it will be. He also spent a few years sitting on the bench, its very doubtful he'll come close to Manning's career numbers as someone suggested.
It might be better to measure him in terms of rings as opposed to career numbers due to him sitting out a few years on the bench.
Nobody who makes this argument has ever explained to me how Manning would've improved the Colts pathetic defense, special teams, and coaching. The Colts have been on a clear downward trajectory for the last few years. Manning was keeping their offense's head above water, but you can't convince me that this team wins 8 games this year with our without him.
You don't think constantly playing with the lead has helped the Colts defense thru the years? Their defense was built to play with a lead. Manning easily made their coaching better because he WAS a coach on the field. He always made the correct adjustments and having him on the field made the coaches jobs much easier
Playing with a lead has helped the Colts defense in the past, but this season they just don't have the personnel to compete with good teams. Opponents are averaging over 30 points a game against them, you can't tell me that a better quarterback would've solved that problem. Plus, although Manning is an exceptionally smart player, he isn't the head coach. For all of the "coach on the field" talk, it's worth pointing out that a retarded decision by Jim Caldwell ended Indy's season last year. There's no question that Manning is a remarkable QB, but there's also no question that this years Colts would've sucked dick with or without him. It's just the difference between 5-6 wins and 1 or 2 wins.
Who did they lose on defense? The only player that had any value was Kelvin Hayden. In 2010 they allowed 24 ppg on defense and still ended up 10-6. The defense is struggling because they are not built to win games for the Colts. They are built to play with the lead and get after QBs.
I can't prove it either way, Murrell2878 can't prove it either way, nyjunc can't prove it either way, and you can't prove it either way, but I think if Manning was healthy this year the Colts would at least be 6-4. An elite level QB like Manning vs a hard piece of corn-filled shit of a QB like Painter makes a hell of a difference on a football team.
Indy is not an elite team, but not awful either. Having a bad QB exacerbates their problems (no run D, weak O-line) and minimizes their strengths (pass rush, good WR/TE). Manning prevents blitzes for fear of his audibles, and gets the ball out quickly and accurately, he keeps the Offense on the field letting the small fast defense rest. And gets leads which lets the Colts unleash their pass rushers. I'd guess they'd have at least 5 wins. The team is built to take advantage of his strengths to a ridiculous extreme, unlike say the Pats, who maximize Brady's strenghts, but do it within a more well balanced team concept. Also one team has a coach, and 1 team props up a corpse in a polo shirt.
I think Indy would be 5-5, 6-4 if manning was healthy. They lost a ton of close games early before they completely gave up. I think if they had competent QB play they would have won a bunch of games but when Curtis painter is your primary starter you can't expect to win.
