PDA

View Full Version : Did Peyton_Manning Choke Today?


Pages : 1 [2]

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:32 PM
Indy has magnificent receivers. The best ever. Three of them over 1,000 yards. They don't make mistakes. Stokely and Wayne are brilliant and know how to dismantle defenses. At least I read that in some post before they played against New England.

So it just can't be the fault of the receivers.

Tsk Tsk. Peyton gagged.

why do you take random pro manning posts and put the words in my mouth? cheap tactic many of you seem to be using because you don't feel like actually debating the point.

indy's receivers are good, but they aren't physical and match up poorly vs new england's defense. they also, uncharacteristically, choked in yesterday's game specifically. it happens. brady has an off game, elway had off games and so forth. so yes, it was their fault, and not manning's (to the degree you could say manning gagged).

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:33 PM
Willie McGintest and <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3820" target="_blank">Ty Law</a> were on teams against Elway. Coupla others, too.

having a couple of the same players hardly makes it the same team. the team now is largely dependent on many of the other players, the offense's ability to do what's necessary, and even moreso on the gameplanning/coaching overall.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 05:34 PM
even a three year old could tell the difference between the two situations, but just incase you're the only toddler on the internet i'll spell it out for you:

an interception on a tipped ball is the responsibility of some combination of the QB and receiver, whereas a fumble AFTER the receiver has possession of the ball is 100% his responsiblity. a tipped int can occur because the QB made an inaccurate throw and the receiver tipped it as a result or because the QB made a poor decision to throw into coverage and as a result it was battled for by a defender/receiver and intercepted as a result. i'm willing to give plummer a free pass on those ints that were 100% the receiver's fault, of course, and never said otherwise. however, based on plummer's history of accuracy and decisionmaking i have a hard time believing that the majority of his ints were 1) even on tipped balls and 2) on tipped balls AND solely the responsiblity of the receiver. manning however is known for his accuracy and decisionmaking and history bears this out. in yesterday's game the balls were quite simply dropped or fumbled 100% because of the receivers.

You must be a one year old, or you would recognize that Peyton often puts his receivers in harm's way. Ask Dallas Clark before you start talking about 100% blame for anything.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:38 PM
Thanks, Naptown.... CornStore and I were discussing that very subject earlier in the thread regarding his contention that no current NFL QB could have done better against the Pats D than Manning did yesterday. My reply countered that Vick's mobility might have made the difference.

the pats match up extremely well against mobile qbs, look it up. they have disciplined speedy defenders that are capable of playing contain and fulfilling their responsibility. whatever vick would have brought to the table in terms of mobility would have more than been made up for by his relative inability to accurately deliver the ball to WRs and make intelligent playcalling decisions.

also i did a little research on your point about elway single handedly winning playoff games and so forth and not having a supporting cast. would you believe that the broncos in 87 had the 7th best defense in the entire nfl? sounds like a decent supporting cast to me, much moreso than what peyton has -- manning's defense is ranked near the bottom of the league and this is despite the fact that manning gives them a huge lead to play with week in and week out. infact, if you look at elway's record between 89 and 98, the only times he even had above mediocre W/L seasons is when his defense was ranked highly as well.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:41 PM
You must be a one year old, or you would recognize that Peyton often puts his receivers in harm's way. Ask Dallas Clark before you start talking about 100% blame for anything.

putting a receiver in harm's way is a far cry from lofting up an easily tipped ball that gets intercepted because the defender is well covered. getting hammered after you take two steps and have control of the ball is hardly the same thing. tell me, if manning so often threw up plummers, and isn't accurate and so forth, why does he have so few interceptiosn on the year compared to plummer? is it because his receivers are good? then why weren't they as good yesterday when they lost the ball?

keep stretching though, you're on your way to teaching yoga.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:44 PM
The rookie has already been called out on this thread. CornLick trashed Big Ben just before he tried to compare Manning's 3-5 playoff record to the Great John Elway's 12-5 playoff record.

rofl

once again you stretch and harp on a meaningless and irrelevant point. i wasn't comparing manning to elway or manning's playoff teams to elway's playoff teams (since teams win and lose playoff games, one would think you'd have caught on to this by now). i was referencing the fact that no qb, not even elway, would have succeeded against the pats defense yesterday when the rest of the offense made so many critical mistakes.

i guess it should be obvious by now you're still sore that i've called out your lack of football knowledge twice now, and that you're just attempting to get under my skin to resurrect some self esteem. maybe i'll stop humoring you now.

Jason in LA
01-17-2005, 05:45 PM
How did Westbrook do in the playoff game against Carolina last season, Naptown?

No BS.

I'll answer this before he gets buried under too many posts.

Westbrooks didn't play in the playoffs last year. He got hurt late in the season.

McNabb was hurt, he was playing behind a poor O line, and his best weapon was out.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 05:47 PM
once again you stretch and harp on a meaningless and irrelevant point. i wasn't comparing manning to elway or manning's playoff teams to elway's playoff teams (since teams win and lose playoff games, one would think you'd have caught on to this by now). i was referencing the fact that no qb, not even elway, would have succeeded against the pats defense yesterday when the rest of the offense made so many critical mistakes.

i guess it should be obvious by now you're still sore that i've called out your lack of football knowledge twice now, and that you're just attempting to get under my skin to resurrect some self esteem. maybe i'll stop humoring you now.

Wins are meaningless and irrelevant. I guess to a fairweather Bills fan, that might make some degree of sense. If he even was a Bills fan.

God, I love winding this stupid kid up. He doesn't care about <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12531" target="_blank">Peyton Manning</a>, but he's got twice as many posts as anybody else on this thread.

rofl

FADERPROOF
01-17-2005, 05:49 PM
I didn't see that, but I didn't see every snap, either. I sure wouldn't be surprised. Hell, if I was freakishly skinny like that, self preservation would be high on my list of priorities, too. Hit him too hard, you might kill his tapeworm.

I can understand, I played WR at 125 pounds, luckily we only pased the ball about 5 times a game so I didnt have to worry too much about getting drilled.

But I wasnt getting paid over a million dollars either..

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 05:49 PM
I'll answer this before he gets buried under too many posts.

Westbrooks didn't play in the playoffs last year. He got hurt late in the season.

McNabb was hurt, he was playing behind a poor O line, and his best weapon was out.

Thanks, Jason. CornStore is going to need some room on this thread for his latest tantrum.

rofl

Jason in LA
01-17-2005, 05:49 PM
the pats match up extremely well against mobile qbs, look it up. they have disciplined speedy defenders that are capable of playing contain and fulfilling their responsibility. whatever vick would have brought to the table in terms of mobility would have more than been made up for by his relative inability to accurately deliver the ball to WRs and make intelligent playcalling decisions.

also i did a little research on your point about elway single handedly winning playoff games and so forth and not having a supporting cast. would you believe that the broncos in 87 had the 7th best defense in the entire nfl? sounds like a decent supporting cast to me, much moreso than what peyton has -- manning's defense is ranked near the bottom of the league and this is despite the fact that manning gives them a huge lead to play with week in and week out. infact, if you look at elway's record between 89 and 98, the only times he even had above mediocre W/L seasons is when his defense was ranked highly as well.

In '87 the Broncos were ranked 9th in the league, out of 28. That's good, but not world beaters.

Funny that you mention '87, but say nothing about '86, when Elway took the 21st ranked defense to the Super Bowl.

As for this Pats team, Elway's 97-98 teams would have smashed them. The game wouldn't even be close.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:50 PM
Keep trying to spin the numbers. Bottom line is McNabb is 6-4 in the post season, with no credible help on offense, before Westbrook this season. He's taking the Eagles to their fourth straight Conference Championship Game.

Manning is 3-5 in the playoffs, with one appearance in the AFC Championship Game. A four interception extravaganza.

Manning has also had one more season as a starter. One and a half, really.

ROFL holy crap you're beyond help, you'll do anything to make peyton look bad. ever consider that mcnabb's DEFENSE might have had anything to do with his TEAM's success? wow, what a concept.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:55 PM
Wins are meaningless and irrelevant. I guess to a fairweather Bills fan, that might make some degree of sense. If he even was a Bills fan.

God, I love winding this stupid kid up. He doesn't care about <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12531" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12531" target="_blank">Peyton Manning</a></a>, but he's got twice as many posts as anybody else on this thread.

rofl

twist and stretch, twist and stretch. i'm not a peyton manning fan, no. i have many posts in this thread because i'm responding to many different people on many different points. the reason i posted in the first place is because i find it comical so many of you despise peyton manning to the extent that you'll try to pin blame on him whenever possible.

when i said "meaningless and irrelevant" i suppose i should have spelled it out since you seem to have a hard time understanding sentences in the context of a post. if you read the rest of my post, you'd see that i meant comparing W/L records over a career is meaningless and irrelevant to my point that elway wouldn't have done better in yesterday's game than manning did. who cares how elway did on different teams vs different opponents? obviously you do, in a vain attempt to pile more blame on manning.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 05:55 PM
ROFL holy crap you're beyond help, you'll do anything to make peyton look bad. ever consider that mcnabb's DEFENSE might have had anything to do with his TEAM's success? wow, what a concept.

Ever consider that McNabb has been basically by himself on offense?

How about the fact that he took the team from 5-11 to 11-5 in his first season as the starter?

The Colts were 3-13 under Harbaugh and 3-13 under Manning. It wasn't until Edgerrin James was drafted that the team showed any improvement.

rofl

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 05:57 PM
twist and stretch, twist and stretch. i'm not a <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12531" target="_blank">Peyton Manning</a> fan, no. i have many posts in this thread because i'm responding to many different people on many different points. the reason i posted in the first place is because i find it comical so many of you despise <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12531" target="_blank">Peyton Manning</a> to the extent that you'll try to pin blame on him whenever possible.

when i said "meaningless and irrelevant" i suppose i should have spelled it out since you seem to have a hard time understanding sentences in the context of a post. if you read the rest of my post, you'd see that i meant comparing W/L records over a career is meaningless and irrelevant to my point that elway wouldn't have done better in yesterday's game than manning did. who cares how elway did on different teams vs different opponents? obviously you do, in a vain attempt to pile more blame on manning.


Shut up, liar. You dream of your lips on his bag. Frigging closet case.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:58 PM
In '87 the Broncos were ranked 9th in the league, out of 28. That's good, but not world beaters.

Funny that you mention '87, but say nothing about '86, when Elway took the 21st ranked defense to the Super Bowl.

As for this Pats team, Elway's 97-98 teams would have smashed them. The game wouldn't even be close.

i meant in terms of points allowed. in any case the pats were statistically a not so terrific team when they won it all in 2001. stuff happens. elway taking one bad defense to a super bowl against competition that may or may not match up to the competition manning faced yesterday VS. several seasons of consistent mediocrity when his defense was bad and passable success only when his defense was good is what we call a statistical trend.

of course you elway homers will conveniently look past this and pretend like he would have beaten this pats team despite his own WRs turning the ball over like crazy.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 05:59 PM
Shut up, liar. You dream of your lips on his bag. Frigging closet case.

good strategy. ignore a well reasoned post and throw out some insults because you can't hack it in a football discussion. finally you see the light and can deal with your own glaring shortcomings.

kudos to you!

CornStore
01-17-2005, 06:01 PM
Ever consider that McNabb has been basically by himself on offense?

How about the fact that he took the team from 5-11 to 11-5 in his first season as the starter?

The Colts were 3-13 under Harbaugh and 3-13 under Manning. It wasn't until <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133320" target="_blank">Edgerrin James</a> was drafted that the team showed any improvement.

rofl

again, when did i ever say manning was better than mcnabb? i was merely highlighting the logical inconsistencies in your desperate posts that attempt to make manning look bad.

just to further make you look like a clueless moron, though, there's no correlation between mcnabb and manning's first years with their respective teams to their performance NOW, which is what we're talking about. congrats on yet another poorly reasoned point!

Northman
01-17-2005, 06:01 PM
i meant in terms of points allowed. in any case the pats were statistically a not so terrific team when they won it all in 2001. stuff happens. elway taking one bad defense to a super bowl against competition that may or may not match up to the competition manning faced yesterday VS. several seasons of consistent mediocrity when his defense was bad and passable success only when his defense was good is what we call a statistical trend.

of course you elway homers will conveniently look past this and pretend like he would have beaten this pats team despite his own WRs turning the ball over like crazy.



Yes, you are correct. Elway would have beaten this Pats team. why? cause when it was only 6-3 John could have easily managed to create something and get the ball to a open receiver ( you and i discussed this last night ) cause he has mobility. there is a reason why John was considered the comeback king. but seriously Corn, you must have never seen Elway play or ever seen any highlights because only then would you truly understand the kind of player that he was.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 06:02 PM
good strategy. ignore a well reasoned post and throw out some insults because you can't hack it in a football discussion. finally you see the light and can deal with your own glaring shortcomings.

kudos to you!

Your strategy is better. Pose as a fan of a team that's challenging the Broncos for a wild card spot so you can troll our board like a little bitch. Too bad we found out you get all soft and gooey over Peyton Manning.

They're making trolls so soft these days. Just like the Colts.

:pity:

CornStore
01-17-2005, 06:05 PM
Yes, you are correct. Elway would have beaten this Pats team. why? cause when it was only 6-3 John could have easily managed to create something and get the ball to a open receiver ( you and i discussed this last night ) cause he has mobility. there is a reason why John was considered the comeback king. but seriously Corn, you must have never seen Elway play or ever seen any highlights because only then would you truly understand the kind of player that he was.

this is homerism and conjecture. if you are seriously deluded enough to think that he would have "created" something against a loaded pats defense playing out of its mind at home, and then somehow overcome a fumble by the receiver after he "made something happen" there's no help for you.

and btw, elway was the comeback king because he wasn't a good enough leader and quarterback to get his team out to a lead in the first place. or was that becuase the rest of his team was bad? that high ranking defense he relied on every successful season let him down? well then it's the other players' fault when elway's behind but when manning's behind its' him choking?

CornStore
01-17-2005, 06:06 PM
Your strategy is better. Pose as a fan of a team that's challenging the Broncos for a wild card spot so you can troll our board like a little bitch. Too bad we found out you get all soft and gooey over <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12531" target="_blank">Peyton Manning</a>.

They're making trolls so soft these days. Just like the Colts.

:pity:

wow, want a tissue? next thing you'll join the line of whiners that try to get me banned. i guess it's a rule that bills fans have to join in mindless irrational peyton manning bashing by bitter broncos fans. my bad, i should have read the rulebook!

Northman
01-17-2005, 06:08 PM
this is homerism and conjecture. if you are seriously deluded enough to think that he would have "created" something against a loaded pats defense playing out of its mind at home, and then somehow overcome a fumble by the receiver after he "made something happen" there's no help for you.

and btw, elway was the comeback king because he wasn't a good enough leader and quarterback to get his team out to a lead in the first place. or was that becuase the rest of his team was bad? that high ranking defense he relied on every successful season let him down? well then it's the other players' fault when elway's behind but when manning's behind its' him choking?


Omg! loaded team? the Pats secondary was depleted you ****ing moron! are you just making **** up now? and John wasnt a leader? he has two Super Bowl rings mother****er! and who do you think the team looked up too? do you even see clips of fellow Bronco players and what they think of Elway? your a complete moron. just when i think you have some sense you spew out total garbage like this? let me guess? you think that Jim Kelly is much better right? your a ****ing joke dude, honestly.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 06:11 PM
Omg! loaded team? the Pats secondary was depleted you ****ing moron! are you just making **** up now? and John wasnt a leader? he has two Super Bowl rings mother****er! and who do you think the team looked up too? do you even see clips of fellow Bronco players and what they think of Elway? your a complete moron. just when i think you have some sense you spew out total garbage like this? let me guess? you think that Jim Kelly is much better right? your a ****ing joke dude, honestly.

judging by slap's line of reasoning, elway only became a champ when TD joined the team. guess he had nothing to do with the broncos winning it all. and for the fiftieth time, i'm not comparing elway's career to manning's or saying manning is better than elway. my point is simply that no qb would have "looked good" in yesterday's game vs that defense with their offense coughing the ball up so many times.

btw, the pats secondary has been depleted throughout this season, and they've been forced to play earthwind moreland and troy brown when samuel/gay have missed games. however, moreland, the true weak link wasn't playing yesterday. samuel is highly underrated and gay is good as well. pats fans even know this. ty law is a great player and ballhawk but for the scheme to work you don't need incredible corners, as was demonstrated yesterday, you just need to not have HORRIBLE ones like moreland playing.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 06:21 PM
the pats match up extremely well against mobile qbs, look it up. they have disciplined speedy defenders that are capable of playing contain and fulfilling their responsibility. whatever vick would have brought to the table in terms of mobility would have more than been made up for by his relative inability to accurately deliver the ball to WRs and make intelligent playcalling decisions.

also i did a little research on your point about elway single handedly winning playoff games and so forth and not having a supporting cast. would you believe that the broncos in 87 had the 7th best defense in the entire nfl? sounds like a decent supporting cast to me, much moreso than what peyton has -- manning's defense is ranked near the bottom of the league and this is despite the fact that manning gives them a huge lead to play with week in and week out. infact, if you look at elway's record between 89 and 98, the only times he even had above mediocre W/L seasons is when his defense was ranked highly as well.

Unless or until Vick's Falcons face that Pats defense, we won't really know for sure, will we, CornStore? We do know that the Pats lost to the Steelers and Dolphins... two teams that feature a pretty good defense, as do the Falcons.

RE: the 80s Broncos SB teams and Elway's supporting cast... name 5 defensive players on those teams (without looking it up).

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 06:22 PM
Ever consider that McNabb has been basically by himself on offense?

How about the fact that he took the team from 5-11 to 11-5 in his first season as the starter?

The Colts were 3-13 under Harbaugh and 3-13 under Manning. It wasn't until <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133320" target="_blank">Edgerrin James</a> was drafted that the team showed any improvement.

rofl


Now you are back to yoga...First off they had Faulk the year before James and last I checked he was pretty good so to give James the credit is stetching a bunch. The following year in Manning's second season he turned that **** hole around to 13-3....McNabb's second year he did QB them to a 11-5 record which was admirable but we can't overlook a defense that was 4th in the league in allowing points. Manning in his second season posted that 13-3 with the 17th rated D. Funny how we can take the same story and make it sound so different.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 06:24 PM
and those defenses would have been ringless without Elway, Montana, Young, and Favre to lead the team with big plays and scoring. You can't win with no points. ???


You must have missed the Baltimore Championship with Dilfer eh?

Northman
01-17-2005, 06:25 PM
judging by slap's line of reasoning, elway only became a champ when TD joined the team. guess he had nothing to do with the broncos winning it all. and for the fiftieth time, i'm not comparing elway's career to manning's or saying manning is better than elway. my point is simply that no qb would have "looked good" in yesterday's game vs that defense with their offense coughing the ball up so many times.

btw, the pats secondary has been depleted throughout this season, and they've been forced to play earthwind moreland and troy brown when samuel/gay have missed games. however, moreland, the true weak link wasn't playing yesterday. samuel is highly underrated and gay is good as well. pats fans even know this. <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3820" target="_blank">Ty Law</a> is a great player and ballhawk but for the scheme to work you don't need incredible corners, as was demonstrated yesterday, you just need to not have HORRIBLE ones like moreland playing.




Which turns us back to the opening game of the year when Manning put up 24 points on this same team only with their starting rotation. so technically? Manning should have put up better numbers. sure, the receivers had a couple of drops but not to the extent that it cost them the game. its one thing when you are like denver and cant score and find yourself down 14-0 and 21-0. but this wasnt the case with the Colts on sunday. they were only down 6-3 at halftime. the drops you keep talking about, a majority of those happened in the first half so whats the excuse for the second half? the screen play was working very well for the Colts. the biggest problem for the Colts in the second half was time of possession which the Pats owned but,,, when the Colts did touch the ball they did nothing with it. so again, we come back to why didnt Manning make a play in the second half? as for the Pats defense? are they good? sure, but they also gave up a average of 15-20 points a game this year. and with a offense like the Colts that should have been no problem especially after what they accomplished at the beginning of the year against the starters. and when the game is close ITS UP TO THE QUARTERBACK to make some plays and take charge of the team. Manning didnt and therefore choked away his opportunity. as stated before, Manning was defeated before the first half was even over. he gave up and thats something that even Jake Plummer WOULDNT do.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 06:25 PM
Unless or until Vick's Falcons face that Pats defense, we won't really know for sure, will we, CornStore? We do know that the Pats lost to the Steelers and Dolphins... two teams that feature a pretty good defense, as do the Falcons.

RE: the 80s Broncos SB teams and Elway's supporting cast... name 5 defensive players on those teams (without looking it up).

you miss the point yet again. i'm talking about sticking a quarterback in. vick's falcons are a different team than manning's colts and perhaps match up well against the pats thanks to their monster running game, vick aside. maybe the falcons won't cough up the ball like the colts receivers did. maybe the game won't be played in foxboro in the snow.

and as far as the 80s broncos team, i didn't follow football that extensively again. and how does it matter whether or not they had "marquee' players (supposing they didn't)? as a whole, the defense certainly helped and did its job. when the defense wasn't as good, elway wasn't magically willing the team to playoff wins, infact his teams were going 7-9 or 8-8. nothing special. manning has a crappy offensive line, good WRs, a good RB, and a horrible defense and he consistently puts up 13-3 seasons with playoff wins thrown in.

FADERPROOF
01-17-2005, 06:25 PM
That "depleted" NE secondary was also 8-1 with Ty Law out also.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 06:26 PM
again = then* i didn't follow football extensively during those broncos super bowl years in the 80s, that's why i did research on how good the defense was before posting.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 06:28 PM
Manning didnt and therefore choked away his opportunity. as stated before, Manning was defeated before the first half was even over. he gave up and thats something that even <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1003" target="_blank">Jake Plummer</a> WOULDNT do.



Boy, how bad are the Donks considering such a ****ty choking QB owns them like no other QB has owned a team in the playoffs?

Northman
01-17-2005, 06:29 PM
Boy, how bad are the Donks considering such a ****ty choking QB owns them like no other QB has owned a team in the playoffs?


how bad are the chiefs? at home even.

alkemical
01-17-2005, 06:30 PM
exit, stage left

CornStore
01-17-2005, 06:32 PM
Which turns us back to the opening game of the year when Manning put up 24 points on this same team only with their starting rotation. so technically? Manning should have put up better numbers. sure, the receivers had a couple of drops but not to the extent that it cost them the game. its one thing when you are like denver and cant score and find yourself down 14-0 and 21-0. but this wasnt the case with the Colts on sunday. they were only down 6-3 at halftime. the drops you keep talking about, a majority of those happened in the first half so whats the excuse for the second half? the screen play was working very well for the Colts. the biggest problem for the Colts in the second half was time of possession which the Pats owned but,,, when the Colts did touch the ball they did nothing with it. so again, we come back to why didnt Manning make a play in the second half? as for the Pats defense? are they good? sure, but they also gave up a average of 15-20 points a game this year. and with a offense like the Colts that should have been no problem especially after what they accomplished at the beginning of the year against the starters. and when the game is close ITS UP TO THE QUARTERBACK to make some plays and take charge of the team. Manning didnt and therefore choked away his opportunity. as stated before, Manning was defeated before the first half was even over. he gave up and thats something that even <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1003" target="_blank">Jake Plummer</a> WOULDNT do.

cripes dude, he put up 24 points vs a "cautious" bill belicheck who was saving defensive looks for the playoffs. he did it when his receivers weren't dropping balls and fumbling it over to the pats (though edge did fumble). he also did it when it wasn't the snow and when belicheck didn't have an extra bye week to prepare. and maybe just maybe the pats defense played LIGHTS OUT yesterday and didn't play with the same intensity in the regular season game? you can't just compare situations like that and say he "should" have done this or that. give credit where it's due (NE defense) and place blame where its due (colts O-line and receivers)

i still can't believe you're saying 5 drops which all killed drives and 2 fumbles "didn't make much of a difference" THATS SEVEN POTENTIAL SCORING DRIVES, and the pats controlled the clock bigtime.

the colts didn't get many chances in the second half because NE controlled the clock. when they did, they had at least one drive end via fumble and another end via a dropped pass if i recall correctly. and you talk about NE's 15-20 point average and attempt to just extrapolate out to this game. first off, they didn't spend the entire season in the snow in foxboro after a bye. second, obviously the players were more "intense" for yesterday's games. two big factors you ignore.

anyways i gotta go, i'll probably check in later if you guys reply.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 06:32 PM
The most important thing about success in playoff football is defense...That is the most glaring stat in pro sports. To act like McNabb is something because of playoff success despite never having worse than the #7th ranked defense in his career in points allowed while Manning has been saddled with a terrible defense most of his career shows how little you boys understand the game or how much you enjoy manipulating reality.

I can assure you Manning would trade his receivers for Philly's receivers in a heartbeat if it came with a defense swap.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 06:33 PM
how bad are the chiefs? at home even.


They are terrible....and at home, still terrible but based on the last game against the Donks obviously not as bad as them.

Clockwork Orange
01-17-2005, 06:35 PM
Boy, how bad are the Donks considering such a ****ty choking QB owns them like no other QB has owned a team in the playoffs?

Good enough to qualify for the playoffs, which puts us a few notches higher than the Chefs.

It's just unfortunate for PayMeATon that he had to go to New England after beating Denver instead of another trip to Narrowhead. If he had, we'd be talking about the Chefs in the same light as the Broncos.

winstoncup bronco
01-17-2005, 06:35 PM
The most important thing about success in playoff football is defense...That is the most glaring stat in pro sports. To act like McNabb is something because of playoff success despite never having worse than the #7th ranked defense in his career in points allowed while Manning has been saddled with a terrible defense most of his career shows how little you boys understand the game or how much you enjoy manipulating reality.

I can assure you Manning would trade his receivers for Philly's receivers in a heartbeat if it came with a defense swap.

Yeah but, didn't you hear? It's the Colts offenses fault for scoring too quickly, thereby giving the opposing team more possessions, so blame Manning, not the defense.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 06:36 PM
you miss the point yet again. i'm talking about sticking a quarterback in. vick's falcons are a different team than manning's colts and perhaps match up well against the pats thanks to their monster running game, vick aside. maybe the falcons won't cough up the ball like the colts receivers did. maybe the game won't be played in foxboro in the snow.

I'm not buying your contention that all the Manning incompletions yesterday were 100% the fault of the WRs. An incompletion can be the fault of the QB, the WR, or both, but in most cases, when the WR corps and the QB are not on the same page for an entire game, there's plenty of blame to go around (ie: Manning gets some of it.)


and as far as the 80s broncos team, i didn't follow football that extensively again. and how does it matter whether or not they had "marquee' players (supposing they didn't)? as a whole, the defense certainly helped and did its job. when the defense wasn't as good, elway wasn't magically willing the team to playoff wins, infact his teams were going 7-9 or 8-8. nothing special. manning has a crappy offensive line, good WRs, a good RB, and a horrible defense and he consistently puts up 13-3 seasons with playoff wins thrown in.

OK, so you really don't know what you're talking about when you speak of what Elway could or could not have done. Thanks for admitting it.

Northman
01-17-2005, 06:36 PM
They are terrible....and at home, still terrible but based on the last game against the Donks obviously not as bad as them.


every dog has its day but the chiefs seem to have it very often. LOL

Northman
01-17-2005, 06:42 PM
cripes dude, he put up 24 points vs a "cautious" bill belicheck who was saving defensive looks for the playoffs. he did it when his receivers weren't dropping balls and fumbling it over to the pats (though edge did fumble). he also did it when it wasn't the snow and when belicheck didn't have an extra bye week to prepare. and maybe just maybe the pats defense played LIGHTS OUT yesterday and didn't play with the same intensity in the regular season game? you can't just compare situations like that and say he "should" have done this or that. give credit where it's due (NE defense) and place blame where its due (colts O-line and receivers)

i still can't believe you're saying 5 drops which all killed drives and 2 fumbles "didn't make much of a difference" THATS SEVEN POTENTIAL SCORING DRIVES, and the pats controlled the clock bigtime.

the colts didn't get many chances in the second half because NE controlled the clock. when they did, they had at least one drive end via fumble and another end via a dropped pass if i recall correctly. and you talk about NE's 15-20 point average and attempt to just extrapolate out to this game. first off, they didn't spend the entire season in the snow in foxboro after a bye. second, obviously the players were more "intense" for yesterday's games. two big factors you ignore.

anyways i gotta go, i'll probably check in later if you guys reply.



hmmm, so now your telling me Corn that you can read Bill's mind and know for a fact that he was being cautious? do you have a link that proves this theory of yours? and you do realize that there was another team playing in that snow as well right? again, you harp on the drops as if it gave the Pats a 30-3 lead or something. even with the drops the game was still within reach why cant you grasp the idea that when you get that lucky that you as a Qb need to LIFT your head up and help try and make something happen? if the Pats had 1 incentive for playing LIGHTS OUT as you call it, it is because of the crap they took last year about the holding on the receivers. well, that didnt happen this past sunday and everything was in favor of Peyton to take advantage of that. Dungy's gameplan of only running James 15 times didnt help but during the course of the year Dungy allowed Peyton to run that team and make audibles and all sorts of ****. and then your going to tell me that all of sudden Dungy pulls in the reigns on Manning? im not buying but you can continue to try and spin this whole event any which way you like. but, your just flat out wrong.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 06:47 PM
your going to tell me that all of sudden Dungy pulls in the reigns on Manning? im not buying but you can continue to try and spin this whole event any which way you like. but, your just flat out wrong.



I have nothing to confirm what happen yet but having watched all the Colts games this year and based on Manning's post game interview I'm guessing Dungy did pull in the reins and limit his audibles. It is certainly possible that Peyton pissed down his leg and was the one that got conservative early but I highly doubt it. I will be keeping an ear out here locally to see what I find out but my guess is Dungy pulled his Tampa offensive game plan out for this one.

Northman
01-17-2005, 06:49 PM
I have nothing to confirm what happen yet but having watched all the Colts games this year and based on Manning's post game interview I'm guessing Dungy did pull in the reins and limit his audibles. It is certainly possible that Peyton pissed down his leg and was the one that got conservative early but I highly doubt it. I will be keeping an ear out here locally to see what I find out but my guess is Dungy pulled his Tampa offensive game plan out for this one.


yea, but Nap dont you think that Dungy would have run the ball more if he were going conservative? he only ran James like 15 times man. thats hardly any touches especially with the game as close as it was. ???

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 06:58 PM
yea, but Nap dont you think that Dungy would have run the ball more if he were going conservative? he only ran James like 15 times man. thats hardly any touches especially with the game as close as it was. ???



Early on in the game they called run plays on nearly every first down which is very unlike them. The total of 15 runs for James is only low due to the fact the Pats killed damn near the whole clock in the 2nd half with Dillon and Faulk. And when the Colts finally got the ball back Wayne fumbled on the first play. If you go back and look at the first half, it wasn't until about 5-7 mintues to go in the half before they threw a pass out to Wayne or Harrison outside. It was all run James, dump to Pollard or a quick screen to Stokely in the slot. It was very conservative for Colts standards.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 07:01 PM
and I forgot to mention boat loads of screen passes to James.

Northman
01-17-2005, 07:02 PM
and I forgot to mention boat loads of screen passes to James.


which were very effective i might add. i didnt see the Pats stop that play once on sunday.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 07:06 PM
which were very effective i might add. i didnt see the Pats stop that play once on sunday.


It was their most effective play but it is still a conservative play call. They didn't throw one single pass beyond 15 yards. With their beat up CB's that should have been the one thing to try and take advantage of....

If you were a Patriots fan and were allowed to call the Colts offensive plays it would have looked just like what we saw yesterday. Having the Colts going deep on their CB's would be the one thing that would scare the hell out of you and it was the one thing the Colts didn't do.

Again, I don't know if it was Manning that pissed down his leg or Dungy but either way it was gutless and stacked the odds heavily against the Colts by removing their strength.

Northman
01-17-2005, 07:09 PM
Again, I don't know if it was Manning that pissed down his leg or Dungy but either way it was gutless and stacked the odds heavily against the Colts by removing their strength.


now that i agree with.

Pendejo
01-17-2005, 07:29 PM
I have nothing to confirm what happen yet but having watched all the Colts games this year and based on Manning's post game interview I'm guessing Dungy did pull in the reins and limit his audibles. It is certainly possible that Peyton pissed down his leg and was the one that got conservative early but I highly doubt it. I will be keeping an ear out here locally to see what I find out but my guess is Dungy pulled his Tampa offensive game plan out for this one.

If that's true then Dungy is a fool. They air it out...it's what they do best...in doors of course. I'd be surprised if Peyton doesn't have just as much stroke as Dungy when it comes to calling the offense.

He just didn't get it done. The Patriots dropped balls too. That's no excuse for only managing 3 points.

Then again...it'd be nearly impossible for him to play to the level that NFL machine, and the media have constructed for him. Just wait for the NFL's spin this summer..."It turns out that Peyton was only about 60% for the playoff game. You see he spent the two days leading up to the game in Thailand building homes for victims of the Tsnunami...using nothing but his bare hands. He single handedly gnawed down at least three hundred trees...which he used to build 17 homes. 1700 sq feet each...with 2 1/2 baths...shag carpeting, and a breakfast nook with a breathtaking view. After achieving that he nursed a litter of orphaned piglets back to health after miraculously sprouting 3 teats."

That's enough of that...whoa.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 07:34 PM
I can assure you Manning would trade his receivers for Philly's receivers in a heartbeat if it came with a defense swap.

Now that's total bull****. If it was true, why did Peyton endorse locking up Marvin with a big contract? They could have brought in two stud defensive free agents this summer for that kind of money.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 07:38 PM
Now that's total bull****. If it was true, why did Peyton endorse locking up Marvin with a big contract? They could have brought in two stud defensive free agents this summer for that kind of money.


Probably bird in the hand theory would be my guess....Certainly no guarantee they would spend it elsewhere and certainly no guarantee who they spent it on would be worth a damn.

Philly has a huge contract on McNabb, Owens and still have a great defense....No reason why the Colts can't do the same with Manning and Harrison if Dungy is such a defensive guru.

alkemical
01-17-2005, 07:52 PM
but the eagles still pay a ton for corners and safties but not so much for LB's & DT's. They use one gap tackles that get up field. Their LB's are more or less for run stuffing (as a priority) and zone coverage. Pretty easy fill. They will spend money on Ends though (Kearse) -

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 07:53 PM
McNabb is making serious bank, but he didn't get anything close to that outlandish signing bonus Peyton commanded.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 07:59 PM
McNabb is making serious bank, but he didn't get anything close to that outlandish signing bonus Peyton commanded.


Which should help the Colts on the cap cause that spreads out the damage..Haven't looked it up but I'm guessing McNabb's cap hit will be equal or higher than Mannings real soon as he gets deeper into that big payday he got.

The Colts will part ways with Pollard, Rob Morris and probably James this offseason so there shouldn't be any reason why they can't buy themselves a quality CB and MLB. The dumbest move the Colts ever made was letting Jim Johnson leave. He put together the only quality defense the Colts have had since being in Indy.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 08:03 PM
Which should help the Colts on the cap cause that spreads out the damage..Haven't looked it up but I'm guessing McNabb's cap hit will be equal or higher than Mannings real soon as he gets deeper into that big payday he got.

That's a complete fabrication. Manning's bonus dwarfed McNabb's (and all others until Vick's deal). You're actually trying to argue that McNabb's contract is worse for the Eagles because he got less guaranteed money?

Come on.

NaptownChief
01-17-2005, 08:08 PM
That's a complete fabrication. Manning's bonus dwarfed McNabb's (and all others until Vick's deal). You're actually trying to argue that McNabb's contract is worse for the Eagles because he got less guaranteed money?

Come on.


Most deals are near league min early then start to step up a bunch after a few years. My guess is McNabb's is near those bigger base years and his per year cap number will be equal or higher than Manning's the next year or two as Manning's will be the prorating of that monster bonus and a near league min base. Obviously Manning's will eventually surpass McNabb's if no renegotiations are done but I bet in the next 2-4 years it will be very similar. By the time Manning's starts really surpassing McNabb's the Eagles will be had by the short hairs and will have to give him a Manning/Vick type of bonus.

alkemical
01-17-2005, 08:09 PM
You know for all the **** Philly gave McNabb on draft day, he really enjoys playing in philly.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 08:16 PM
Most deals are near league min early then start to step up a bunch after a few years. My guess is McNabb's is near those bigger base years and his per year cap number will be equal or higher than Manning's the next year or two as Manning's will be the prorating of that monster bonus and a near league min base. Obviously Manning's will eventually surpass McNabb's if no renegotiations are done but I bet in the next 2-4 years it will be very similar. By the time Manning's starts really surpassing McNabb's the Eagles will be had by the short hairs and will have to give him a Manning/Vick type of bonus.

You're basically admitting that you don't know anything about McNabb's deal. All we know is that Manning's record shattering signing bonus sent huge ripples through the League. Ray Lewis called his agent screaming bloody murder because his deal wasn't remotely in the same ballpark.

There's no way you can compare non guaranteed money to a signing bonus that never going to be renegotiated because its already been paid.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 08:44 PM
I'm not buying your contention that all the Manning incompletions yesterday were 100% the fault of the WRs. An incompletion can be the fault of the QB, the WR, or both, but in most cases, when the WR corps and the QB are not on the same page for an entire game, there's plenty of blame to go around (ie: Manning gets some of it.)




OK, so you really don't know what you're talking about when you speak of what Elway could or could not have done. Thanks for admitting it.

why would i blame ALL his incompletions on the receivers? follow along a little more closely please, i didn't expect manning to have a perfect game. the balls the receivers dropped however, were not poorly thrown, they literally hit the WRs in the hands. stokeley even said as much after the game.

and as for elway, i wasn't watching him in 1987, but i watched him after that, so i know plenty. it's a pure copout to say "oh you didn't watch him, you don't know". the simple FACT is that he had a good defense and when he didn't, his teams were mediocre, so he wasn't single handedly winning any playoff games.

FADERPROOF
01-17-2005, 08:46 PM
Now that's total bull****. If it was true, why did Peyton endorse locking up Marvin with a big contract? They could have brought in two stud defensive free agents this summer for that kind of money.

The key was "with a defensive swap" in Naptowns statement.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 08:49 PM
yea, but Nap dont you think that Dungy would have run the ball more if he were going conservative? he only ran James like 15 times man. thats hardly any touches especially with the game as close as it was. ???

he only ran 15 times because the early drives were stalled by drops and so on. when you don't run that many plays period, you are'nt going to run that many times either. later on after they fell behind they were in catchup mode a bit so running then was tougher. as far as whether belicheck pulled out all the stops, it's obvious he didn't because they used more schemes and fronts this time than the regular season game. i don't need a link, i watched the games and it sort of makes sense to assume that belicheck, crafty as he is, isn't going to show manning everything he has in the first game when it's beyond likely he'll see them again later in the year. the game was sort of within reach, sure, but manning's offense didn't stop getting outplayed and NE's defense didn't let up one bit. manning did what he could, and perhaps he could have done more and read the defenses better (even though reading a belicheck defense is certainly tough), but he certainly didn't CHOKE or GAG the game away as some of you seem to love saying. i have no doubts if the colts oline elevated their play and the receivers were more clutch that manning would have performed much much better. now manning DID CHOKE last year's afc championship game by forcing bad throws and turning it over, but that didn't happen this time. if it had i wouldn't be arguing.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 08:52 PM
Now that's total bull****. If it was true, why did Peyton endorse locking up Marvin with a big contract? They could have brought in two stud defensive free agents this summer for that kind of money.

bringing in two stud defensive free agents hardly brings you up to the level of philly's defense -- jim johnson is an incredible coordinator and they have TONS of stars on the team. i don't know whether peyton would trade, despite that, though, because i think the colts believe dungy can do a lot with a little on defense (and i think that's pretty true) while manning can be overpowering with the tools he has at times. the formula just doesn't work against one team, unfortunately that team always plays them in the playoffs.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 08:54 PM
Probably bird in the hand theory would be my guess....Certainly no guarantee they would spend it elsewhere and certainly no guarantee who they spent it on would be worth a damn.

Philly has a huge contract on McNabb, Owens and still have a great defense....No reason why the Colts can't do the same with Manning and Harrison if Dungy is such a defensive guru.

actually the eagles have this pretty good management strategy of locking up their young stars early on and they also hit a lot with their draft picks. lito sheppard and brown were supposed to be the weak links of the defense this year ... unproven cbs attempting to replace two greats in vincent and taylor. but they've both played at a pro bowl level, it's insane. i don't think the colts front office could pull something like this off, infact i don't really see ANY other teams doing this. the eagles are set for a long time. i think the colts goal is to get a decent defense with as little money as possible, and the way their D has improved i'd say it's happening. the D will be better next year as their younger guys mature.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:02 PM
mcnabb's O-line is much much better than peyton's, by the way. obviously they're both great players with different strengths, but this notion that mcnabb needs less in terms of salary cap help to accomplish what he does isn't true. peyton makes a bad O-line serviceable and makes players like stokley look like superstars, as well as compensates for a bad defense with the sheer # of yards/points he can put up.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 09:02 PM
why would i blame ALL his incompletions on the receivers? follow along a little more closely please, i didn't expect manning to have a perfect game. the balls the receivers dropped however, were not poorly thrown, they literally hit the WRs in the hands. stokeley even said as much after the game.

and as for elway, i wasn't watching him in 1987, but i watched him after that, so i know plenty. it's a pure copout to say "oh you didn't watch him, you don't know". the simple FACT is that he had a good defense and when he didn't, his teams were mediocre, so he wasn't single handedly winning any playoff games.

I expected the league MVP to put up some points, CornStore... and it's a pretty sure bet most football fans did. (The 3 Indy ended up with would have to be credited to the kicker, despite the acknowledgement that the offense did get the team within field goal range). And while some passes were dropped after hitting receivers in the hands, even the blindest Colts homer would have to admit that Peyton did not turn in a flawless performance yesterday and deserves a significant amount of the culpability for the loss. Certainly the Colts defense can't be assigned much of the blame after being on the field 2/3 of the game.

As to Elway in his prime, your opinion has lost all credibility in my estimation with your
continued expounding despite the admission that you do not know what you're talking about (otherwise known as pulling bs out of your nether regions). Hence, this facet of the debate is, to all intents and purposes, over, thank you very much.

FADERPROOF
01-17-2005, 09:04 PM
Why in the hell are people even arguing Elway to Manning?

The great QB of all-time compared to a guy whos been to the AFC title game once in a 7 year career? It's smarter to just let those arguements go than to actually argue such dumb stuff.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:06 PM
I expected the league MVP to put up some points, CornStore... and it's a pretty sure bet most football fans did. (The 3 Indy ended up with would have to be credited to the kicker, despite the acknowledgement that the offense did get the team within field goal range). And while some passes were dropped after hitting receivers in the hands, even the blindest Colts homer would have to admit that Peyton did not turn in a flawless performance yesterday and deserves a significant amount of the culpability for the loss. Certainly the Colts defense can't be assigned much of the blame after being on the field 2/3 of the game.

As to Elway in his prime, your opinion has lost all credibility in my estimation with your
continued expounding despite the admission that you do not know what you're talking about (otherwise known as pulling bs out of your nether regions). Hence, this facet of the debate is, to all intents and purposes, over, thank you very much.


copout/dodge on the elway thing. how exactly do i not know what i'm talking about? because i didn't watch his every move in 1987? i know what type of player he was and what he was capable of. the facts don't lie. the times elway and his broncos were above mediocre (.500 level) and made the playoffs, they had a high ranking defense in 87-98. and in 97/98 he had a more than allstar supporting cast. i don't see what exactly he did that manning has been unable to do in terms of success without a supporting cast. manning manages to go 13-3 without the benefit of a good defense.

on the peyton thing ... i never said he turned in a flawless performance or that he deserves "some of the blame". that's a far cry from "HAHA PEYTON CHOKED AND GAGGED, HOW OVERRATED"

he could have done more, no doubt about it, but if anyone choked in this game, it was the colts O-line and the receivers that fumbled/dropped passes that were thrown right to them. i never blamed the colts defense in that game either, they played pretty well, better than expected. when i reference how bad the colts defense is, i mean "in general".

alkemical
01-17-2005, 09:09 PM
Here's a good question...

Should the MVP award be given out after playoffs?

FADERPROOF
01-17-2005, 09:11 PM
Here's a good question...

Should the MVP award be given out after playoffs?

Yes, but the votes should be in before the playoffs, just the announcement should be after.

alkemical
01-17-2005, 09:12 PM
Yes, but the votes should be in before the playoffs, just the announcement should be after.


I guess you missed my point then.

TheManeMan
01-17-2005, 09:12 PM
Here's a good question...

Should the MVP award be given out after playoffs?

No because the MVP is an award that rewards a players performance based on the regular season, playoffs have nothing to do with it...and should never have anything to do with it...Plain and simple...

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 09:13 PM
mcnabb's O-line is much much better than peyton's, by the way. obviously they're both great players with different strengths, but this notion that mcnabb needs less in terms of salary cap help to accomplish what he does isn't true. peyton makes a bad O-line serviceable and makes players like stokley look like superstars, as well as compensates for a bad defense with the sheer # of yards/points he can put up.

More of the same bull**** from the Peyton worshippers. Indianapolis has a very good, but not surprisingly very overshadowed, offensive line.

This is the exact reason why people hate the Manning lovers so much. None of the Colts are anything without Peyton. He makes everybody look good. What a crock of ****. The guy is a statue, but he rarely ever gets touched and its because "Peyton makes a bad O-line serviceable".

Hero worshipping homos like Cornwhore really need to take a break with this ****. It embarrassing already and its why people delight in Peyton's annual playoff pratfalls.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 09:14 PM
copout/dodge on the elway thing. how exactly do i not know what i'm talking about? because i didn't watch his every move in 1987? i know what type of player he was and what he was capable of. the facts don't lie. the times elway and his broncos were above mediocre (.500 level) and made the playoffs, they had a high ranking defense in 87-98. and in 97/98 he had a more than allstar supporting cast. i don't see what exactly he did that manning has been unable to do in terms of success without a supporting cast. manning manages to go 13-3 without the benefit of a good defense.

on the peyton thing ... i never said he turned in a flawless performance or that he deserves "some of the blame". that's a far cry from "HAHA PEYTON CHOKED AND GAGGED, HOW OVERRATED"

he could have done more, no doubt about it, but if anyone choked in this game, it was the colts O-line and the receivers that fumbled/dropped passes that were thrown right to them. i never blamed the colts defense in that game either, they played pretty well, better than expected. when i reference how bad the colts defense is, i mean "in general".

Opinions vary, CornStore... and as stated above, yours on this subject no longer carries any credibility whatsoever with me. Therefore, I'm doing you the profound favor of changing the subject from one in which you are admittedly ignorant. Why you'd want to continue to showcase that ignorance escapes me. Ha!

Expectations were high for the league MVP and he failed to live up to his hype. Ergo, he choked. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

FADERPROOF
01-17-2005, 09:14 PM
I guess you missed my point then.

Your point was that the playoffs should have an effect on people voting for the MVP...and its a simple NO.

I do thin they should wait until the end of the season to announce awards, but playoffs shouldnt have anything to do with swaying peoples votes.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:17 PM
More of the same bull**** from the Peyton worshippers. Indianapolis has a very good, but not surprisingly very overshadowed, offensive line.

This is the exact reason why people hate the Manning lovers so much. None of the Colts are anything without Peyton. He makes everybody look good. What a crock of ****. The guy is a statue, but he rarely ever gets touched and its because "Peyton makes a bad O-line serviceable".

Hero worshipping homos like Cornwhore really need to take a break with this ****. It embarrassing already and its why people delight in Peyton's annual playoff pratfalls.

umm, if the colts O-line is so great, why is edge repeatedly stuffed on goalline power rushing situations? why were the patriots able to apply pressure on manning yesterday while only sending 3 in the rush? where were all the rushing yards for edge yesterday against a soft zone defense? you don't think that the low # of sacks peyton suffers has ANYTHING to do with the fact that he gets rid of the ball so quickly and people can't rush him hard because of the play action? the colts O-line is very good at selling the scheme and so forth, but as a unit, their talent and level of play is simply not very good.

you're just a joke man, all you can do is sit back and be bitter about peyton while hurling out insults. one would think such a "great" football mind would be able to analyze the other possibilities.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:19 PM
Opinions vary, CornStore... and as stated above, yours on this subject no longer carries any credibility whatsoever with me. Therefore, I'm doing you the profound favor of changing the subject from one in which you are admittedly ignorant. Why you'd want to continue to showcase that ignorance escapes me. Ha!

Expectations were high for the league MVP and he failed to live up to his hype. Ergo, he choked. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

cool, you're back to the same old copout "the facts disagree with me, but everyone has their own subjective opinions on everything despite what the facts clearly indicate, so i'll just conveniently ignore them and any arguments that prove me wrong"

if you want to copout jsut because elway's inability to hack it without a good defense backing him up hurts your homer psyche that's fine by me. just call it what it is.

alkemical
01-17-2005, 09:21 PM
denfan thanks for clearing it up. You and CB-Champ24 both stand about the same place.

I sort of think that the MVP should be the whole season.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:24 PM
as for "expectations were high for the league's mvp blah blah", yeah, it'd be nice if football was an individual sport and played in a vacuum to test your little choking theories, but every player's performance depends on the rest of his team. if you can point to any specific choking plays peyton made, despite the rest of his offense playing well (ie. HE let the offense down), then go for it. however, i doubt you will, as you're just arbitrarily defining 'choking' to suit your hatred and bitterness for manning. i guess i can understand it, you're such a broncos/elway homer, it must suck to see someone dismantle your favorite team time and again.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 09:25 PM
cool, you're back to the same old copout "the facts disagree with me, but everyone has their own subjective opinions on everything despite what the facts clearly indicate, so i'll just conveniently ignore them and any arguments that prove me wrong"

if you want to copout jsut because elway's inability to hack it without a good defense backing him up hurts your homer psyche that's fine by me. just call it what it is.

Unlike you, I did watch Elway play the game...and therefore, I know how full of it your hypotheses are.

So... let's conjecture a bit more apples-to-apples, shall we? If Plummer had thrown 49 TD passes this year and been named MVP, then subsequently turned in a playoff performance in which he failed to register a single point (the meager 3 point being credited to Elam), would you be here earnestly defending him and deflecting blame onto our WRs? I'm guessing you'd be saying he choked.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:29 PM
Unlike you, I did watch Elway play the game...and therefore, I know how full of it your hypotheses are.

So... let's conjecture a bit more apples-to-apples, shall we? If Plummer had thrown 49 TD passes this year and been named MVP, then subsequently turned in a playoff performance in which he failed to register a single point (the meager 3 point being credited to Elam), would you be here earnestly defending him and deflecting blame onto our WRs? I'm guessing you'd be saying he choked.

it's nice that you watched elway. i watched him too. just not in 1987. and no matter how much you watched him, it doesn't change the fact that during his playoff years, the broncos defense was a high ranking one. maybe elway was playing linebacker and led the defense to such great heights, who knows.

as for your hypothetical, it depends on what actually transpired during the game. i'm not so closed minded to say "well if they don't score more than X points, i'll blame it on plummer choking no matter what he actually did during the game" as you like to do. if plummer played mistake free football and had his receivers drop balls and fumble it away, i wouldn't say plummer choked.

DB-Freak
01-17-2005, 09:31 PM
Hard to say MAnning choked.

He didnt play well but the rest of the cast really went down too.

Not only that the Pats D really came down on that Colts O.

THe whole O choked you could say.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 09:35 PM
it's nice that you watched elway. i watched him too. just not in 1987. and no matter how much you watched him, it doesn't change the fact that during his playoff years, the broncos defense was a high ranking one. maybe elway was playing linebacker and led the defense to such great heights, who knows.

as for your hypothetical, it depends on what actually transpired during the game. i'm not so closed minded to say "well if they don't score more than X points, i'll blame it on plummer choking no matter what he actually did during the game" as you like to do. if plummer played mistake free football and had his receivers drop balls and fumble it away, i wouldn't say plummer choked.

I thought you weren't claiming Manning played flawlessly... this sure gives the impression that's your position...

Those who saw Elway play know what a special athlete he was. Mere numbers on a stat sheet can't show the heart and will to win "The Man" displayed. And that's why he's larger-than-life to Broncos fans. As a Bills fan, I understand... you just don't get it. And that's OK.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:41 PM
I thought you weren't claiming Manning played flawlessly... this sure gives the impression that's your position...

Those who saw Elway play know what a special athlete he was. Mere numbers on a stat sheet can't show the heart and will to win "The Man" displayed. And that's why he's larger-than-life to Broncos fans. As a Bills fan, I understand... you just don't get it. And that's OK.

yep, manning didn't play flawlessly, he didn't complete all of his passes. i wasn't attempting to draw a parallel between the two situations. your plummer situation is a hypothetical so i'm indulging your fantasy world where plummer plays mistake free. if plummer had played to the level manning played yesterday and not made any huge gaffes (hard to believe plummer would ever do such a thing, but anyway), yep he wouldn't have "choked".

yes, i'm sure elway was special, but now you're just being silly and talking down to the facts simply because they demonstrate elway didn't do it alone. good cheap shot about bills fans too, but once again, that doesn't change the reality that elway needed help to not be mediocre, and a ton more help to succeed. at least bills fans aren't delusional enough to believe jim kelly didn't need a good TEAM around him and the ability to lead said team.

alkemical
01-17-2005, 09:43 PM
yep, manning didn't play flawlessly, he didn't complete all of his passes. i wasn't attempting to draw a parallel between the two situations. your plummer situation is a hypothetical so i'm indulging your fantasy world where plummer plays mistake free. if plummer had played to the level manning played yesterday and not made any huge gaffes (hard to believe plummer would ever do such a thing, but anyway), yep he wouldn't have "choked".

yes, i'm sure elway was special, but now you're just being silly and talking down to the facts simply because they demonstrate elway didn't do it alone. good cheap shot about bills fans too, but once again, that doesn't change the reality that elway needed help to not be mediocre, and a ton more help to succeed. at least bills fans aren't delusional enough to believe jim kelly didn't need a good TEAM around him and the ability to lead said team.

heh, there were a FEW games he didn't throw a pick.

but with plummer it's like a buy one get one free day.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 09:49 PM
yep, manning didn't play flawlessly, he didn't complete all of his passes. i wasn't attempting to draw a parallel between the two situations. your plummer situation is a hypothetical so i'm indulging your fantasy world where plummer plays mistake free. if plummer had played to the level manning played yesterday and not made any huge gaffes (hard to believe plummer would ever do such a thing, but anyway), yep he wouldn't have "choked".

yes, i'm sure elway was special, but now you're just being silly and talking down to the facts simply because they demonstrate elway didn't do it alone. good cheap shot about bills fans too, but once again, that doesn't change the reality that elway needed help to not be mediocre, and a ton more help to succeed. at least bills fans aren't delusional enough to believe jim kelly didn't need a good TEAM around him and the ability to lead said team.

Hey, all I said was if that MVP who failed to get his team into the endzone in a playoff game was named Plummer and not Manning, you would not be as likely to be giving him a pass. Level of performance... beyond no points... was not a fixed part of the equation. Did you consider then-MVP Red-azz Gannon's SB XXXVII performance a choke? I did.

A tad sensitive, are we? Apparently you saw a cheapshot against the Bills/Jim Kelly where none was meant. I guess clarity means saying "as a non-Broncos fan who admits to not following football much back then, I can't expect you to "get it". And obviously, I was right.

CornStore
01-17-2005, 09:55 PM
Hey, all I said was if that MVP who failed to get his team into the endzone in a playoff game was named Plummer and not Manning, you would not be as likely to be giving him a pass. Level of performance... beyond no points... was not a fixed part of the equation. Did you consider then-MVP Red-azz Gannon's SB XXXVII performance a choke? I did.

A tad sensitive, are we? Apparently you saw a cheapshot against the Bills/Jim Kelly where none was meant. I guess clarity means saying "as a non-Broncos fan who admits to not following football much back then, I can't expect you to "get it". And obviously, I was right.

yes, i'm "sensitive" because i took an ambiguous comment as some sort of insult/cheap shot. if you haven't noticed (and not that i care), almost every post your fellow homers shove in my direction has similar and equally irrelevant bills related cheap shots. as far as not getting elway, the guy was special for sure, but so is manning, there's no denying that. and both have needed help to succeed. manning needs reliable skill position players and elway needed a good defense. there's no shame in this, why do you feel the need to continue believing elway did it all himself when this is clearly not the case? it's no great badge of honor to be able to win a super bowl or playoff games by yourself, leading your team to winning them is what counts.

as far as giving plummer a pass, you might be right, but i'd only be doing it because his reputation precedes him (far less likely that he genuinely wasn't to blame). however if i was objectively reviewing the situation, i wouldn't say he choked. it's clear you guys are biased to the point of bitterness/hatred against manning and this is the cause for your mistaken "choking" labels.

Blueflame
01-17-2005, 10:05 PM
yes, i'm "sensitive" because i took an ambiguous comment as some sort of insult/cheap shot. if you haven't noticed (and not that i care), almost every post your fellow homers shove in my direction has similar and equally irrelevant bills related cheap shots. as far as not getting elway, the guy was special for sure, but so is manning, there's no denying that. and both have needed help to succeed. manning needs reliable skill position players and elway needed a good defense. there's no shame in this, why do you feel the need to continue believing elway did it all himself when this is clearly not the case? it's no great badge of honor to be able to win a super bowl or playoff games by yourself, leading your team to winning them is what counts.

as far as giving plummer a pass, you might be right, but i'd only be doing it because his reputation precedes him (far less likely that he genuinely wasn't to blame). however if i was objectively reviewing the situation, i wouldn't say he choked. it's clear you guys are biased to the point of bitterness/hatred against manning and this is the cause for your mistaken "choking" labels.

Manning earned his records this year and for that he is special. But just as critics did with Elway, Marino, and yes, even Kelly before him, Manning is going to be second-guessed (and not fully validated) unless or until he leads his team to a championship. Just the nature of the sport.

-Slap-
01-17-2005, 10:08 PM
This kid is probably only a Bills fan because he grew up near Buffalo. If he's a Bills fan at all and not just a troll in a Bills fan suit. Either way, he's really a Peyton Manning worshipper and its just killing him that Manning choked like a dog (again) and we told him it was going to happen.

Hahahahahahahahahah!

Three (3) points. Damn, that's funny.

rofl

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/FBO12401170204.jpeg

bendog
01-18-2005, 08:11 AM
WAFJ! First cornstore tries to waffle on his comparing Payaton to the Duke and now nappy is trying to diss McNabb with comparisons. Jes..... Howabout Payaton gets to the conference final 3 straight (once a broken ankle) or 3 superbowl teams with defenses playing two deep and gimmick blitzes. roflmao

check out the fan photos in the right hand box beneath payaton's pic

http://www.indystar.com/sports/colts/

Tredici
01-18-2005, 08:30 AM
even a three year old could tell the difference between the two situations, but just incase you're the only toddler on the internet i'll spell it out for you:

an interception on a tipped ball is the responsibility of some combination of the QB and receiver, whereas a fumble AFTER the receiver has possession of the ball is 100% his responsiblity. a tipped int can occur because the QB made an inaccurate throw and the receiver tipped it as a result or because the QB made a poor decision to throw into coverage and as a result it was battled for by a defender/receiver and intercepted as a result. i'm willing to give plummer a free pass on those ints that were 100% the receiver's fault, of course, and never said otherwise. however, based on plummer's history of accuracy and decisionmaking i have a hard time believing that the majority of his ints were 1) even on tipped balls and 2) on tipped balls AND solely the responsiblity of the receiver. manning however is known for his accuracy and decisionmaking and history bears this out. in yesterday's game the balls were quite simply dropped or fumbled 100% because of the receivers.

Well, as long as your takes are based on something as solid as what you have a hard time believing...

Bwahahahahahaha.

Brilliant analysis from KissingPeyton'sCornNut.

How long is going to take before you figure out we are all having fun shooting blanks into the dirt just to watch you dance for no apparent reason at all?
(Don't worry folks, this won't spoil the fun. This guy won't ever get it).

Did you hear the first new technique all the Colts are going to learn in training camp is the Heimlich Maneuver?

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 09:26 AM
You're basically admitting that you don't know anything about McNabb's deal. All we know is that Manning's record shattering signing bonus sent huge ripples through the League. <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3831" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3831" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3831" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3831" target="_blank">Ray Lewis</a></a></a></a> called his agent screaming bloody murder because his deal wasn't remotely in the same ballpark.

There's no way you can compare non guaranteed money to a signing bonus that never going to be renegotiated because its already been paid.


Mannings Deal: $34,000,000/7 years
Base Salary ............ Annual Cap Hit

2004 535000.00............ $5,392,142
2005 665000.00............ $5,522,142
2006 1000000.00............ $5,857,142
2007 1000000.00 ............ $5,857,142
2008 11500000.00
2009 14000000.00
2010 15800000.00
2011 14000000.00
2012 14000000.00



McNabb: $13,500,000 signing bonus/12 year deal

Base Salary .............. Annual Cap Hit
2004 4000000.00 ........... $5,125,000
2005 4000000.00 ........... $5,125,000
2006 5500000.00 ........... $6,625,000
2007 5500000.00 ........... $6,625,000
2008 6300000.00 .......... $7,425,000
2009 9200000.00 .......... $10,325,000
2010 10000000.00
2011 12070000.00
2012 14140000.00
2013 16210000.00




Well, well....Looks like I was pretty much dead on with my guess....Their cap hits over the next few years are nearly identical with McNabb's actually costing more between now and up to 2008.

By 2008 when Manning's jumps a bunch the league Sal Cap will be dramatically increased and my money is on McNabb's agent putting the hurt on the Eagles for a new deal.

Tredici
01-18-2005, 09:31 AM
Mannings Deal: $34,000,000/7 years
Base Salary ............ Annual Cap Hit

2004 535000.00............ $5,392,142
2005 665000.00............ $5,522,142
2006 1000000.00............ $5,857,142
2007 1000000.00 ............ $5,857,142
2008 11500000.00
2009 14000000.00
2010 15800000.00
2011 14000000.00
2012 14000000.00



McNabb: $13,500,000 signing bonus/12 year deal

Base Salary .............. Annual Cap Hit
2004 4000000.00 ........... $5,125,000
2005 4000000.00 ........... $5,125,000
2006 5500000.00 ........... $6,625,000
2007 5500000.00 ........... $6,625,000
2008 6300000.00 .......... $7,425,000
2009 9200000.00 .......... $10,325,000
2010 10000000.00
2011 12070000.00
2012 14140000.00
2013 16210000.00




Well, well....Looks like I was pretty much dead on with my guess....Their cap hits over the next few years are nearly identical with McNabb's actually costing more between now and up to 2008.

By 2008 when Manning's jumps a bunch the league Sal Cap will be dramatically increased and my money is on McNabb's agent putting the hurt on the Eagles for a new deal.


Are you really trying to saying Manning is only getting 34 Million over the next 7 years or am I reading it wrong?

Where's Prince Peyton's signing bonus? That was 34.5 Million by itself was it not?

Tredici
01-18-2005, 09:32 AM
Obviously we need:

Hercules
Hercules

(while clapping hands)

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 09:36 AM
Are you really trying to saying Manning is only getting 34 Million over the next 7 years or am I reading it wrong?

Where's Prince Peyton's signing bonus?



That 34 million is his signing bonus which will spread $4.857 million per year. His total deal is $98 million.

Tredici
01-18-2005, 09:37 AM
And McNabb's contract is backloaded which we all know smacks of re-negotiating when the time comes.

What is the point?

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 09:57 AM
And McNabb's contract is backloaded which we all know smacks of re-negotiating when the time comes.

What is the point?



The point is people claiming the Colts can't spend money on defense cause Manning's deal is eating up all the current cap space isn't correct. The Eagirls are a perfect example of spending big money on a QB, WR like the Colts but still throwing around some big cash on the defense and getting it done on the defensive side of the ball. The Colts defensive failures are not a result of Manning's deal.

Tredici
01-18-2005, 10:18 AM
The point is people claiming the Colts can't spend money on defense cause Manning's deal is eating up all the current cap space isn't correct. The Eagirls are a perfect example of spending big money on a QB, WR like the Colts but still throwing around some big cash on the defense and getting it done on the defensive side of the ball. The Colts defensive failures are not a result of Manning's deal.

Manning's deal just happened this season, no? So I think the arguement is will the Colt's have room in the future to improve the defense or will the contracts given to Manning and Harrison restrict what they can do to upgrade the defense during Manning's tenure. There is already talk they won't sign Edgerrin. I'm not sure he's worth the money he'll want, but someone will pay it. Despite Manning's abilities they will need a running game.

Andy Reid has Philly's cap in excellent shape. The McNabb contract hasn't had a negative impact because he has been relentless in letting people go. Then he signs Kearse and Owens. He'll sign more.

Will Indy?

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 10:57 AM
Manning's deal just happened this season, no? So I think the arguement is will the Colt's have room in the future to improve the defense or will the contracts given to Manning and Harrison restrict what they can do to upgrade the defense during Manning's tenure. There is already talk they won't sign Edgerrin. I'm not sure he's worth the money he'll want, but someone will pay it. Despite Manning's abilities they will need a running game.

Andy Reid has Philly's cap in excellent shape. The McNabb contract hasn't had a negative impact because he has been relentless in letting people go. Then he signs Kearse and Owens. He'll sign more.

Will Indy?


I certainly wouldn't resign James.....Good back but not great. With their passing game spreading the field a lot of backs would be able to post good numbers in that system. Not to mention this years draft is extremely deep with quality RB's...Probably get a very good one in round 3.

-Slap-
01-18-2005, 11:40 AM
Mannings Deal: $34,000,000/7 years
Base Salary ............ Annual Cap Hit

2004 535000.00............ $5,392,142
2005 665000.00............ $5,522,142
2006 1000000.00............ $5,857,142
2007 1000000.00 ............ $5,857,142
2008 11500000.00
2009 14000000.00
2010 15800000.00
2011 14000000.00
2012 14000000.00



McNabb: $13,500,000 signing bonus/12 year deal

Base Salary .............. Annual Cap Hit
2004 4000000.00 ........... $5,125,000
2005 4000000.00 ........... $5,125,000
2006 5500000.00 ........... $6,625,000
2007 5500000.00 ........... $6,625,000
2008 6300000.00 .......... $7,425,000
2009 9200000.00 .......... $10,325,000
2010 10000000.00
2011 12070000.00
2012 14140000.00
2013 16210000.00




Well, well....Looks like I was pretty much dead on with my guess....Their cap hits over the next few years are nearly identical with McNabb's actually costing more between now and up to 2008.

By 2008 when Manning's jumps a bunch the league Sal Cap will be dramatically increased and my money is on McNabb's agent putting the hurt on the Eagles for a new deal.

Holy Christ! The guy is really going to try and argue that Peyton's $34 million signing bonus is better for his team's cap structure than Donovan's $13.5 million bonus.

Is it any wonder that people consider many of Manning's fans to be delusional?

Mtbrncofn
01-18-2005, 11:55 AM
Well, as long as your takes are based on something as solid as what you have a hard time believing...

Bwahahahahahaha.

Brilliant analysis from KissingPeyton'sCornNut.

How long is going to take before you figure out we are all having fun shooting blanks into the dirt just to watch you dance for no apparent reason at all?
(Don't worry folks, this won't spoil the fun. This guy won't ever get it).

Did you hear the first new technique all the Colts are going to learn in training camp is the Heimlich Maneuver?


Ha! Always the same thing with you, Tre. ;)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tredici again.

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 12:04 PM
Holy Christ! The guy is really going to try and argue that Peyton's $34 million signing bonus is better for his team's cap structure than Donovan's $13.5 million bonus.

Is it any wonder that people consider many of Manning's fans to be delusional?



"Haven't looked it up but I'm guessing McNabb's cap hit will be equal or higher than Mannings real soon as he gets deeper into that big payday he got."

That was my only statement and only point was that Manning's current cap space would probably be very similar to McNabb's.

You are the one who decided to ramble on about how I had no clue as to what I was talking about yada, yada, yada.

Nobody here is delusional, or at least I can speak for myself. Just folks like you love to try and spin and create smoke screens and diversions when it turns out you are wrong.

-Slap-
01-18-2005, 12:56 PM
"Haven't looked it up but I'm guessing McNabb's cap hit will be equal or higher than Mannings real soon as he gets deeper into that big payday he got."

That was my only statement and only point was that Manning's current cap space would probably be very similar to McNabb's.

You are the one who decided to ramble on about how I had no clue as to what I was talking about yada, yada, yada.

Nobody here is delusional, or at least I can speak for myself. Just folks like you love to try and spin and create smoke screens and diversions when it turns out you are wrong.

What am I wrong about?

Is $34 million now less than $13.5 million?

Or is it still more than two and a half times as much?

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 01:09 PM
What am I wrong about?

Is $34 million now less than $13.5 million?

Or is it still more than two and a half times as much?


Wrong about running your yap and spinning about how I was in some way saying that that $34 million is less than $13.5 etc.etc...When my only point was their current cap space was probably similar.

My statement turned out to be correct and you felt the need to run your yap like I was way off base and had no clue as to what I was talking about.

-Slap-
01-18-2005, 01:16 PM
Wrong about running your yap and spinning about how I was in some way saying that that $34 million is less than $13.5 etc.etc...When my only point was their current cap space was probably similar.

My statement turned out to be correct and you felt the need to run your yap like I was way off base and had no clue as to what I was talking about.

Your statement was bull**** and speculation.

Go back to the CornStore alias.

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 01:22 PM
Your statement was bull**** and speculation.



Speculation that turned out to be accurate. You would be amazed how often speculation turns out to be accurate when it is combined with experience and intelligence. I'm guessing that combination doesn't get in your way too often however so I will bare with you. ;D

bendog
01-18-2005, 01:25 PM
nappy, you "proved" indy and philly's cap situations are the same?

-Slap-
01-18-2005, 01:49 PM
nappy, you "proved" indy and philly's cap situations are the same?

The miracles of self hypnosis, I guess.

-Slap-
01-18-2005, 01:51 PM
Not quite as good as his theory that 12 year olds are smarter than adults, though.

Tredici
01-18-2005, 01:59 PM
I certainly wouldn't resign James.....Good back but not great. With their passing game spreading the field a lot of backs would be able to post good numbers in that system. Not to mention this years draft is extremely deep with quality RB's...Probably get a very good one in round 3.

If their passing game is what makes the running back then why aren't you proposing they just go with Dominic Rhodes or James Mungro? Why waste more money and add a system learning curve by signing a rookie? Personally I think it has more to do with the offensive line - which Peyton benefits from also, then spreading the field with wideouts. And Indy has a better line than they are often given credit for. I wonder when it's negotiating time for those guys.

Next season Freeney is going to want bank. You can't let that guy go. The Colts are going to have make decisions based on that salary they gave Peyton. There is no way around it. So it's going to be interesting to see how they manage things in the future. Andy Reid has done an excellent job of that. We'll soon see if Dungy can do the same.

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 02:03 PM
If their passing game is what makes the running back then why aren't you proposing they just go with Dominic Rhodes or James Mungro? Why waste more money and add a system learning curve by signing a rookie?


Very good chance that Rhodes takes the job. But even if that is the case they will want to have a young talent to groom. Learning curve for RB's isn't near as tough as most other positions. You Donk fans know that as well as anyone with your plug and play system. Especially with that RB having the benefit of Coach Manning in the backfield telling him who he needs to block.

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 02:05 PM
nappy, you "proved" indy and philly's cap situations are the same?


I probably would have had that been my original point but since it wasn't I didn't quite see the need to go that path. Is reading comprehension a weakness of all Donk fans?

Tredici
01-18-2005, 02:18 PM
Very good chance that Rhodes takes the job. But even if that is the case they will want to have a young talent to groom. Learning curve for RB's isn't near as tough as most other positions. You Donk fans know that as well as anyone with your plug and play system. Especially with that RB having the benefit of Coach Manning in the backfield telling him who he needs to block.

I'll believe Coach Manning has a plug and play system once it's established. So far it seems to come and go with James. (Not real similar to Droughns/Bell but maybe you saw something when Rhodes was in there that I didn't).Until then Peyton is just another statistical wunderkind who can't win the big one. How many times have I heard Elway wouldn't have hoisted the Lombardi without Terrell Davis? Apparently Peyton can do it with a mediocre back and a suspect defense - as long as lots of receivers catch the ball. Well, good luck.

Funny though, for all Manning's talent? On Sunday when he was walking around, head and shoulders down, hands in his little warmer and looking miserable and muttering, all I could think of was the same posture out of <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1070" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1070" target="_blank">Gus Frerotte</a></a> in the appearance he made for the Broncos in Baltimore. The resemblence was striking.

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 02:25 PM
Until then Peyton is just another statistical wunderkind who can't win the big one. .


Certainly possible....Also possible that the team he can't beat is just a couple weeks from winning 3 or the last 4 Super Bowls so not being able to get over a hump that nobody else can get over may not be a big deal. If they can win 3 out of 4 in a day and age of extreme parity they have to be considered one of the greatest dynasties of all time. When history plays out there may be zero shame for not being able to beat them.

bendog
01-18-2005, 02:31 PM
ouch

http://www.theredzone.org/2005/freeagents/showteam.asp?Team=Colts

Tredici
01-18-2005, 02:45 PM
Certainly possible....Also possible that the team he can't beat is just a couple weeks from winning 3 or the last 4 Super Bowls so not being able to get over a hump that nobody else can get over may not be a big deal. If they can win 3 out of 4 in a day and age of extreme parity they have to be considered one of the greatest dynasties of all time. When history plays out there may be zero shame for not being able to beat them.


Oh really? Zero shame? Things sure have changed since San Francisco was a dynasty.

It's the NFL. Right now Manning is a loser. If that tag was good enough for Elway and is still good enough for Marino and Kelley, then Peyton can wear it proudly. And those guys all got to the big dance.

NaptownChief
01-18-2005, 02:54 PM
Oh really? Zero shame? Things sure have changed since San Francisco was a dynasty.

It's the NFL. Right now Manning is a loser. If that tag was good enough for Elway and is still good enough for Marino and Kelley, then Peyton can wear it proudly. And those guys all got to the big dance.


He has plenty of years left...If he runs through the rest of his career and doesn't sniff a ring I'm sure he will feel like he failed but if he moves on and wins a ring or two people will look back and laugh about how over dramatic everybody was making a big deal and calling him a loser cause he didn't beat a team that won 3 Super Bowls in a 4 year span. Much like a lot of the idiots that ran their yap for years saying Elway is just a loser that chokes in the Super Bowl.

FADERPROOF
01-18-2005, 02:55 PM
He has plenty of years left...If he runs through the rest of his career and doesn't sniff a ring I'm sure he will feel like he failed but if he moves on and wins a ring or two people will look back and laugh about how over dramatic everybody was making a big deal and calling him a loser cause he didn't beat a team that won 3 Super Bowls in a 4 year span. Much like a lot of the idiots that ran their yap for years saying Elway is just a loser that chokes in the Super Bowl.

If he wins a ring I'm sure people will say its his supporting cast or the coaching staff that got him there, anything to not give Peyton credit is the way to go.

Blueflame
01-18-2005, 03:09 PM
He has plenty of years left...If he runs through the rest of his career and doesn't sniff a ring I'm sure he will feel like he failed but if he moves on and wins a ring or two people will look back and laugh about how over dramatic everybody was making a big deal and calling him a loser cause he didn't beat a team that won 3 Super Bowls in a 4 year span. Much like a lot of the idiots that ran their yap for years saying Elway is just a loser that chokes in the Super Bowl.

Kinda getting the cart ahead of the horse here, aren't you, Nap? I'm sure the Steelers, Eagles, and Falcons would be interested in knowing the Pats have already won... ::)

alkemical
01-18-2005, 03:12 PM
ouch

http://www.theredzone.org/2005/freeagents/showteam.asp?Team=Colts


damn that's going to hurt

Tredici
01-18-2005, 04:02 PM
What's Marvin Harrison doing on that list?

bendog
01-18-2005, 04:05 PM
yeah on Marvin. I did read on the indyinsider board that the offensive line guys are unsigned. They've got to sign two of the three longterm. They've got to sign Harper or Bashir, if not both.

Old Dude
01-18-2005, 04:30 PM
Just a theory ...

I don't have the stats at hand, but I recall reading that (except for the Texans who haven't quite got their personnel together yet) Manning has not had quite as much success over the past couple seasons against the 3-4 as he has had against the "standard" 4-3.

Part of that is that defesive ploys out of 3-4 alignments are a little easier to disguise, and tend to throw off timing. But part of the reason for that might also be that the Colts set up so much of their offense with 2 basic plays - the off-tackle draw, and the play action pass.

Here's a good article - - a year out of date, but still interesting - - that talks about the Colts' basic scheme.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=134&cat=1

It notes that fast, smart LBs can pose a real problem. Can you say New England? Baltimore? Pittsburgh? The Pats are now 3-0 against Manning over the past two years. The Ravens would have beaten them if they'd had any offense. I wouldn't bet against this year's Steeler team, either.

One little sidenote is that the off-tackle draw requires a certain amount of open field to be effective. The Colts seldom run it as they approach the opponent's redzone. Just guessing, but maybe, just maybe, Manning passes more often down there - - not because he's a glory hog - - but because their running game tends to stall a little.

Also interesting is the way the article describes the Indy blocking scheme. It actually sounds similar to our own in some respects, with lots of trapping and lateral movement. Our own line has had its share of trouble with some of the better 3-4 Ds.

Anyway, I don't think its just the cold, or the turf, or the big game jitters that has kept Manning out of the Super Bowl. It's mainly been the Patriot defense.

CornStore
01-18-2005, 05:52 PM
Well, as long as your takes are based on something as solid as what you have a hard time believing...

Bwahahahahahaha.

Brilliant analysis from KissingPeyton'sCornNut.

How long is going to take before you figure out we are all having fun shooting blanks into the dirt just to watch you dance for no apparent reason at all?
(Don't worry folks, this won't spoil the fun. This guy won't ever get it).

Did you hear the first new technique all the Colts are going to learn in training camp is the Heimlich Maneuver?

pathetic, but not unexpected. you make a horribly flawed comparison between plummer's poorly thrown tipped interceptions and manning's receiver's fumbles. i then call you out on it and instead of defending your stupid comparison or admitting it was flawed, you backtrack into "lol i know im dumb, i was just trolling you, duh!" forgive me if i don't believe you. even if you are intentionally being this stupid, though, i don't find it annoying. on the contrary, your stupidity is extremely entertaining.

CornStore
01-18-2005, 06:03 PM
Your statement was bull**** and speculation.

Go back to the CornStore alias.

yo slap, how about responding to points instead of dodging and flaming.

defend indy's O-line, please, and explain how NE was able to get pressure with 3-4 rushers and have been able to consistently. explain why indy is ranked so low in power rushing conversions. explain why if their o-line is so fantastic, edge got stuffed by NE despite a zone passing defense?

explain how mcnabb's team's success the year after he joined makes him better than peyton *now*. perhaps peyton took longer to develop, doesn't have any impact on their current success. defend your assertion that tra thomas, mayberry, fraley, runyan, westbrook, buckhalter, and staley haven't been contributors on mcnabb's offense, or that his defense hasn't been SUBSTANTIALLY better than manning's.

or will you just dodge any actual football debate and go straight to the insults and flames yet again? i don't blame you, you dont' have a limb to stand on.

-Slap-
01-18-2005, 07:53 PM
yo slap, how about responding to points instead of dodging and flaming.

defend indy's O-line, please, and explain how NE was able to get pressure with 3-4 rushers and have been able to consistently. explain why indy is ranked so low in power rushing conversions. explain why if their o-line is so fantastic, edge got stuffed by NE despite a zone passing defense?

explain how mcnabb's team's success the year after he joined makes him better than peyton *now*. perhaps peyton took longer to develop, doesn't have any impact on their current success. defend your assertion that tra thomas, mayberry, fraley, runyan, westbrook, buckhalter, and staley haven't been contributors on mcnabb's offense, or that his defense hasn't been SUBSTANTIALLY better than manning's.

or will you just dodge any actual football debate and go straight to the insults and flames yet again? i don't blame you, you dont' have a limb to stand on.

Man, this troll has impressive stamina, if nothing else. He gets beaten beyond recognition over and over and he keeps coming back for more. He's definitely got more sand than Peyton, who had completely given up before halftime on Sunday.

rofl

Tredici
01-18-2005, 08:04 PM
pathetic, but not unexpected. you make a horribly flawed comparison between plummer's poorly thrown tipped interceptions and manning's receiver's fumbles. i then call you out on it and instead of defending your stupid comparison or admitting it was flawed, you backtrack into "lol i know im dumb, i was just trolling you, duh!" forgive me if i don't believe you. even if you are intentionally being this stupid, though, i don't find it annoying. on the contrary, your stupidity is extremely entertaining.

You have a rather high opinion of your posts. And also some reading comprehension. Everyone here is trolling you. It is entertaining. Especially when you think by telling me what you "believe" you have proved anything.

All you continue to prove is you know very little about some of the teams you insist on discussing -- including the Bills.

Whenever anyone points out your ignorance or inconsistancies you resort to unimaginitive insults that don't even have any originality or wit. In other words you reside in the dime a dozen troll category.

It's okay kid. You aren't the first one to come in here and be unable to leave. We just effect people that way. But now you've used the same lame insult twice and even though I tried to tell you very plainly that many people in here are deliberately yanking your chain you don't have the mental capacity or maturity to get over yourself and understand no one is giving you their actual opinions because it's more fun to see you deciding everyone here is stupid. That is, of course, extremely logical.

I hope Peyton justifies your confidence. He's a good quarterback. It's just a bit premature to hang the great title on him.

Northman
01-18-2005, 08:24 PM
Man, this troll has impressive stamina, if nothing else. He gets beaten beyond recognition over and over and he keeps coming back for more. He's definitely got more sand than Peyton, who had completely given up before halftime on Sunday.

rofl


Ouch! careful SLap, your going to make Cornhole cry.

CornStore
01-18-2005, 08:50 PM
Man, this troll has impressive stamina, if nothing else. He gets beaten beyond recognition over and over and he keeps coming back for more. He's definitely got more sand than Peyton, who had completely given up before halftime on Sunday.

rofl


no surprise here, another dodge. keep on stating "facts" about mcnabb and indy's o-line, but don't back them up at all, that would be expecting too much for such a "football genius" as yourself.

you know way more about dodgeball than you do about football.

CornStore
01-18-2005, 08:51 PM
You have a rather high opinion of your posts. And also some reading comprehension. Everyone here is trolling you. It is entertaining. Especially when you think by telling me what you "believe" you have proved anything.

All you continue to prove is you know very little about some of the teams you insist on discussing -- including the Bills.

Whenever anyone points out your ignorance or inconsistancies you resort to unimaginitive insults that don't even have any originality or wit. In other words you reside in the dime a dozen troll category.

It's okay kid. You aren't the first one to come in here and be unable to leave. We just effect people that way. But now you've used the same lame insult twice and even though I tried to tell you very plainly that many people in here are deliberately yanking your chain you don't have the mental capacity or maturity to get over yourself and understand no one is giving you their actual opinions because it's more fun to see you deciding everyone here is stupid. That is, of course, extremely logical.

I hope Peyton justifies your confidence. He's a good quarterback. It's just a bit premature to hang the great title on him.

yes, everyone here is "trolling" me by spouting random BS they can't support. what was your position again? tipped interceptions are the same as fumbles? oh yeah that's right. no wonder you guys won't stick to the subject after spouting BS like that. don't worry, you can always backtrack by claiming you've been trolling me so you won't be held accountable for your stupidity.

CornStore
01-18-2005, 08:56 PM
and about this: "Especially when you think by telling me what you "believe" you have proved anything."

so you expect me to rewind through every one of plummer's tipped passes and find evidence that some of them were his fault when anyone knows this to be true? how about YOU go through and demonstrate none of them were his fault, since you were the one who tried to make the ridiculous comparison.

Tredici
01-19-2005, 08:44 AM
Man, this troll has impressive stamina, if nothing else. He gets beaten beyond recognition over and over and he keeps coming back for more. He's definitely got more sand than Peyton, who had completely given up before halftime on Sunday.

rofl


Excellent, and most supurb example of Troll Bait.

Hook

Line

and

gauranteed indignant sputtering.

^5

:thumbsup:

Circle Orange
01-19-2005, 03:07 PM
Chef fan may have forgotten that when Elway led the Broncos to b2b SB wins, the DC was Greg Robinson....

Yeah BF, common sense is at an all time low in football commentary these days. Cliches rule the day, even when people KNOW its a team sport. :dummy:

Old Dude
01-19-2005, 03:13 PM
Jeez. CornStore has so many Black Dots, he's on the verge of creating a singularity and dragging the whole site into the event horizon.

-Slap-
01-19-2005, 04:03 PM
Jeez. CornStore has so many Black Dots, he's on the verge of creating a singularity and dragging the whole site into the event horizon.

I recently watched Event Horizon again. Very underrated sci-fi/horror hybrid. Maybe the best one after Alien.

labronx
01-19-2005, 04:10 PM
I recently watched Event Horizon again. Very underrated sci-fi/horror hybrid. Maybe the best one after Alien.

That movie changed my life for a while.
To me its better than Alien.

im more of a symbolism kind a guy ugh!~

Jason in LA
01-19-2005, 05:26 PM
I haven't been in this thread since page 11, and I really don't feel like reading up. Cornhole was saying that no other QB would have done anything against the Pats D, including Elway. By making that comment he's pretty much saying that Manning is one of the greatest QBs ever to play the game. He's saying that if Manning can't do it, then guys like Elway, Montana, Johny U, Young, Marino, Farve, and others, could not have done it. Sorry, Manning is working on a HOF career, but he aint there yet. If he stays on this path he'll make the HOF, but he won't be a top 5 or so QB of all time. Many people leave Marino off their top 5 list (nobody leaves Elway off of it).

The Pats have a good D, but they aren't the '85 Bears or the '00 Ravens. They played toward Manning's weakness by putting pressure on him. If Elways stength was getting away from the pressure, then wouldn't that mean that Elway would have done better than Manning in that same situation?

Elway was staring at 98 yards in the Dawg Pound, and was under a ton of pressure. They were throwing dog bones at him. The crowd was going nuts. But he came through. When Elway's Broncos beat the Browns in '87, the Browns had the 2nd ranked defense in the league. And they were 7th in '89 when the Broncos smashed them.

You can also take a look at Montana. In '84 his Niners beat the Bears in the NFC Championship game. The Bears had the #1 defense in the league. The Niners beat them in the NFC championship game in '88. Again, the Bears had the #1 defense.

Look at the Bears. In '85 they beat Parcell's Giants, who were #3 in the league in defense (Billicheck was the DC), and then they beat the Rams, who had the #6 defense.

The point is that just beacause a team has a good defense doesn't mean you should lose to them all the time. At some point you have to beat a good defense. Teams are never going to win a Super Bowl beating a bunch of average defenses. This is the playoffs, not the regular season. Manning isn't going to see to many bad defenses come playoff time.

The '97-'98 Broncos had to beat the Chiefs, Steelers, Packers, Dolphins, Jets (with Bellickeck), and Falcons. All of those teams had very good defenses.

When ever Manning runs into a good defense (outside of a dome), he loses. Other great QBs have faced very good defenses and won. So if you put those other QBs in Manning's place, based on history, they would have done better, and probably would have led their team to a win with all that talent on offense.

Northman
01-19-2005, 05:59 PM
That movie changed my life for a while.
To me its better than Alien.

im more of a symbolism kind a guy ugh!~


As a horror movie fan that movie didnt impress me that much but i love Fishburn's work.

vindico
04-13-2012, 05:41 PM
Please, though, start another Slap is an a-hole thread if you must, but let's leave this thread strictly for bashing the choking dog that is Peyton Manning.

So what did you think about the Broncos signing Manning?