I never said they were a franchise on the rise when he was drafted, I said they had just 2 losing seasons in the previous 6 seasons including 2 playoff spots and a title game app in 2 of the previous 3. So the team that made a title game and had 2 title game apps in the 3 years before Manning needed rescuing but the team that was getting worse every year for the previous 5+ years inclduing starting 0-2 before Brady started didn't need to be rescued? Manning was a rookie is an excuse but Harrsion being a young WR wasn't? Not to mention he was recruited as a QB to SU and converted to a WR. Making a title game is mediocre success? I guess we have been a mediocre team the last 2 years. You would admit making a title game is better than going 8-8, 5-11 and starting 0-2, right? From 2001-2004 NE averaged 527 passes a year and 466 rushes From 2005-2010(excluding 2008) they averaged 555 and 462 Basically the same. None of those teams could score besides NE! and NE D's were always not as good as their rankings in postseason. Indy won w/ D in that postseason, Manning had a great 2nd half against NE and that was all he did all postseason long. They didn't face one great team that entire postseason, it was a creampuff run. So now you will bring up variables like opponents? what about playing more than half his games in domes for Peyton while Brady plays 90% of his games outdoors in not perfect weather? That doesn't count, right? Did the AFC Central/North get much tougher after 2000? How come they haven't been to a SB since? In 2001 The AFC Central had 6 teams, 4 were below .500 but they were much tougher opponents in '01 than '00, right? Branch & Givens aren't quality starters either but they aren't Caldwell & Gaffney. NE was coming off 2 SB titles in years, they were bound to have a down year. That 2 game difference is misleading since they didn't need to win in week 17 and had Doug Flutie drop kick a PAT, if they needed they game they win. The Pats won SB XXXVI b/c Brady led one of the all time great drives to end the game or the D would have blown it as they became the firat team ever to blow a 14 pt 4th qtr lead in SB. In SB XXXVIII the great Pats D allowed 19 4th qtr pts but Brady and the O kept answering inclduing the GW FG drive. It was 3 years, 2 seasons. 2001-1998=3 and the were humiliated in their 1998 playoff app and in a meaningless agme for us in week 17 we humiliated them despite NE thinking they needed to win to get in. Either way. previous 3 seasons before Brady and Manning took over: NE: 1 playoff app, got blown out in playoff app Ind: 2 playoff apps, reached AFC Title game and were one play away from the SB and got blown out in their other app. Which is better? We were specifically talking their SB run of 1996. The Colts will be ok, unfortunately for them they didn't have a reliable backup in the system for years and they had to get a QB weeks before the season but they will be ok. There's too much talent.
The team who went to the playoffs 3 out of 5 years including a Super Bowl trip and had many pieces in place needed rescuing but the team who had not been to the Super Bowl in 28 seasons and barely had any success over the previous 26 seasons didn’t? I don’t care about one lame playoff run when the conference was weak. They were a organization in need of rescuing and was fortunate they drafted Manning instead of Leaf. I said Harrison was a mid tier receiver until he hooked up with Manning and became a HOF receiver. I didn’t blame the 3-13 seasons on him like you are trying to do with Manning. The AFC is much tougher today than it was in 1995. You would admit that a team who made the playoffs 3 out of 5 years and had a Super Bowl appearance is better than one title run at a time when the AFC was weak. Their passing game is not the same now as it was from 01-04. They rely on it much more heavily and they rely on Brady much more than they used to. Are you suggesting it takes a team effort to win? I’m shocked. Well if you only look at fantasy numbers then yeah, Manning only had one great 2nd half all postseason long. They went up against the #1, #2 & #3 defenses in a row. That’s not a creampuff run. You are trying to show that the Ravens 2000 offense was better than the 2006 when that is simply not true. Dilfer played some extremely weak opponents which certainly helped the aesthetics but doesn’t truly represent their offense. The 2006 Ravens offense was better than the 2000 Ravens offense. Just accept it and move on. Okay, so it’s a possible 1 game difference. They still won an additional game vs. the prior year. They had virtually no drop off. Caldwell & Gafney are just an excuse. The defense was the only reason they were able to win SB XXXVI. They set up or scored 17 points. They shut down the greatest show on turf for most of the game. The offense did nothing on their own and when it came down to that final drive Brady dinked and dunked and set up a 49 yd FG by Vinatieri who had to yet again bail them out. I know you want to pigeon hole the history to make it look better for your argument, but it only provides partial information. Over the previous 5 seasons before each QB became the starter – Indy’s record was 33-47 with 2 p/o apps. NE’s record was 43-37 with 3 p/o apps + a SB appearance. Many key players from 2001 team were on the Pats during their 3 playoff teams. Very few from the brief mediocre success the Colts had were even left on the team in 1998. No we weren’t. I said playoff years: 85% of their talent is out with a neck injury
So the conference was weak in 1995 when Indy made the title game but it wasn't in 1996 when NE reached the SB? NE played a 2nd yr expansion team at home to go to the SB but that was a strong year for the AFC. NE was getting worse every year inlcuding 2001 before Brady became the starter. Indy had one bad year in recent years before Peyton. Harrison was a young, developing WR. He as one of the best young WRs in the game. Yes the AFC is much tougher today than in 1995, what is the point? absolutel creampuff, Steve McNair stunk at that point of his career, KC had nothing, Brady was throwing to garbage at WR and Chicago had rex grossman as their QB. Find me an easier SB title run, there may be a couple but not many. 2000 scored more points than 2006 Bal, they were better in 2000 and w/ Dilfer at QB they scored significantly more. What makes you think Bal '06's O was better than '00? Why would I accept something that clearly isn't true? I want to see Peyton try to win w/ Gaffney & Caldwell. he struggled winning in January w/ elite talent. The D also blew a record 14 pt 4th qtr lead before being rescued by Brady and the O. 5 years is a LONG time, NE was getting worse every single year while Indy was not and Indy had more recent success than NE.
I’m not saying the conference wasn’t weak in 1996. You are saying that the Pats needed rescuing when they actually made it to a SB and multiple playoff apps in recent history while the Colts didn’t need to be rescued based off one very weak run that didn’t even get them to a Super Bowl. You act like the Pats went thru decades of being the 80’s Bucs. They had a ton of recent success including going to a SB. The Colts franchise had been a waste for 26 seasons before Manning came in and rescued them and haven’t been the same since. Yes, Harrison was a young developing WR. He was a mid tier receiver who never would have achieved a certain HOF induction if it weren’t for playing with Manning. If he had Ryan Leaf it’s quite likely Harrison would have bounced around for a few years putting up a couple of good seasons but never reaching his true potential. You don’t understand why reaching a conference championship game going thru tough competition means more than getting there going thru weak competition? Going up against the #1, #2 & #3 defenses are not is not a creampuff run. McNair wasn’t the same as he was in 2000 but ran the offense better than what the Ravens had in 2000. If the Pats receivers were the issue then why did they win 2 more games than they did the year before? It’s an excuse. Do you not understand that Grossman was not the reason the Bears made it to the SB? You keep hanging your hat on really insignificant arguments. The Bears were in the SB because of great D and a great running game. More points does not mean better offense. They scored a ton of points against some truly garbage teams. Big deal. You seem to have no problem accepting something that clearly isn’t true when you continue to believe the 00 Ravens offense was better than the 06 Ravens offense. And even if it were true – which it isn’t – they still won 13 games because of their defense which was their bread & butter. I’m sure Peyton would turn Gaffney & Caldwell into good receivers. He seemed to have no problem doing that for Garcon, Collie and Blair White. The proof is in the pudding. Nearly every receiver that plays with Manning has success. After the D saved the team while Brady and the O did nothing all game long by stopping one of the greatest offenses in history and scoring or setting up 17 points. That Colts team had one small insignificant run. The Pats went to a SB and two other playoff apps in a very recent stretch and MOST of the key contributors from the 01 team were in place DURING those PLAYOFF seasons.
NE needed resucing b/c they were a skining ship. Sure they made the SB 5 years earlier and their last playoff win was 4 years earlier but they were getting worse each year and started out 0-2 in 2001 so they were on a path to be even worse than 2000 when they were 5-11. The pats had a nice run just like Indy did, Indy was a laughing stock in the early 90s just as NE was but both had a few bright years- Indy's were closer to Manning's 1st year than NE's to Brady's first year. Harrison was going to be a HOFer if Bubby brister was his QB. Obviously it helped to have a great young QB like Manning but Harrison was going to succeed anywhere. Indy '95 beat a 13-3 KC team on the road in Arrowhead- that wasn't tough? They beat the defending AFC champs on the rioad in SD- that wasn't tough? and they were literally inches away from winning in Pitt and Pitt gave Dallas all they could handle in the SB. You are trying to hard to reach in order to take away credit from that team so it makes Manning look better. NE's Ds were known for choking in postseason Bal shut Peyton down but they hd no offense Chi held Peyton in check but they had no offense. None of those teams were big time teams. Isn't the point of an offense to score points and win games? How can you say an O that won less and scored less is better than another offense? You haven't given me any valid reasons why the '06 O was better. Maybe I am missing something? please share your thoughts. Garcon, Collie and White are like Jerry Rice compared to Gaffney & Caldwell. One of those guys had a huge drop or NE would have won that game. Peyton has only reached the title game 3 times w/ the elite talent he has had his entire career, I doubt he could lead a team to the playoffs w/ Gaffney & Caldwell as his 2 top weapons. The NE D played great for 3 qtrs but it's a 4 qtr game and when the game was on the line the D choked and the O saved them just like the SB 2 years later and just like the NYG SB except in that one Brady left too much time and the D blew it. Again, the Pats were getting worse each year and they started off awful in 2001 before Brady took over.
NE was far less in need of “rescuing” as Indy was. They had gone to 2 SB’s in 15 years where as the Colts hadn’t gone to one since 1970. The Colts had been a sinking ship and a few 9-7 seasons doesn’t prove otherwise. But if you want to tie recent history they were 3-13 and most of the key players from the 95 team were gone. Really? Harrison was a HOF’er w/o Manning? Really? Um…no he would not have been. You do know that Marty Schottenheimer is one of the worst playoff coaches of all time right? SD was as weak of a team as the Colts were. Big deal. Pitt choked away the AFC CG the year before right? You’ve said that in the past. And Pitt didn’t give Dallas all they could handle. They just kept the game somewhat close which hadn’t happened for an AFC team in a long time. You’re trying way too hard to make a 9-7 team that got on a lucky run sound like they were a top tier team when they weren’t. #1, #2, #3 defenses in the NFL is not a creampuff road to the SB. The 00 Ravens scored THREE whole points more than the 2006 Ravens but had a bunch of shitty teams at the end of the season. The 2006 Ravens scored MORE TD’s than the 00 Ravens. They had a better 3rd down conversion %, they averaged more yards per play. You claim to have superior football knowledge but basing your argument that the 2000 Ravens were a better offense than the 2006 Ravens on points alone makes me wonder. You are wrong. Admit it and move on. I KNOW that Manning would have been fine with Gaffney and Caldwell. It’s not even debatable. I mean seriously. You think Blair White is better than Jabar Gaffney? Yes, it is a 4 quarter game. And for 3.9 quarters the NE offense DID NOTHING. At some point you have to give credit where it’s due and understand that you likely weren’t going to hold one of the greatest offenses in history down all game long. The 2007 Patriots offense failed in the Super Bowl. You can try and spin it all you want but they failed. The Patriots had much more recent success than the Colts.
NE was a sinking ship heading back to the pre-Parcells days quickly. Harrison would have been a HOFer no matter who the QB was. He was off to a great start in his young career. That's great info about Marty but Bobby Ross was SD's HC in 1995, a year after leading SD to the SB. Creampuff run. The '00 Ravens averaged 22.3 PPG w/ Dilfer The '06 ravens averaged 19.2 PPG Which is better? Blair White wasn't his #1 option, Gaffney and Caldwell were his top 2 weapons. White was probably #4 or 5 at best. If you know he'd be fine w/ White why has he struggled mightily in january w/ elte weapons? Yet they saved the SB and svaed NE's D from the greatest SB choke of all time. previous 3 years before Manning & Brady Indy: 2 playoff apps, 2 playoff wins, AFC Title game app NE: 1 playoff app, zero playoff wins
They had a lot of recent success. No he wasn't. Rice and Moss had great starts to their careers. Harrison did not have a "great" start. He was not destined for the HOF until he began playing with Manning. Who was KCs coach in 1995? #1, #2, #3 defenses is a creampuff right? Right :rofl: Dilfer played against SHITTY teams. Who cares. PPG isn't the only factor to guage whether one offense is better than the other. White wouldn't have started over either Gafney or Caldwell and had no problems playing with Manning. Why has Brady struggled in January w/o a top defense and all the weapons he was given? Previous 5 years before Manning Indy went to 2 p/o apps Previous 5 years before Brady NE went to 3 p/o apps incl. a SB. 1 year before Manning Indy went 3-13 1 year before Brady NE went 5-11 Indy was rescued by Manning after 26 seasons of futility.
Ne's most recent playoff win was 4 years earlier. Rice and Moss were exceptions, it usually takes WRs a few years to understand the pro game. Marty was in KC. Herm was in KC in '06 and he never even made a title game, Billick had won just one playoff game since their SB season. You are trying to take credit away from the '95 Colts b/c they did more closer to Peyton's arrival than NE did to Brady's arrival. CREAMPUFF. Who cares about rankings? Indy's D was ranked 23rd, in postseason they allowed 12.8 PPG. Rankings are meaningless, Indy's D's usually played better than their rankings, NE's D played worse. Indy's Os always averaged near 30 PPG in the reg season yet in playoff losses have averaged 14. Rankings are meaningless, KC and Bal had no offenses, NE's top 2 weapons were awful, awful football players and Chi had one of the worst SB QB of all time. AGAIN, White was a 4th or 5th option at best. Gaffney and Caldwell were ONE and TWO! Wouldn't 3 years give us a better gauge? 5 years ago we had Eric Mangini coaching us, Chad our QB, Kevan Barlow our RB, Coles & Cotch. Does that have any relevance to today? One bad year for Indy, NE was trending the wrong direction for 5 years including starting 0-2(w/ a loss to the 61-10 Bengals week 1) in 2001 before magically finishing 11-3 w/ Brady as the starter. Futility includes making a title game just 3 years earlier:rofl:
NE’s most recent SB app was 5 years earlier. The Colts most recent SB app was 26 seasons earlier when playing in a different city. Harrison wasn’t off to a great start. Rice and Moss had great starts. I would say he had a good start, but like many others benefited from playing with Manning. No shit Herm was KC’s coach in 06. Why are you even bringing that up. You said Indy beat a 13-3 KC team in 1995 and I said their coach was the postseason choke king Marty Schottenheimer. Get with the program. I’m not taking credit away from what the 1995 Indy team did. I said it was a great run. But they weren’t a great team. You are trying to make it look like that were a top level team when they weren’t. They played in an era where the competition around them was weak and they still were fortunate to make it to the playoffs and play a weak team followed by a team whose coach had been notoriously bad in the postseason. Of course rankings are meaningless. :rollyeyes: KC and Bal had enough offense. Baltimore’s offense was better than the 2000 SB Champ Ravens offense. KC had Larry Johnson and Tony Gonzalez and a Top OL and a good QB. NE’s top 2 weapons weren’t Gaffney and Caldwell. Yet, they still won 2 more games than the previous season and Chicago didn’t get to the SB based on the QB play so that’s also irrelevant. Gaffney wasn’t their ONE or TWO. Brady passed the ball around to Caldwell, Faulk, Watson and Brown. They somehow still won 12 games which was 2 more than the previous season. Another excuse debunked. There were many key players on the 2001 Pats from the playoff teams of the previous 5 years. There is relevance. One bad year for Indy?? They were a franchise of futility before Manning got there. But keep hanging your hat on one mediocre season with a run to the title game vs. weak competition. You’ll go far with that. Manning saved that Franchise and brought them a level of success they hadn’t had since the early 70’s. Futility is 26 seasons of mostly garbage. One brief run means nothing. That franchise was going nowhere until they got Manning. We all know you have an agenda but it’s not going to fly here. The Colts franchise had been in the shitter for a long time until they were lucky to get Manning.
They were getting significantly worse every year. Indy had more recent success. Harrison was off to a great start, it was obvious he was going to be a top WR long before Peyton was drafted. If you are going to use coaches as an excuse, why can't I? Who said the '95 Colts were a great team? but to take all credit away from them is silly and if you do that you have to take credit away from the '06 Colts. That weak team they played in the WC rd on the road was in the SB the year before. KC and Bal had enough offense- they scored 14 pts COMBINED in their playoff losses. Their O's stunk. NE's top 2 weapons were gaffney and Caldwell, they had no running game, Maroney stunk, Dillon was at the end of his career. That team won 12 games b/c of Brady, he took them as far as any QB could take a team w/ the lack of offensive talent that they had. Manning has never had anything close to as bad as what Brady had in '06 yet Brady still led them to the doorstep of the SB. Most of them weren't playing key roles from 1996-98. They had a few key guys and aamzingly enough they were getting worse each year until Brady became the starter- I wonder why that was? They were in the playoffs and near th SB in '95 and '96, they had a bad '97. what they did in the 80s and ealry 90s is not relevant. yes I have an agenda not you:rofl: Please stop, you are making your typcial excuses. harrison wasn't great, comparing top weapons to Maning's 5th weapon, taking credit from the Colts '95 and '96 teams, giving too much credit to the Pats in the late 90s/early 00s. The Colts were lucky to get Manning, he elevated them to an elite franchise but the franchise wasn't a ba done in the 90s especially the few years before he got there. They weren't getting worse every single season.
Indy went to a SB in the 5 years prior to getting Manning? I must have missed that. You need to look up the definition for the word great. Harrison was not off to a “great” start. So now Herm isn’t a good coach? I seem to recall you defending him for years. The 95 Colts were a weak team that played in a weak conference and against a weak SD team and then a coach who choked in the playoffs. No you don’t have to take credit away from the 06 Colts when they were a good team that played in a tough conference and against tough teams in the playoffs (#1, #2 & #3 defenses) What difference does it make what they did the year before. Each team is different. They were 9-7 in 95 and barely made it into the playoffs. Their O’s stunk in the playoff games. They were still good offenses going into those games. OH right, Gaffney was a top target with his 11 receptions all year long. :rofl: The team won because they had a good defense and got lucky that McCree fumbled the ball back to NE after INT’ing Brady with what should have been the game ender. If all it took was Brady getting weapons then why hasn’t he won a SB since the Patriots started getting him top talent and why can’t he get his young players to play like Manning can for his young players. Yeah, Brady made Bruchi, Law, Milloy, McGinest all better. Get real. Of course they’re irrelevant. They hurt your weak argument. That franchise was a disgrace. But keep hanging your hat on their mediocre success. Harrison wasn’t great until Manning got there. You were the one comparing weapons, and the 95&96 teams were weak, and The pats of the late 90s made it to the playoffs more regularly and went further than those Colts teams you referred to so they DO DESERVE more credit. That organization was a bad one for 2 ½ decades before Manning got there and changed everything.
Indy went to a title game 3 years earlier and had 2 playoff wins and 2 playoff apps in the 3 previous years vs. ZERO playoff wins and only 1 playoff app for the Pats. Would very good work? You get the point. I do defend Hermn as a good coach but he's also a guy that never even made a title game. If you are going to bash marty who nearly made a couple of SBs then you have to throw Herm in there. The '95 Colts played in a weak conference but the '96 pats played in a strong conference. got it. You don't seem to grasp this fact that there is a difference btw the reg season and postseason. Gaffney led the Pts in postseason recs 1/ 21(5 more than the next guy- JABAR GAFFNEY). Good teams make their own luck, you sound like the whiny Jet haters complaining how we got lucky again against Dallas. MY weak argument:rofl: you are being roasted like usual making excuse after excuse. Yes, Peyton took a team who 3 years earlier made the title game and then "quickly" took them back that far 6 seasons later:rofl:
How many SBs did the Colts make w/o Manning since 1971? How many did the Pats make before Brady since 1996? Get the point. The Pats had much more recent success than the Colts did. Peyton rescued that dying franchise. Brady inherited a team that had a bunch of recent playoff experience. No, he was good. Not ‘very good’. I don’t even see where you’re going with this. You started off by saying the Colts beat a 13-3 KC team in 1995 to Herm in 2006. I’m not following here, you are all over theplace. Show me when I said the Pats played in a strong conference? You would say that 2 division championships and a SB appearance is better than 2 mediocre seasons where the only reason they made the playoffs was because they played in a weak conference are even close to being the same? Gaffney wasn’t their #1 or #2 target during the year. Good thing Troy Brown was there to save the day. I’m being roasted?! :rofl: When did you start taking comedy class? I’ve owned you in this thread. If Peyton would have played in the early to mid 90’s the Colts would have been much better than 9-7 and gone much farther playing in the weak AFC .
Again, what does 20-30 years before Peyton have top do w/ anything? How many SBs did NE WIN before Brady? It's rare for WRs to explode out o the gate early in their careers, it was much rare back in those days. he was really good his first few years, anyone could see he was going to be a big time WR. I'm using your flawed logic, you are trying to take away credit from Indy '95 to help mke your weak Peyton argument look better. if you do that for '95 you need to do that for '06 and that creampuff run they had where Peyton was carried to a SB title. WHO CARES about the reg season? Gaffney and Caldwell were 1 and 2 when it matterd most in January. You are being so badly beaten in this thread(like all Brady-Manning debates) though I do give you tons of credit for all your creative excuses. what does the '95 Colts being better if they had peyton have to do w/ anything? You are brinnging up such complete nonsense in this thread, you are a much better poster and much more knowledgeable fan than this. The day you "own" me in any debate is the last day I live on this planet. The Colts have had chances, Kerry is playing terribly right now. I would hope he'd pick it up sooner than later but he is playing awful football right now.
For 26 seasons before Manning the Colts basically sucked. Were a loser franchise. Played 3rd fiddle in Indiana to basketball and car racing. He saved that franchise. Two mediocre seasons 3 years before he got there are meaningless. You are trying to take credit away from Manning because that’s all you do. You have an agenda. We all get it. But it doesn’t take away from the FACT that Manning SAVED the Colts franchise. There’s a difference between where he was heading after 96-97 and where he ended up. That difference was Peyton Manning. You’re all over the place with your weak argument. The 95 Colts were lucky to even make the playoffs then drew a weak Chargers team and a KC team whose coach failed in the playoffs often and eventually lost to a real team. The 06 Colts went up against the #1, #2 & #3 defenses in the ENTIRE NFL. That’s not a creampuff run. Gaffney is still playing in the NFL so clearly he has skills and Caldwell had a decent year. Despite this Brady’s top targets were Caldwell, Faulk, Brown and Watson and they won 2 MORE games than they did the previous year so clearly they didn’t take a step back. You have provided nothing but your agenda in this thread. You have nothing BUT an agenda. I’m bringing up nonsense in this thread? Have you even read your posts. They are all over the place. You are trying to present two weak 9-7 seasons as reason to prove that Manning didn’t save the Colts franchise. The Colts haven’t been as successful as they have been since getting Manning since the late 50’s into the early 70’s. They were a broken franchise who had minimal success over 26 years, had to leave their beloved fan base in Baltimore, couldn’t even get attention in Indianapolis until Manning saved the franchise. Get past your agenda and you will see that Manning saved the franchise and it’s not even debatable. The reason why you got it wrong on Kerry Collins is because you are so blinded by your own agenda that you fail to recognize that MANNING is the reason the Colts win.
Awesome but just 3 years before him they were a play away from the Super Bowl. I don't dispute that he elevated the franchise, that is obvious and not the debate. I am not taking credit away from him at all, I am crediting him w/ making Indy an elite franchise. You are the one making excuses to try to make him look better and Brady look worse. Both QBs elevated their franchises to elite levels. Both are all time greats. of Course playing w/ a great QB like Manning helped him but Harrison was going to be great no matter who he played w/. Yes they were lucky, it was all luck just like the Jets the last 2+ seasons. It's all luck. A weak Chargers team that was in the SUPER BOWL the year before, a KC team that was 13-3 who beat the eventual Champion 49ers during the year. That's much weaker than facinf awful offensive teams like KC and Baltimore, facing Rex Grossman and facing NE where the top offensive weapons were Gaffney & Caldwell. if you are going to make those excuses for 1995 you need to use the same criteria for 2006. You are funny, all of these excuses are about your agenda. Brining up 20 years prior to manning, taking away their 2 playoff apps in the 3 previous years, pumping up the sinking ship in NE,... yet I am all over the place:rofl: It's a typical Brady-Manning argument, I provide facts and you provide excuses. Where have I said Manning was not reason #1 the Colts have been a great franchise? You are resorting to making things up now? you couldn't find new excuses?
He didn’t just elevate the franchise. He saved the franchise. What excuses? Every time you lose a debate you revert to claiming the other argument an excuse. After awhile it starts showing how weak your arguments are. He didn’t just make the Colts an elite franchise. He rescued that franchise from 26 years of below mediocrity. ‘Great’ is a word reserved for the top echelon. Harrison was not on his way to the top echelon. He got to that top level because he played with Manning. His career would have probably died out early if the Colts made the mistake of drafting Leaf. There’s no doubting his talent, but talent has its limitations. Manning helped get Harrison to the top of the NFL where he would not likely ever achieved otherwise. Don’t compare the ‘09/’10 Jets to the 95 Colts. The 95 Colts were a mediocre team that needed to win the last game to get into the playoffs then drew a weak opponent followed by a weak playoff coach. Who cares about the year before? Each season is different and the ‘95 Chargers were a weak team. The 49ers didn’t win the Super Bowl in the 95 season the Cowboys did. And that Chiefs team was coached by the same Marty Schottenheimer who failed many times in the postseason. Do you know that football is played by offense AND defense? The 2000 Ravens offense was bad but they still won the SB. The Ravens and Bears did not make it as far as they did in ’06 because of the offense. You love to revert to the word excuse when you are hit in the face with FACTS. The FACTS are that the 95 Colts played a weak SD team and Marty Schottenheimer who was notorious for his post season choke jobs. The 06 Colts had to go thru the #1, #2 and #3 defenses. There’s a BIG difference no matter how you try and spin it. Yes, you are all over the place. I have stayed firm with my points yet you keep bringing up nonsense that I have continued to prove wrong. Those 2 playoff apps were weak teams. Manning saved the franchise from 26 years of mediocrity. You have an agenda and it’s very apparent. Are you serious? You spend post after post claiming that Manning has benefited from being around great “talent”. You believed this so much so that you claimed the Colts would be 10-6 with Kerry Collins! You are insane with your anti-Manning agenda and you can’t even keep up with your own bullshit. It’s beyond hilarious at this point.
I'm sorry, I will try to start a new streak. Pay attenton to the Brady-Manning debate here, I'm off to a good start restoring my reputation:grin: Yes, he saved a franchise from the depths of the AFC Championship game. If only we could find a QB to rescue us! Let's look at some of your excuses: Indy '95 was weak, they faced a weak sched, the pats were great when Brady took over, the Colts stunk in the 80s throuhg the early 90s, the Pats were in the SB 5 years earlier, Peyton's D, the running game, the Kicker, Brady throws short passes, blah, blah, blah. The excuses never run out. Please explain how a franchise is rescued when 2 of the previous 3 years they were in the playoffs including a title game run? But the '09 jets needed Indy to rest starters for a qtr and a half, right? we were lucky(according to your logic), we didn't deserve that spot, we were only 9-7. We beat a bad Cincy team and a SD team coached by a playoff choker- isn't this the same thing as '95 Indy? So each season is different except when it comes to a coach like marty then each season is the same? Got it. The 2000 Ravens offense was not bad when Dilfer took over. As great as that D was they still needed quality QB play and for the O to make plays which they did. Marty made 2 title games so he proved he could win in January, right? so how is that a fact? how is it a fact SD '95 wasn't good? These are EXCUSES. You are looking at the Ds but what about the awful O's each of those teams had in '06? The only quality O was NE and the best QB in the game had Caldwell and Gaffney as his top 2 weapons. You have stayed firm making excuses but every time one of your theories is exposed a new excuse pops up. Your consistency comes from not giving Brady and credit and giving Manning all the credit. I never said Manning wasn't great, I never said he didn't make those around him better. I have stated the fact that he has had elite offensive talent around him since day 1, I have stated the fact that he has agagged more often than not in big games but that doesn't mean he isn't great. There are different levels of greatness, Peyton gets overrated b/c of his fantasy #s playing w/ that talent and in domes but he's still an all time great.
That was years before he got there and those teams were WEAK. Do you know what the word excuse means? Do you know what the word fact means? Let’s go over your list Indy '95 was weak, they faced a weak sched – FACT the pats were great when Brady took over – This is a LIE, I never said this. the Colts stunk in the 80s throuhg the early 90s – FACT – up until the franchise was SAVED by Manning the Pats were in the SB 5 years earlier – FACT followed by another Division Title and another playoff appearance Peyton's D, the running game, the Kicker, Brady throws short passes, blah, blah, blah. – NONE of this is relevant to Manning saving the Colts Read slowly so you can learn something. First – that team that made it to the AFCG was a WEAK team that got on a lucky run during a time that their nearest competition was at an extremely weak level. Second – I said Peyton rescued the franchise. Specifically referring to their 26 years of futility in which one mediocre run a few years before he got there did not save. And then the Jets followed it up with a better season and didn’t get blown out in the next season’s playoffs. Were an up and coming team widely viewed as a legitimate SB contender in 2010 where the Colts of 1996 was not. Get it? Every season is NOT the same. Marty however, has shown time and time again that he has choked in the playoffs including against the 1995 Colts team when he had what was a DOMINANT team. You comment regarding seasons and Marty are two totally different things and I suspect you know that. When Dilfer took over they played some of the WORST teams in the league which allowed for the offense to have more success than it would have if he were playing tougher opponents. Did the 2000 Ravens offense play better when Dilfer took over than it was when Tony Banks was starting? Absolutely. Was the 2000 Ravens offense better than the 2006 offense. Absolutely not. How many SB’s did Marty lead his team to? How many times did Marty’s teams UNDERACHIEVE in the postseason? It is a FACT that Marty Schottenheimer choked in the playoffs. How is it a fact that SD’s 1995 wasn’t very good. Well you can start by the FACT that they gave up more points than they scored. As a team they threw more TDs than INTs, they averaged only 3.6 yds per rush, they ended the season 9-7 and were fortunate to play some weak teams at the end of the year to get into the playoffs. These are FACTS. What about the O’s those teams had in ’06? The Ravens and Bears didn’t win because of their offense. The excuse you are giving for the Patriots (which is an actual excuse) doesn’t fly because they won 2 more games than the previous year – so there was no fall off – AND they had the lead in the AFCCG with Caldwell AND Gaffney as the “top 2 weapons”. And why isn’t all that “talent” winning games for them w/o Manning? Maybe, just maybe it’s because MANNING makes them great. Put your agenda aside and maybe you’ll get it.
