http://gamingtrend.com
August 23, 2014, 01:38:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The record book is Peyton's Place!  (Read 6456 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2004, 07:19:19 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
It's not you, Jeff. I have this argument with RM9 almost weekly.  :wink:

Manning wins games, the team loses them.  :wink:


You have the remarkable ability to hear whatever it is that you want to hear to ensure that you are correct.

Winning and losing games (regular season, postseason) are *TEAM* statistics.  That doesn't mean that individual contributors on a team can't tip the balance one way or the other.  It just means that it is impossible to divorce the team aspect of the statistic and use it to directly compare two players on different teams.

Wins and losses are useful statistics to compare two complete teams (although even then - there are a great many factors that work against such a comparison).  They are HORRIFIC statistics used to compare two players.

Even worse is to compare Super Bowl wins/losses.  Getting to and winning Super Bowls is an ORGANIZATIONAL statistic, even more than it is a TEAM statistic.

In other words, the Patriots haven't won two out of three Super Bowls because Tom Brady is the greatest QB in the NFL.  They've won two out of three because of their GM, the coaching staff, their defense, their special teams, and their offense.

The Colts haven't been to a Super Bowl in 30-some odd years because of their GM, the coaching staff, their defense, their special teams, and their offense.

The reason for their SB drought is not Peyton Manning, any more than Tom Brady is the reason for the Patriots sudden success.

There are definately games that the Colts have lost that you can blame on Manning (or more generally, the offense).

Bah.  Your brand of analysis is simply far too simplistic to be taken seriously.  I've suffered through the pain of watching my team lose four straight Super Bowls.  The problem wasn't that Jim Kelly was a loser.  The problem was that the Bills weren't as good as the Giants in 1990, the Redskins in 1991 or the Cowboys in 1992 and 1993.

Well, the Bills probably were better than the Giants in 1990.

And to whoever thought that anyone interpreted calling Manning "just another Marino" was a slam - on the contrary - it's one of the greatest compliments you could ever pay to a QB.
Logged
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2004, 07:29:35 PM »

Quote from: "Scott"
Runningmn9 - nice Bills win by the way.  Where has that team been all year?  Has to suck to know you guys will make a run only to fall short in the crazy AFC, while you could take the NFC championship with that play.


They were busy losing games by 3 points or less in the closing moments of games.  smile

They only got seriously beat in two games this year (the Ravens and the 2nd Pats game).  Even the first Pats game, the Bills were driving to tie the game when Bledsoe fumbled the ball for a TD the other way.

It was nice to see the Bills D simply throttle Seattle.  This is the team I expected to see in September.  Too little, too late.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2004, 07:40:45 PM »

RM9 - I feel better now. It isn't the same wihout you.  biggrin

Did you go back and read my 17.5 ppg allowed post? The team won those games.

Vick is the MVP - As much as I hate to say it, we have actual evidence that they win with him and lose without him.
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2004, 07:56:40 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
RM9 - I feel better now. It isn't the same wihout you.  biggrin

Did you go back and read my 17.5 ppg allowed post? The team won those games.

Vick is the MVP - As much as I hate to say it, we have actual evidence that they win with him and lose without him.


I probably skimmed your incorrect ramblings.  The "team" wins or loses every game.

Manning is the MVP of the league.  You're entitled to your opinion, but in the end I will be right and you will be wrong.  smile
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2004, 08:08:37 PM »

You will be right about that. Going out on a limb, huh. They could go 8-8 and he'll still get it. He'll still be 2 Super Bowl MVPs short of a real QB.  :wink:  :p

I actually thought of you on Thanksgiving day. I pictured you with your plate of turkey right up close to your TV blowing kisses at Peyton with every TD.  biggrin
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 30, 2004, 08:27:29 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
You will be right about that. Going out on a limb, huh. They could go 8-8 and he'll still get it. He'll still be 2 Super Bowl MVPs short of a real QB.  :wink:  :p

I actually thought of you on Thanksgiving day. I pictured you with your plate of turkey right up close to your TV blowing kisses at Peyton with every TD.  biggrin


Well, that last part is true.  But that's because I have Peyton in my fantasy football league.  smile

Don't even get me started on Brady's SB MVP's.  The 2nd one I can accept - the first one was total horse shit.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 30, 2004, 08:28:56 PM »

I have Manning in my fantasy league too. He's been great!

Are you really going to give the Super Bowl MVP to a kicker?  :wink:
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
ElijahPrice
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 826


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 30, 2004, 08:39:08 PM »

Manning is the MVP.  He is just going crazy.  He is easily going to pass the TD record and without him I think that whole team would go down the drain.  James is a good RB but not without a QB to scare the defense into a nickel.  And those receivers are good because Peyton can handle 5 wide sets where someone has to get open eventually.
Logged
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2004, 08:43:28 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
Are you really going to give the Super Bowl MVP to a kicker?  :wink:


I'm certainly not giving it to a QB that passes for 100 yards.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 30, 2004, 08:56:20 PM »

But, RM9, it's a team game!!  :wink:

Without that drive there would be no chance for a kick. That offense sucked besides Brady.

I know your boy Peyton would have driven Smith, Wiggins, Brown and Patten the length of the field for a TD against one of the best Ds in football that year, in the biggest game of his life,  but Manning was home for that game. That was the year Edge was hurt and Mr. MVP threw 23 INTs.

TWENTY THREE PICKS WITHOUT JAMES!!!!!!
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: November 30, 2004, 09:22:49 PM »

Quote
the first one was total horse shit.

Ehh, there were 4 or 5 guys that could have gotten it.  The QB is the glamor position, so it went to Brady.  Happens like that, not Brady's fault.  The second MVP was definitely earned though.  Vinitieri or Law could have won the first MVP though.

Quote
It was nice to see the Bills D simply throttle Seattle. This is the team I expected to see in September. Too little, too late.

They look good, it'll be interesting to see what happens the rest of the year.  Bledsoe the starting QB next year if the Bills stay hot?  I just hope they beat Pitt smile.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: December 01, 2004, 12:06:27 AM »

Quote
Bledsoe the starting QB next year if the Bills stay hot?


I pray to God that this happens!!!  biggrin
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: December 01, 2004, 01:41:02 AM »

Quote from: "Scott"
Bledsoe the starting QB next year if the Bills stay hot?  I just hope they beat Pitt smile.


I'd be VERY surprised.  I'd have to take a look at his contract though to see how much financial pain he will bring the team.  I just don't know.
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: December 01, 2004, 03:47:00 AM »

I think there is one important thing some people are losing sight of - what a player's job is.

The job of the offense is to score points. The job of the QB is typically to 'run' the offense and guide it on its way to scoring points. The defense is then supposed to stop the other team from scoring *more* points.

Depending on how well the offense and defense do their jobs, the team wins or loses.

Now how you can call a single player on a team a 'winner' or a 'loser' based on the performance of the *other* half of his team is beyond me. Manning goes out there and puts points on the board. His offensive line gives good pass protection but is hardly dominating. Harrison is undoubtedly a great WR, but there is a reason Wayne and Stokely aren't primary recievers for other teams. Manning makes those guys better than they would otherwise be. He runs his offense with greater control than any other QB in the NFL and does it exceptionally.

When the Colts met Denver in the playoffs last year, Denver was 6th in passing yards allowed per game. They were 8th in passing touchdowns allowed per game. And Manning tore them to pieces. That he struggled against a Patriots defense that had dominated the NFL all season long doesn't make him a loser - it makes him human.

But when it comes down to it, this year Manning is getting the job done better than any other QB in the league. Whether he can carry that lame-ass defense through the playoffs remains to be seen.  He's getting paid enough he ought to be able to, but we'll see biggrin Either way, he is the best QB in the NFL right now, and if he keeps at his current pace when he retires he'll be viewed as one of the best ever, regardless of whether or not his team wins a Superbowl.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: December 01, 2004, 02:35:03 PM »

TWENTY THREE PICKS WITHOUT JAMES!!!!!!

 :lol:
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: December 01, 2004, 09:47:19 PM »

Don't know if you noticed, but James' backup actually did a pretty solid job that year. Is your view of football really so simplistic that the best thing you can do is say "TWENTY THREE PICKS WITHOUT JAMES!!!!!!" like a trained monkey? So Manning had a bad year. The following year, with James he threw 19 picks. Big deal. He also threw more than 25 TDs both seasons.

And to date, this season he has 7 picks for 41 TDs. Seems to me he is doing his job better than any other QB in the NFL. If the Colts defense steps up and does their job, then maybe the *team* will have a better playoff experience this year.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2004, 03:04:33 PM »

Tom Brady led the league in TD passes and he never got the MVP.

It's a team sport. Those TDs were due to his WRs making catches and his line blocking.

Jeff Saturday for MVP!!!!

 :wink: :roll:

Quote
If the Colts defense steps up and does their job, then maybe the *team* will have a better playoff experience this year.


Or if Mr. October doesn't throw 4 picks they might have a better playoff experience. Sorry, I forgot, those were team INTs. The touchdowns, though, were all Peyton! :p
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: December 02, 2004, 03:23:20 PM »

Quote
so simplistic that the best thing you can do is say "TWENTY THREE PICKS WITHOUT JAMES!!!!!!" like a trained monkey?

Why do you feel the need to call other people names to get a point across?  Do you think people will take your arguments more seriously because of this?

Quote
And to date, this season he has 7 picks for 41 TDs. Seems to me he is doing his job better than any other QB in the NFL.

The point a few of us are making is that QB play isn't all about numbers.  There are a lot of other factors involved, and the responsibilities of the players at the position are different.  Quite a few of those TD passes were against the NFC North.  Hardly something for Manning to brag about.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2004, 03:53:25 PM »

Quote from: "Scott"
Quote
so simplistic that the best thing you can do is say "TWENTY THREE PICKS WITHOUT JAMES!!!!!!" like a trained monkey?

Why do you feel the need to call other people names to get a point across?  Do you think people will take your arguments more seriously because of this?


I don't feel the need. I chose to. Because I was hoping we could have a discussion not have someone repeat the same thing with caps lock on over and over again.

Quote
The point a few of us are making is that QB play isn't all about numbers.  There are a lot of other factors involved, and the responsibilities of the players at the position are different.  Quite a few of those TD passes were against the NFC North.  Hardly something for Manning to brag about.


A. I don't see Manning bragging.

B. At the end of the day, the QB's job is the lead the offense to scoring points whilst avoiding turnovers. Given that Manning's team is both winning AND he is putting up incredible numbers, that would indicate more than a little that he is doing his job very, very well. That would put him at the very least in the running for MVP.

C. "The responsibilities of the players at the position are different". That sums it up right there. There are some QBs in the league whose job isn't so much to win the game as it is not to lose it. If they consistently get within field goal range and don't turn the ball over then it is considered a success. In Manning we are talking about a team that lives and dies by his arm. If he plays well, they win. If he doesn't, they lose. It is all on him because he is the central piece to that team. The most valuable piece.

And see? I can do it without calling someone a moron when they don't act like one slywink
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2004, 04:02:38 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
Tom Brady led the league in TD passes and he never got the MVP.


Except he also threw 14 picks and had an 85.7 passer rating. MVP indeed.

Quote
It's a team sport. Those TDs were due to his WRs making catches and his line blocking.


And this is where you lose credibility with me. Because when the Patriots recievers make catches and the O line blocks, you still give all the credit to Brady and talk about what total crap the Patriots offense is other than him. Obviously more than one person in that offense is doing something right if Brady could lead the NFL in TDs in 2002.

Quote
Or if Mr. October doesn't throw 4 picks they might have a better playoff experience. Sorry, I forgot, those were team INTs. The touchdowns, though, were all Peyton! :p


They weren't team ints. They were Manning's ints. And that's the difference between Brady and Manning. Brady can have a bad game and still win. If Manning has a bad game then they lose. Mr. October also lit up Denver the previous game when they had one of the best pass defenses in the league. Against the Pats he played a great defense and he had a bad game.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2004, 04:12:42 PM »

Quote
I don't feel the need. I chose to. Because I was hoping we could have a discussion not have someone repeat the same thing with caps lock on over and over again.


The 'monkey' remark didn't bother me.  I'm just happy that you/someone responded to it! biggrin

While we're on things that I haven't got a response to...What about the 17.5 PPG allowed in Indy's wins post I made a while ago. Is HE winning those games or could almost any team have won them? :wink:

The thing I LOVE about the Manning argument is that the Peyton Suck-Ups get so pissed when Brady and/or winning is mentioned.

The double standards come flying. Brady throws in TDs and it was The Team/The Scheme/The Coaches/ The Weather/ etc., but when Manning does it, the only explanation is his all-world greatness. Manning throws INTs and the opposite is true.

He played GREAT in the Denver game last year, but wasn't that the game where Harrison was laying on the ground and the Broncos decided to let him get up and walk 50 yards to the end-zone?

Brady's play for the Pats is equally as imprtant to Manning's play for the Colts.

This should get you going:
The reason the Colts lost the AFC Championship game last year was because of Manning. Big game. Choke.  biggrin
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2004, 05:33:13 PM »

Quote
Brady can have a bad game and still win.

Brady plays his best when the games mean more.  Manning hasn't shown this ability.  Brady hasn't lost a playoff game for his team yet, while Manning's bad choices in a number of playoff and college games have.

Those interceptions killed the Colts last year.  The game against NE this year was James fault and his fumbles.  Manning didn't play well the previous year in the spanking the Jets gave the Colts.  Manning also wasn't known for his big games against Florida.

To me, I couldn't care what Manning does during the year.  Give him every MVP for the next dozen years.  Call him the greatest ever, etc.  But if I was rooting for him, I'd be pretty damn pissed he threw the game away (litterally) at NE last year.  

I guess, being a NE fan, it is a luxury to expect your team to win.  The regular season doesn't matter one bit.  Only the playoffs matter.  The season is a failure for NE and Brady if we don't win the Superbowl.  

Manning fans seem content with TD numbers and regular season play.  Fine.  It is fun to watch the pretty throws against lesser competition.  But I just have a different measuring stick of success.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
Ralph-Wiggum
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2613


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2004, 06:47:02 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
Quote
I don't feel the need. I chose to. Because I was hoping we could have a discussion not have someone repeat the same thing with caps lock on over and over again.


While we're on things that I haven't got a response to...What about the 17.5 PPG allowed in Indy's wins post I made a while ago. Is HE winning those games or could almost any team have won them? :wink:



Perhaps the other teams only scored 17.5 PPG because Manning was so good at controlling the ball on offense? Or perhaps because opposing teams got so far behind they had to abandon any semblence of a balanced offense to keep up (thus making them much easier to defend)? Credit for the Colts holding teams to 17.5 PPG in their wins should not be attributed entirely to their defense.
Logged
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2004, 06:50:36 PM »

Quote from: "Scott"
Manning fans seem content with TD numbers and regular season play.  Fine.  It is fun to watch the pretty throws against lesser competition.  But I just have a different measuring stick of success.


No - we're just able to have different measuring sticks for individual players and for entire teams.

For fans of the game, it tends to be about more than just which team wins the SB.  For fans of a specific team, perhaps not.

I used to be a fan of a specific team and had the same view of football.  Four straight Super Bowls?  You're f-ing losers that lost all of them.  Only after a decade of contemplation and focus on appreciating the game itself did I come to understand just what happened with the Bills over that 4-year span.

And as the players and coach from that team go into the NFL HOF in their first year of eligibility I realize that fans who appreciate the game itself understand exactly what that team accomplished.

I only wish I had that appreciation for the game in my late teens.  I would have enjoyed my fandom a lot more.

Peyton Manning is the best QB in the NFL right now.  That's a fact, regardless of where the Colts go in the playoffs.  You can point to the meaninglessness of that fact in the context of winning championships, and that's fine.  That doesn't change the fact that he's the best QB in the NFL right now.
Logged
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2004, 06:58:57 PM »

Quote from: "Ralph-Wiggum"
Perhaps the other teams only scored 17.5 PPG because Manning was so good at controlling the ball on offense? Or perhaps because opposing teams got so far behind they had to abandon any semblence of a balanced offense to keep up (thus making them much easier to defend)? Credit for the Colts holding teams to 17.5 PPG in their wins should not be attributed entirely to their defense.


Like always, all three phases of the game are not entirely discrete elements.  Defenses contribute to offenses by getting turnovers and shortening the field.  Your return game and kick coverage games play critical roles in the battle of field position for the other units.  It all works together.  Offenses can help out the defense by controlling the clock and scoring obsene numbers of points to put the other offense in a 1-dimensional gameplan.

That's why "wins" is a bad statistic to use to compare individual players at any position.  It removes the contributions of the other 52 players and the coaching staff.  Unless you can look at a game and see that the difference between a team winning and losing an individual game was the direct result of a player's performance.

I remember a game between the Pats and Bills 4 or 5 years ago where the Bills broke a finger on Bledsoe's throwing hand.  Bledsoe stayed in the game, endured the agony, and led the Pats to a victory (probably the last victory drive he led the Pats on until he was playing for Buffalo).  In an instance like that, where you can tell that a player is lifting his team by the sheer force of his own determination to not fail - you can MAYBE credit a player with that "win".

But you can't look at a 16 game schedule and playoffs and say "Hey, that LB was 15 - 3 this year  and won a SB - he's the best LB ever!!!"  It makes no sense.  And it doesn't make any more sense to compare QBs that way.
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2004, 07:04:42 PM »

Quote
Perhaps the other teams only scored 17.5 PPG because Manning was so good at controlling the ball on offense? Or perhaps because opposing teams got so far behind they had to abandon any semblence of a balanced offense to keep up (thus making them much easier to defend)? Credit for the Colts holding teams to 17.5 PPG in their wins should not be attributed entirely to their defense.


All of these are valid reasons.

I just looked at the Lions game and there wasn't much difference between the 2 team's offensive stats (minus the TDs, of course) yet the Lions got outscored 41-9. Bend but don't break D?

TOP: IND - 31:12  DET - 28:48
Tot. Yards: IND - 356 DET - 386
Pass Yards: IND - 243 DET - 218

Doesn't look like the Indy was much different than the Detroit D, yet Detroit lost by 30+ points!

This leads me to believe that it's winning that matters and not stats?  :wink:

I only looked at the last game so this might get thrown way out of whack with other games.
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: December 02, 2004, 07:11:35 PM »

Quote
But you can't look at a 16 game schedule and playoffs and say "Hey, that LB was 15 - 3 this year and won a SB - he's the best LB ever!!!" It makes no sense. And it doesn't make any more sense to compare QBs that way.


If that LB set the record for sacks would he be the best ever? What if they had a 'Ted Washington' guy in the middle and he took up 3 players allowing the guy to get all the sacks and win the SB? What if the guy was a QB and set the record for TD passes and then won the Super Bowl on a drive where a screen pass that went for 80 yards. Would he be the best or would it be the RB? The line? The coach who called the play?  :wink:

So is Peyton's TD record a team accomplishment or not?
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: December 02, 2004, 07:43:53 PM »

Quote
Only after a decade of contemplation and focus on appreciating the game itself did I come to understand just what happened with the Bills over that 4-year span.

All things considered that was an amazing run.  I'd say the Patriots are in the midst of a better one since they have won two and are very good this season in the dominant conference (as opposed to the weaker AFC when the Bills played.)  That is another argument though.  

I am definitely a fan of the game.  What Manning is doing now is incredible.  He is playing better then many QBs have in the past.  But like everyone says, it is all relative.  The tools that Manning has are incredible.  The competition that he is putting up the numbers against isn't as good.  

Maybe Manning is the best regular season QB.  If I had to win a game in the playoffs though, I'm not sure I'd take Manning over some others.  Tough call.

There are a lot of good QBs in the league that don't have the offensive team Manning has, the luxory of playing in a dome, etc.  Culpepper was on the same pace before Moss went down.  Trent Green would put up some sick numbers if he had WRs on his team, besides just Gonzalez.

I think there are other QBs in the league capable of putting up similar numbers to Manning if given the chance.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: December 02, 2004, 09:22:50 PM »

Quote
If that LB set the record for sacks would he be the best ever?


Well, I don't know many better outside LB pass rushers than coked-up Lawrence Taylor.  Was he probably the best coked-up outside LB pass rusher because his team won two Super Bowls?  Or was it because when he was all coked up, he was the best pass rushing outside LB that ever played in the NFL?

He happened to be on a great defense as well.  That's why the team won Super Bowls.  Not because of the presence of Lawrence Taylor, but because of the team's defense, the team's coaching, and the efficiency of the offense.

That doesn't make LT any more or less great as a coked-up pass rushing outside LB.  That evaluation comes from his coked up play, not his team's accomplishments.


By the same token, it would be difficult to say that Bruce Smith was not one of the best pass rushers in NFL history, despite not winning any Super Bowls.  In his prime, he was a freak of human nature.  Was Reggie White a better pass rushing DE because he won a Super Bowl?  Or because he was a better pass rushing DE?  If the latter, how does one evaluate that?


Quote
What if the guy was a QB and set the record for TD passes and then won the Super Bowl on a drive where a screen pass that went for 80 yards. Would he be the best or would it be the RB? The line? The coach who called the play?  :wink:


Again - you're trying to use one play to establish someone's greatness, which is retarded.  Shattering the record for TD passes isn't even enough to make you the best QB ever.  It's more than enough to acknowledge that at the time, he's the best QB playing.


Quote
So is Peyton's TD record a team accomplishment or not?


This is the part you still don't get, and why you'll never understand why Tom Brady's accomplishments are evaluated using a different standard.

When trying to answer questions like this, or who the MVP is, you have to look at the whole situation.  You don't just look at the stat line, like you are trying to imply that we are doing.  You don't just look at the win-loss record like you are doing.

Peyton Manning is the only QB in the NFL right now that is calling the play every down based on how he reads the defense.  A guy like Tom Brady is told what to do, and for the most part, he executes his job efficiently.  It isn't Tom Brady's job to play offensive coordinator-lite on every down.  So comparing the two - even if their stat lines were similar - would be difficult.

Evaluating the contributions of the defense on each team has to be factored in as well.  The NE defense gives Tom Brady field position advantages (and points) that the Colts defense rarely provides Manning and the offense.  So Manning and the offense generally feel more pressure to score than any other offense in the league.

Is Manning's TD totals a measure of more than just his personal accomplishment?  Of course.  Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley, Marcus Pollard and Dallas Clark are all doing their part to make plays and turn catches into touchdowns.

I would be far less impressed with the Colts if Manning wasn't calling the offense on the fly.  He'd still be the MVP of the league, but one must give at least a little more credit to a QB that is calling the offense than one who is just doing what he's told.
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: December 02, 2004, 09:30:47 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
The thing I LOVE about the Manning argument is that the Peyton Suck-Ups get so pissed when Brady and/or winning is mentioned.

The double standards come flying. Brady throws in TDs and it was The Team/The Scheme/The Coaches/ The Weather/ etc., but when Manning does it, the only explanation is his all-world greatness. Manning throws INTs and the opposite is true.


See I don't believe I have a double standard in this regard. I freely admit that Brady is a very smart QB who makes great decisions out on the field. I think he gets more credit than is due to him in some instances because a lot of the throws he makes are to people who don't have a defender within 10 feet. It blows my mind that it happens in important games, but it does. Kudos to Brady for seeing the open man and getting him the ball, but I'm not going to fall over myself to call the guy great for it.

I just consistently see Manning put the ball in much tighter spots on a regular basis. He makes some incredible throws. He has to because the team depends on him to score a lot of points in order to win. When Manning throws ints, it is Manning's fault. Not the scheme. His. Just like any human being, he makes bad decisions now and then. And when he is constantly pushing the edge, a mistake on his part usually is a big one. That's the nature of the beast.

Quote

He played GREAT in the Denver game last year, but wasn't that the game where Harrison was laying on the ground and the Broncos decided to let him get up and walk 50 yards to the end-zone?


Same game. But that doesn't account for the other 4 touchdowns he threw that day. Or the fact the Colts didn't send their punter out on the field for two whole games of the playoffs.

Quote
This should get you going:
The reason the Colts lost the AFC Championship game last year was because of Manning. Big game. Choke.  biggrin


Yup. Big game, Manning made a few bad decisions and the Patriots defense came up big. And because the Patriots are a better team, they won. The Colts D just isn't capable of winning games without a *lot* of help from the offense, and in that game they got no help at all. End of story.

Still have to wonder why you take such delight in harping on this stuff no matter how many times people concede it.
Logged
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: December 02, 2004, 09:39:36 PM »

Quote from: "Scott"
I think there are other QBs in the league capable of putting up similar numbers to Manning if given the chance.


Well, that's an argument that can't have any logical conclusion.  We can't put any other QBs in that exact same situation to test how they do.  Anymore than I can prove my point by putting Manning on the Patriots and watching him win 2 out of 3 Super Bowls.

Overall, I have no doubt that the Pats feel better about their run than the Bills did, but they haven't even been able to go to two straight Super Bowls yet, let alone four.  smile

Imagine my surprise this year when I discovered that the "K-Gun" offense wasn't referring to Jim Kelly, but to Keith McKellar.  At least according to Marv Levy.  Who knew?
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2004, 02:31:45 AM »

RM9 - So the reason for your Manning-Love is the play calling aspect? OK. It's a throwback and he's been pretty damn good at it.

I likes White better than Taylor but I'm an Eagles fan.  :wink:

Quote
Still have to wonder why you take such delight in harping on this stuff no matter how many times people concede it.


It's easy and it's fun. All anyone needs to do is mention Brady or choking in big games when Manning is brought up and you and RM9 come rushing in like his father on draft day.
 Tongue
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2004, 03:38:04 PM »

Quote
Well, that's an argument that can't have any logical conclusion. We can't put any other QBs in that exact same situation to test how they do. Anymore than I can prove my point by putting Manning on the Patriots and watching him win 2 out of 3 Super Bowls.

An interesting what if, at least for me, if Green could play on the Colts.  Of course we'll never know though smile.  

Manning wouldn't fit on the Pats.  You'd have to cut a bunch of other players, so the Patriots wouldn't be what they were.  It'll be interesting when Brady's contract is redone though, but right now Brady is a far better value then Manning.

Quote
Overall, I have no doubt that the Pats feel better about their run than the Bills did, but they haven't even been able to go to two straight Super Bowls yet, let alone four. Smile

What do you think the answer to this would be for those Bills players, or most fans?  Would you rather have four straight Super Bowl loses, or two wins in three years?  I think you'd get two wins most of the time.  Great run by the Bills, but I'll take winning smile.

Quote
I think he gets more credit than is due to him in some instances because a lot of the throws he makes are to people who don't have a defender within 10 feet. It blows my mind that it happens in important games, but it does

You are watching games I'm not then, and I think I've seen them all.  The Pats receivers don't get any more wide open then Colts.  Most of the Colts highlights I've seen have guys running 3 or 4 steps ahead of their guys downfield for Mannings throws.   Both the Colts and Pats have good offensive planners and get the players open.  


Quote
I just consistently see Manning put the ball in much tighter spots on a regular basis. He makes some incredible throws. He has to because the team depends on him to score a lot of points in order to win. When Manning throws ints, it is Manning's fault. Not the scheme.

I'm sure a lot of this is because you don't watch a lot of Pats games.  I'll concede I don't watch that many Indy games either.  No sattelite, so I can't.  Manning makes great throws.  So does Brady, and other QBs.  Heck, at this level, all of the QBs can make great throws.  I think Manning excels because he knows when to make them, as does Brady.

I don't understand the scheme part?  Interceptions are caused by a few problems, wrong routes for receivers, bad decisions on the QB, tipped balls, etc.  Sometimes, I'm sure for Manning and others, the receiver just goes the wrong way.  

Manning is a good QB having a great year.  But until he wins the big game without melting down, he isn't a special player, at least to some.  Its not like he was a big winner in college, then a big playoff winner either.  I just still remember the beating the Jets gave the Colts when Manning didn't play well, and the bad decisions against NE.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2004, 04:33:40 PM »

Quote
Manning wouldn't fit on the Pats.  You'd have to cut a bunch of other players, so the Patriots wouldn't be what they were.  It'll be interesting when Brady's contract is redone though, but right now Brady is a far better value then Manning.


Partly depends how you define value. Bang for buck right now he's better value, because Brady is underpaid. The other thing is, the Patriots don't *need* a Manning behind center.

Quote
You are watching games I'm not then, and I think I've seen them all.  The Pats receivers don't get any more wide open then Colts.  Most of the Colts highlights I've seen have guys running 3 or 4 steps ahead of their guys downfield for Mannings throws.   Both the Colts and Pats have good offensive planners and get the players open.  


Both teams get open recievers. What I am talking about is people *wide* open on important plays. Consistently with the Patriots I have seen 3rd and long in big game situations where the other team goes into some kind of a soft prevent defense that apparantly involves giving the WR a 10' cushion.

Quote
I don't understand the scheme part?


The scheme part was in reference to Devil, who for some reason seems to think people blame the scheme for Manning's interceptions? I don't know what he's talking about half the time biggrin

Quote
Manning is a good QB having a great year.  But until he wins the big game without melting down, he isn't a special player, at least to some.  Its not like he was a big winner in college, then a big playoff winner either.  I just still remember the beating the Jets gave the Colts when Manning didn't play well, and the bad decisions against NE.


Do those 'some' consider Marino to be not a 'special player'? Because let's face it - at the rate Manning is going he at the very least going to be competitive with Marino as far as stats go. He's on track to completely shatter the TDs in a season record. I think at some point you have to give the guy credit for being more than 'good'.

On another note, I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in his contract negotiations. I really expected him to cut a deal so the Colts could make some serious upgrades on the defensive side of the ball. I hope he keeps playing like God the rest of this season and they win the whole thing because after this year things are going to change a bit methinks.
Logged
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2004, 04:34:50 PM »

Quote from: "Devil"
I likes White better than Taylor but I'm an Eagles fan.  :wink:


That would be great - but White isn't a coked up outside LB.  He was a DE.  Different positions.


Quote
Manning wouldn't fit on the Pats. You'd have to cut a bunch of other players, so the Patriots wouldn't be what they were. It'll be interesting when Brady's contract is redone though, but right now Brady is a far better value then Manning.


We are talking in fantasy land where Peyton makes a salary that allows the rest of the Pats team to stay intact.  Otherwise it's not putting them in the same situation, is it?


Quote
What do you think the answer to this would be for those Bills players, or most fans?


They've already said that they would rather win one SB and fade away then lose 4 straight.  It's still monumentally harder to make it to four straight Super Bowls than it is to win one (or even to go and win 2 out of 3 years).

Sure the fans would rather enjoy winning one.  We were discussing what's more objectively impressive or more difficult, not what fans would prefer.


Quote
You are watching games I'm not then, and I think I've seen them all. The Pats receivers don't get any more wide open then Colts.


Maybe I'm just paying more attention.  I do have satellite and I've seen a number of Pats and Colts games this year.  While you aren't responding to me, I've pointed out in the past that Brady is a product of the NE scheme.

And while he will periodically make some amazing throws - it seems his WRs are wide open A LOT.  Manning has the same thing.  His receivers are almost always wide open.

The difference though is that we rarely see the plays where all the receivers are blanketed because Manning has been very good at seeing when the defense has the right pass defense in, and he calls a running play instead.  That's a luxury Brady doesn't have.

And in all honesty, I'm not sure that Brady would be up to the task.

But I would MUCH rather be discussing Brady vs. Manning than Roethlisberger vs. Manning.  smile


Quote
Manning is a good QB having a great year. But until he wins the big game without melting down, he isn't a special player, at least to some.


And that's the problem.  Him being a "special" player is in many ways something that ultimately is divorced from the team's accomplishments.

Bruce Smith is one of the greatest DEs to ever play the game, and is certainly going to be a first ballot HOFer.  But he never won the big game.

When the chips were down - the Bills blew it - and blew it BADLY in 3 out of 4 attempts.  The people in the know understand how to evaluate players as players and teams as teams - and seem to be able to do it effectively.

Which is why Marv Levy and Jim Kelly went into the Hall on their first shot, despite being "losers".  As will Bruce Smith.  Not sure what will happen with Thomas and Reed, although Thomas was the first guy since Jim Brown to lead the league in yards from scrimmage for four consecutive seasons.  I'd like to see Kent Hull go in this year as well.
Logged
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2004, 04:57:35 PM »

Quote
We are talking in fantasy land where Peyton makes a salary that allows the rest of the Pats team to stay intact. Otherwise it's not putting them in the same situation, is it?

I'm getting confused with all the fantasy vs. non-fantasy talk smile.  

Brady does change plays at the line.  This is the first year he has really had the option of doing so though with Dillon.  Heavily covered wide receivers were always a better choice then an Antwoin Smith run...

Manning's teams in Tennessee were always very good.  So was Indy's team last year.   Manning just didn't play well, or maybe should have called more runs.

Quote
And in all honesty, I'm not sure that Brady would be up to the task.

Brady is fine.  His best qualities are his intelligence, accuracy, and ability to move in the pocket.  He is also pretty clutch.  Brady can't throw the ball with the consistent velocity that Manning can, and I'm not sure (probably not) that Brady can throw the long ball as well either.  But when necessary, Brady can win shootouts, and he has proven so.  

Quote
We were discussing what's more objectively impressive or more difficult, not what fans would prefer.

I still disagree.  Apparently it is harder to win a Super Bowl if the Bills couldn't do it in four tries.  

Quote
I do have satellite

Well you just suck then. smile  I've thought hard about it, but I use an HDTV feed now from cable, and haven't investigated enough if I can watch satellite games from the NFL package in HDTV.  I really don't want to know and want to upgrade.  My tv was my one nice bonus pre-kids smile.

Quote
I really expected him to cut a deal so the Colts could make some serious upgrades on the defensive side of the ball.

That suprised me.  He makes plenty, I would have thought winning would matter more.  Maybe it was partly the agent, who knows, but Manning may regret taking so much instead of another premier defensive guy on his team.  Older athletes usually do take cuts for the team.


Brady vs. Manning vs. whatever arguments always help the day go bye.[/quote]
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2004, 05:20:18 PM »

Quote
I still disagree. Apparently it is harder to win a Super Bowl if the Bills couldn't do it in four tries.


You really think that it is harder to win a single game than it is to get through the 16-game regular season and 2 - 3 playoff teams required to be allowed to even play in that game?

Astonishing.

It's harder to get to a Super Bowl and win it than it is to get to a Super Bowl and lose it (obviously).  It's harder to get to two straight Super Bowls than it is to get to and win one.  It's nigh on impossible to get to four Super Bowls in a row, which is why only one team in the history of the NFL has done it.

Of course, their motivation to get there came from losing them.
Logged
Scott
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: December 03, 2004, 06:03:49 PM »

Quote
You really think that it is harder to win a single game than it is to get through the 16-game regular season and 2 - 3 playoff teams required to be allowed to even play in that game?

Astonishing.

There are mitigating circumstances.

The Bills accomplished their run pre-salary cap.  The Bills were able to keep a great set of players together for many years.  That simply doesn't happen anymore.  The Bills were were by far the best team in a pretty bad AFC.  Without the cap in place, player movement was a lot more limited, so a lot of those bad AFC teams stayed bad for a long time, which explains some of the NFC's dominance and Super Bowl winning streak.  The Bills coasted through the AFC and playoffs, until they met the NFC teams.  

The Patriots play in a different era.  It is hard to impossible to even compete years after a Super Bowl because of all the player defections.  Playoff teams come and go.  How many teams have even been to multiple Super Bowls in a three year period since the cap?  I can think of just the Rams, who only won one.

Put the Bills in the NFC, and they go 0-4 in Championship games, like the Eagles, if they even make it that far.    Put the Pats in either conference, they stay the same, or do even better in the NFC and maybe make that third Super Bowl.

Add in the Patriots record winning streak (something the Bills never accomplished or got close too), and I'd say the current Patriots streak is pretty impressive.

Both are pretty amazing streaks, but because of the way the NFL is now, I'd probably lean towards the Pats.   Then again, I'm a Patriots fan and you are a Bills fan, so we are both looking through slightly rose colored glasses.
Logged

---
XBox Live: ScottW
RunningMn9
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 99


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2004, 08:57:44 PM »

Quote
The Bills accomplished their run pre-salary cap.


How many other teams accomplished the same during the pre-salary cap?


Quote
The Bills were able to keep a great set of players together for many years.  That simply doesn't happen anymore.


It didn't happen before either.  smile


Quote
The Bills were were by far the best team in a pretty bad AFC.


While we can agree that the NFC was a better conference, I'm not prepared to short change Houston, Denver, Miami, Kansas City and Pittsburgh - all teams that were good teams during those years.  The problem wasn't that the AFC was a bad conference - the problem was that NFL's elite two or three teams happened to be in the NFC.

Those AFC teams I mentioned were very good teams.  Even the Raiders in 1990 were a good team, despite Buffalo dismantling them 51-3 in the AFC Championship.  And the Bills weren't always clearly the best.  You'll recall they went in as a wild-card team in 1992, going into the second half of the wild-card game down 35-3 to Houston.  Ahhh...the good old days.  smile


Quote
The Bills coasted through the AFC and playoffs, until they met the NFC teams.


What are you talking about?  The only year you could say they coasted was in 1990 - and they didn't coast through - they beat the living piss out of every AFC team they faced.  The next three AFC Championships were great games as I recall.

They beat Denver in 1991 by a score of 10 - 7.  The other games weren't close, but they were hardly cases of "coasting".  


Quote
The Patriots play in a different era.  It is hard to impossible to even compete years after a Super Bowl because of all the player defections.


Of the core Patriots players from 2001, how many have left?  QB is the same.  WRs are the same.  Many defensive players are the same?  Where are the mass defections?

But even putting that aside - even if the Bills did it in the era before salary caps and unrestricted free agency, no other team under those conditions was able to accomplish that either.


Quote
Add in the Patriots record winning streak (something the Bills never accomplished or got close too), and I'd say the current Patriots streak is pretty impressive.


First of all - no one is saying that the Pats current run isn't impressive.  It's the most impressive run since the Broncos won back-to-back Championships in the late 90s.

Even the Pats know that the 2x-game unbeaten streak was a meaningless concoction of the media.  Not only are you talking about the win streaks of two different teams (the teams change from year to year), but you are talking about the win streaks of two different teams against different opponents.

As a franchise record, it's DAMN impressive.  But not as impressive as going to four straight Super Bowls.


Quote
Then again, I'm a Patriots fan and you are a Bills fan, so we are both looking through slightly rose colored glasses.


That's why I asked Trent Steel, and he agreed with me (much to his dismay, I'm sure).

Of course, things change if the Pats win the SB again this year.  Winning 3 of 4, as the Cowboys of the early 90s did would rate higher, even in my book.  Despite the fact that neither of those teams (the Cowboys or the Pats) was able to get to four straight Super Bowls.  smile
Logged
Devil
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7742



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2004, 12:25:50 AM »

RM9 - The Reggie WHite thing was in reference to pass rushing not position and LT was the best.

As for the scheme causing Mr. October's INTs it's in reference to "the player makes the scheme/scheme makes the player" argument with QBs.

You really think Trent "Mr. NY" Steel is going to side with the Boston player? ZERO CHANCE. He'll say Luke McCown is better than Brady.  :wink:

Scott - Sunday Ticket on the dish has about 50% HD games too. Get it. I watch Peyton's mastery each week. That's why I can comment on it more intelligently than RM9 and Aussie.  smile
Logged

XBox Gamertag: Devil13Devil
Wii Number: 0305 6568 6417 2609
PS3 Thing: Slived
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.259 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.058s, 2q)