The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

The Pats "own" the Colts. The Colts have lost to the Pats 4 times now due to just about everyone except Peyton Manning. Let's look at the stats.

2004 Divisional Playoffs: 27/42, 238 yards, one garbage time INT.
2004 Week 1: 16/29, 256 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT
2003 Conference Championship: 23/47, 237, 1 TD, 4 INT
2003 Week 13: 29/48, 278, 4 TD, 1 INT

Looks to me like he's played pretty well in 3 games and pretty awful in one. Yet, everyone you talk to will say Peyton Manning chokes against the Pats. Manning doesn't choke; everyone else on the team chokes. For example, let's take a look at why the Colts only scored three points last year in the playoffs.

Edgerrin James had 14 carries for 39 yards. His longest carry was 7 yards. He had 0 first downs. The Colts picked up no first downs on the ground! They also lost two fumbles.

How is that Peyton's fault? The Colts were not able to get anything going on the ground at all. Considering how good his opponent was, he played pretty damned well. The only problem is, he was the only one that did.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Looks to me like he's played pretty well in 3 games and pretty awful in one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good post Jack, the only thing I would say is in regards to the above, his pretty awful game came at the least opportune time.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

omg so awesome [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I swear Football Outsiders or some such place did an article with all this and much more on the subject but I'll be damned if I can ever find it.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Pats "own" the Colts. The Colts have lost to the Pats 4 times now due to just about everyone except Peyton Manning. Let's look at the stats.

2004 Divisional Playoffs: 27/42, 238 yards, one garbage time INT.
2004 Week 1: 16/29, 256 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT
2003 Conference Championship: 23/47, 237, 1 TD, 4 INT
2003 Week 13: 29/48, 278, 4 TD, 1 INT

Looks to me like he's played pretty well in 3 games and pretty awful in one. Yet, everyone you talk to will say Peyton Manning chokes against the Pats. Manning doesn't choke; everyone else on the team chokes. For example, let's take a look at why the Colts only scored three points last year in the playoffs.

Edgerrin James had 14 carries for 39 yards. His longest carry was 7 yards. He had 0 first downs. The Colts picked up no first downs on the ground! They also lost two fumbles.

How is that Peyton's fault? The Colts were not able to get anything going on the ground at all. Considering how good his opponent was, he played pretty damned well. The only problem is, he was the only one that did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this takes everything into account.

First of all, those are pretty crappy numbers for Peyton Manning. You are talking about a guy with a career YPA of 7.6 being held to 6.08 against the Pats.

Second - if they shut down the Colts' rushing, that adds to the impressiveness of containing Peyton. That would show the Pats were not "keying" in on the pass. Maybe their game plan was something along the lines of "Peyton's going to get his yards, but we're not going to let them establish the run." If the Pats held Peyton to these numbers while keying on the run then I would say without a doubt that Peyton has been majorly owned by NE.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, those are pretty crappy numbers for Peyton Manning. You are talking about a guy with a career YPA of 7.6 being held to 6.08 against the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... yeah. That's why the Pats are the World Champions. It's harder to win against them than anybody else. Gods become mortals. That doesn't mean Peyton has sucked, he's played pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
Second - if they shut down the Colts' rushing, that adds to the impressiveness of containing Peyton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the fact that the Colts rely so much on play action passes, don't you think it's more impressive what Peyton was able to accomplish without a running game? It actually works both ways.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Looks to me like he's played pretty well in 3 games and pretty awful in one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good post Jack, the only thing I would say is in regards to the above, his pretty awful game came at the least opportune time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, of course. The 2003 Pats were just amazing on defense. 2004 was obviously worse on D, but their offense was so much better with Tom Brady taking a step forward and becoming one of the best QBs in the league that year.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
omg so awesome [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I swear Football Outsiders or some such place did an article with all this and much more on the subject but I'll be damned if I can ever find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was looking for it. A little bit of it is in their book's entry on Peyton.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Well... yeah. That's why the Pats are the World Champions. It's harder to win against them than anybody else. Gods become mortals. That doesn't mean Peyton has sucked, he's played pretty well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the time to look it up but I am sure the Pats did not hold all other opps to 1.5 fewer YPA than average. Sample size aside, Peyton's numbers are not good for him, even factoring in the opposition.

[ QUOTE ]

Given the fact that the Colts rely so much on play action passes, don't you think it's more impressive what Peyton was able to accomplish without a running game? It actually works both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I don't really know. I'm not a football expert but I thought one of the main purposes of the play-action pass was to help the running game by keeping the defense thinking "pass" even when you run the ball.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
2004 Divisional Playoffs: 27/42, 238 yards, one garbage time INT.
2004 Week 1: 16/29, 256 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT
2003 Conference Championship: 23/47, 237, 1 TD, 4 INT

[/ QUOTE ]

or, you could look at it this way: I don't think any of the above 3 games were good for Peyton Manning. out of the last 4, he has played "above average" once. (you are also ignoring all the other losses the Colts have vs NE). this, from a QB whose stats & performance for most other games were eye popping.

Over the last 2 years, he played far worse against the Patriots than against any other team, particularly on the road. this doesn't mean he's a bad QB, or that he has choked. it simply means the Patriots play him tougher, and may even be in his head more than any other team is.

does this mean they "own" him? meh, I dunno, that's semantics.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

Stats don't tell the story here. A lot of those numbers came after the Pats opened a big lead, and were in relative prevent mode.

If you watched those games with even a modicum of knowledge and objectivity, there is no way you would assert that Peyton has played well against New England over the past few years.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

"2004 Divisional Playoffs: 27/42, 238 yards, one garbage time INT."

This is a pretty bad game, no? ~5 yrds per pass attmept is poor for the "best" qb in the league, even when playing against one of the better D's in the league. I'm not saying that they have owned him, but i don't think that Manning has played pretty darn well and the rest of the team left himn out to dry. Last year in the playoffs the D held a strong pats O in check most of the game- and i personally blame Manning's inablity to alter the gameplan to their loss more than anything else.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

Peyton Manning = The leader of the Colts.

Saying he is not owned by the Pats is wrong, simply because when youre a leader, its your fault when you lose, and your credit when you win. Just as if Tony Dungy had called great plays during the game but they werent executed well, its STILL his fault they lost, since he is a leader of that team.

MDoranD

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]

2004 Divisional Playoffs: 27/42, 238 yards, one garbage time INT.

...let's take a look at why the Colts only scored three points last year in the playoffs.

Edgerrin James had 14 carries for 39 yards.

...How is that Peyton's fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's Peyton's fault the team only scored 3 points because he threw the ball 42 times whereas Edge only ran the ball 14 times. The Colts didn't make any effort to establish the running game. They simply put the offense in Peyton's arm.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

Manning's playoff game last year was not the supreme choke job of the year before but still was decidedly mediocre. Averaging less than six yards a throw is not good. Overall the team may have been more sabotaged by the lack of a running game, but the fact is that Manning never made any big plays that would lead to points (no passes > 20 yards, only a handful > 10). The INT may have been in garbage time but if you are going to disregard that, then also disregard the 60 or so yards he picked up through the air on that garbage time drive. 170 yards passing doesn't look as pretty, no? He also fumbled, if I recall correctly, although I think the Colts recovered.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

You're just looking at overall stats which are telling a lie. In just about every game against the Pats it's come down to a few big plays and on these big game deciding plays the Pats have "owned" Manning.

Monday night should be very interesting. It looks like there is no way the Pats should win this game. But if somehow they do find a way to win, Indy and Manning will have to go away thinking that they just can't beat NE. This is a very big game for Manning/Indy.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Looks to me like he's played pretty well in 3 games and pretty awful in one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good post Jack, the only thing I would say is in regards to the above, his pretty awful game came at the least opportune time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, of course. The 2003 Pats were just amazing on defense. 2004 was obviously worse on D, but their offense was so much better with Tom Brady taking a step forward and becoming one of the best QBs in the league that year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think this had more to do with Corey Dillion then Tom Brady. They went from 27th in the NFL in rushing in 2003 all the way up to 7th in just one year after Dillion arrived.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Manning averaged 6 yards per attempt or better in only one of the four games you listed.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

If Manning is going to get credit for his ability to audible into the right play at the line, he also has to own up some when the playcalling sucks.

My guess is that Manning could not read pre snap whether the safeties were going to play pass or run and that has killed them. Maybe it would be better to say that Crennel\Belichek\Mangini own Manning.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're just looking at overall stats which are telling a lie. In just about every game against the Pats it's come down to a few big plays and on these big game deciding plays the Pats have "owned" Manning.

Monday night should be very interesting. It looks like there is no way the Pats should win this game. But if somehow they do find a way to win, Indy and Manning will have to go away thinking that they just can't beat NE. This is a very big game for Manning/Indy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This game is much bigger for the Pats.

If Indy loses they are still in control in the AFC, while if the Pats lose, they best they can realistically hope for is a 3 seed ( but no worse than a 4, because the rest of the AFCE is pathetic). In that case, they'd be playing the Colts in the Dome, which would immediately become the biggest game in the history of that place. Completely different atmosphere than 25 degrees at Foxboro, and much easier for Manning, Edge, and Marvin to work their magic.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

Win or lose this game, the Pats are going to win the AFC East and be the 3 seed, that's it. No one expects the Pats to win this game, maybe not even them. No, this game is huge for Indy. Psychologically it is very very important that they collectively and Manning individually prove to themselves/himself that they can beat the Pats.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Win or lose this game, the Pats are going to win the AFC East and be the 3 seed, that's it. No one expects the Pats to win this game, maybe not even them. No, this game is huge for Indy. Psychologically it is very very important that they collectively and Manning individually prove to themselves/himself that they can beat the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of thing that sportswriters write and people repeat like it's fact. I doubt Manning will be moping and calling this season a lost cause if they lose Monday. And as much as I would love them to crush NE, the Colts likely won't have to beat the Pats in Foxboro to go to the Superbowl this year. Like I said before, huge difference.

And incidentally, is it Pittsburgh or Denver you're expecting the Pats to beat out for the 3?

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

Yeah, the Pat's are going to go into this game with the attitude that's won the 3 of 4 championsips.

"We expect to lose this game"

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Win or lose this game, the Pats are going to win the AFC East and be the 3 seed, that's it. No one expects the Pats to win this game, maybe not even them. No, this game is huge for Indy. Psychologically it is very very important that they collectively and Manning individually prove to themselves/himself that they can beat the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of thing that sportswriters write and people repeat like it's fact. I doubt Manning will be moping and calling this season a lost cause if they lose Monday. And as much as I would love them to crush NE, the Colts likely won't have to beat the Pats in Foxboro to go to the Superbowl this year. Like I said before, huge difference.

And incidentally, is it Pittsburgh or Denver you're expecting the Pats to beat out for the 3?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you follow this forum you have to know one thing and that is I'm an original thinker. For example:

1. Predicted Shilling would be Sox closer(everyone scoffed)
2. Predicted ortiz would win MVP(everyone scoffed)
3. Predicted Cleveland Indians would collapse and miss playoffs(everyone scoffed)

Believe this: If Indy loses, it will be in Mannings head if it is not already.

Edit: 3 seed is the highest I think the Pats can get. 4 seed is more likely. I'm a big fan but there are just too many holes this year.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Win or lose this game, the Pats are going to win the AFC East and be the 3 seed, that's it. No one expects the Pats to win this game, maybe not even them. No, this game is huge for Indy. Psychologically it is very very important that they collectively and Manning individually prove to themselves/himself that they can beat the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of thing that sportswriters write and people repeat like it's fact. I doubt Manning will be moping and calling this season a lost cause if they lose Monday. And as much as I would love them to crush NE, the Colts likely won't have to beat the Pats in Foxboro to go to the Superbowl this year. Like I said before, huge difference.

And incidentally, is it Pittsburgh or Denver you're expecting the Pats to beat out for the 3?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you follow this forum you have to know one thing and that is I'm an original thinker. For example:

1. Predicted Shilling would be Sox closer(everyone scoffed)
2. Predicted ortiz would win MVP(everyone scoffed)
3. Predicted Cleveland Indians would collapse and miss playoffs(everyone scoffed)

Believe this: If Indy loses, it will be in Mannings head if it is not already.

Edit: 3 seed is the highest I think the Pats can get. 4 seed is more likely. I'm a big fan but there are just too many holes this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

you also thought pokerstars was rigged.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Win or lose this game, the Pats are going to win the AFC East and be the 3 seed, that's it. No one expects the Pats to win this game, maybe not even them. No, this game is huge for Indy. Psychologically it is very very important that they collectively and Manning individually prove to themselves/himself that they can beat the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of thing that sportswriters write and people repeat like it's fact. I doubt Manning will be moping and calling this season a lost cause if they lose Monday. And as much as I would love them to crush NE, the Colts likely won't have to beat the Pats in Foxboro to go to the Superbowl this year. Like I said before, huge difference.

And incidentally, is it Pittsburgh or Denver you're expecting the Pats to beat out for the 3?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you follow this forum you have to know one thing and that is I'm an original thinker. For example:

1. Predicted Shilling would be Sox closer(everyone scoffed)
2. Predicted ortiz would win MVP(everyone scoffed)
3. Predicted Cleveland Indians would collapse and miss playoffs(everyone scoffed)

Believe this: If Indy loses, it will be in Mannings head if it is not already.

Edit: 3 seed is the highest I think the Pats can get. 4 seed is more likely. I'm a big fan but there are just too many holes this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

you also thought pokerstars was rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say i was 4 for 4 then. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Win or lose this game, the Pats are going to win the AFC East and be the 3 seed, that's it. No one expects the Pats to win this game, maybe not even them. No, this game is huge for Indy. Psychologically it is very very important that they collectively and Manning individually prove to themselves/himself that they can beat the Pats.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of thing that sportswriters write and people repeat like it's fact. I doubt Manning will be moping and calling this season a lost cause if they lose Monday. And as much as I would love them to crush NE, the Colts likely won't have to beat the Pats in Foxboro to go to the Superbowl this year. Like I said before, huge difference.

And incidentally, is it Pittsburgh or Denver you're expecting the Pats to beat out for the 3?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you follow this forum you have to know one thing and that is I'm an original thinker. For example:

1. Predicted Shilling would be Sox closer(everyone scoffed)
2. Predicted ortiz would win MVP(everyone scoffed)
3. Predicted Cleveland Indians would collapse and miss playoffs(everyone scoffed)

Believe this: If Indy loses, it will be in Mannings head if it is not already.

Edit: 3 seed is the highest I think the Pats can get. 4 seed is more likely. I'm a big fan but there are just too many holes this year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Relax, I wasn't trying to impugn your creativity. I'm just talking football. Here is an emoticon that will surely prove my good will: [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

But surely you can't think what you've been saying in this thread is original in any way. You live near Boston, right? You must read and hear this stuff all day. Not that I blame you all really, it's just sports bluster.

But just answer this: Assume that Peyton gets frustrated, Edge fumbles a huge chance, Marvin half-asses routes, Stokley drops another 6 passes, and the Pats sneak by the Colts on Monday, and the Colts are angry about it. What difference is that going to make when the Colts and Broncos are playing in the AFC championship game in the Hoosier Dome?

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

My opinion but yes it would mean a lot. I'm big into the psychology of sports. There's more to sports than just stats except of course in the fantasy leagues.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion but yes it would mean a lot. I'm big into the psychology of sports. There's more to sports than just stats except of course in the fantasy leagues.

[/ QUOTE ]
Psychology can all be in the eye of the beholder. The Seahawks lost 3 times to the Rams last year, but this year, they went on the road and beat them. A team can overcome a psychological problem on any given day.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

The ironic twist to this game is that it is effectively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Look at the divisions of these teams and their remaining schedules.
The Colts will be the #1 seed and the Pats will be the #4 seed in the playoffs regardless of the outcome. The Colts do not "have to" win this game.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The ironic twist to this game is that it is effectively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Look at the divisions of these teams and their remaining schedules.
The Colts will be the #1 seed and the Pats will be the #4 seed in the playoffs regardless of the outcome. The Colts do not "have to" win this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I very strongly disagree that this game is meaningless.

The answer lies in the schedules. The Colts have had a soft schedule so far, but it gets much tougher here on out. The Pats are just finishing up the "schedule from hell" and have a much softer schedule to finish the regular season. If the Pats win, I can easily see both teams finishing around 13-3 or 12-4, with the Pats having the tiebreaker. Colts going to New England in January? *shivers*

As for JackOfArcades, I think he is basically saying that Peyton can't take all of the blame for the Colts losses to New England. This firmly lands in the category of "No Sh!t, Sherlock". It's a team game.

Has ANYONE done particulaly well against New England over the past few years? This is a stupid debate. The Patriots are the reigning champs and the Colts are not.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Patriots are the reigning champs and the Colts are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll save my talk till after the game, I just wanted to make sure you know how absolutely pointless LAST year is. If you need assistance, ask teams like St. Louis and Baltimore following their championships.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to make sure you know how absolutely pointless LAST year is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Colts fans have become very seasoned at reminding everyone of this. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

I agree with your sentiments that the Patriots are better than people think given their brutal schedule in their first 6 games.
However, last week's performance was just inexcusable coming off a bye, with the whole Bruschi emotional stuff and they were lucky to beat a team that probably couldn't beat Boston College on the road.
As for the Colts - it's impossible for their schedule to not get tougher after the crap they've played so far, but still - they get the Steelers & Chargers at home. What's their toughest remaining road game after this week, Jacksonville? They're a lock for homefield barring a Manning injury IMO.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Manning's playoff game last year was not the supreme choke job of the year before but still was decidedly mediocre. Averaging less than six yards a throw is not good. Overall the team may have been more sabotaged by the lack of a running game, but the fact is that Manning never made any big plays that would lead to points (no passes > 20 yards, only a handful > 10). The INT may have been in garbage time but if you are going to disregard that, then also disregard the 60 or so yards he picked up through the air on that garbage time drive. 170 yards passing doesn't look as pretty, no? He also fumbled, if I recall correctly, although I think the Colts recovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Pats weren't doing a whole lot of blitzing, and they dominated the Colts offensive line. That's a recipe for disaster no matter who is at qb, unless it's maybe a Michael Vick.

It was also probably difficult for the Colts receivers to use their speed advantage out on the snow. That makes it tougher to spring big plays, especially when the defense is taking away the big play every time. Indy were doing what they should have done: Taking what the defense gave them. Trying to force a big play would be reckless.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your sentiments that the Patriots are better than people think given their brutal schedule in their first 6 games.
However, last week's performance was just inexcusable coming off a bye, with the whole Bruschi emotional stuff and they were lucky to beat a team that probably couldn't beat Boston College on the road.
As for the Colts - it's impossible for their schedule to not get tougher after the crap they've played so far, but still - they get the Steelers & Chargers at home. What's their toughest remaining road game after this week, Jacksonville? They're a lock for homefield barring a Manning injury IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The games that bug me for the Colts coming up are: @Jax, @Cincy, @Seattle, Pitts, SD. Those are 5 tough games against 5 tough teams. If they can win 4 of those 5, they'll easily get the home field and they will definitely deserve it. But, they could easily go 3-2 or 2-3 with those 5. Suddenly a loss to the Patriots will look pretty big. Granted, the Pats still have to run the table, but KC(4-3) is the only team with a winning record left on the Pats' schedule. If the Colts go 2-3, then the Pats can lose to KC and still pull it out.

This is all very hypothetical, given that the Colts may win on Monday and virtually wrap up a first round bye. But if the Colts lose, Pandora's box is wide open.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Pats "own" the Colts. The Colts have lost to the Pats 4 times now due to just about everyone except Peyton Manning. Let's look at the stats.

2004 Divisional Playoffs: 27/42, 238 yards, one garbage time INT.
2004 Week 1: 16/29, 256 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT
2003 Conference Championship: 23/47, 237, 1 TD, 4 INT
2003 Week 13: 29/48, 278, 4 TD, 1 INT

Looks to me like he's played pretty well in 3 games and pretty awful in one. Yet, everyone you talk to will say Peyton Manning chokes against the Pats. Manning doesn't choke; everyone else on the team chokes. For example, let's take a look at why the Colts only scored three points last year in the playoffs.

Edgerrin James had 14 carries for 39 yards. His longest carry was 7 yards. He had 0 first downs. The Colts picked up no first downs on the ground! They also lost two fumbles.

How is that Peyton's fault? The Colts were not able to get anything going on the ground at all. Considering how good his opponent was, he played pretty damned well. The only problem is, he was the only one that did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this takes everything into account.

First of all, those are pretty crappy numbers for Peyton Manning. You are talking about a guy with a career YPA of 7.6 being held to 6.08 against the Pats.

Second - if they shut down the Colts' rushing, that adds to the impressiveness of containing Peyton. That would show the Pats were not "keying" in on the pass. Maybe their game plan was something along the lines of "Peyton's going to get his yards, but we're not going to let them establish the run." If the Pats held Peyton to these numbers while keying on the run then I would say without a doubt that Peyton has been majorly owned by NE.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Pats were keying in on the pass. They just managed to shut down the running game anyway. The Colts offensive line did a horrible job at run blocking.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're just looking at overall stats which are telling a lie. In just about every game against the Pats it's come down to a few big plays and on these big game deciding plays the Pats have "owned" Manning.

Monday night should be very interesting. It looks like there is no way the Pats should win this game. But if somehow they do find a way to win, Indy and Manning will have to go away thinking that they just can't beat NE. This is a very big game for Manning/Indy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually *you're* looking at overall stats. *I'm* looking at play-by-play stats. However, it's a bit unweildy to show it to you.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Indy were doing what they should have done: Taking what the defense gave them. Trying to force a big play would be reckless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will take my chances if it gives me a shot at scoring more than 3 points. Taking what the defense gives you may be appropriate at times, but if the defense is only giving you small plays and you are a passing team, then you are getting schooled and you cannot just accept that. It is very hard to string together 6 or 7 first downs in a row against a good defense if you are throwing mainly dinky passes < 10 yards. You need big plays to score points if you are a passing offense.

I agree that the Colts got beat in the trenches, especially on running plays, but the Pats only had one sack. It wasn't like they were killing the guy back there. Peyton had a mediocre game, and that contributed to the loss.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indy were doing what they should have done: Taking what the defense gave them. Trying to force a big play would be reckless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will take my chances if it gives me a shot at scoring more than 3 points. Taking what the defense gives you may be appropriate at times, but if the defense is only giving you small plays and you are a passing team, then you are getting schooled and you cannot just accept that. It is very hard to string together 6 or 7 first downs in a row against a good defense if you are throwing mainly dinky passes < 10 yards. You need big plays to score points if you are a passing offense.

I agree that the Colts got beat in the trenches, especially on running plays, but the Pats only had one sack. It wasn't like they were killing the guy back there. Peyton had a mediocre game, and that contributed to the loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the game had low scoring, every first down was important.

Trying to throw deep would play right into the hands of the defense, and would most likely result in a wasted down. A sack or an interception were other possibilities. In other words, if I put a lot of effort into stopping the deep pass, then I want the offense to try and throw deep on me.

The Colts best chance was to successfully attack the weaknesses of the defense with short passes and the running game. If that works, you can school the defense without deep passes. You can also force the defense to focus less on the deep pass if you're successful. The problem for the Colts is they just weren't physical enough, and they didn't execute that well. I saw too much wincing when the Patriots players hit the Indy receivers.

They had only one sack because the Colts weren't trying to go deep. If they tried that, I think Manning would have been sacked more often. Also, you don't need to sack the quarterback in order to disrupt the Colts offense with pressure.

Re: The Pats do not \"own\" Peyton Manning.
 

The Patriots are 4-3 and hurting pretty badly. To get homefield, they have to beat out a 6-2 Denver team that's very good, Pittsburgh at 6-2, Cincinatti at 7-2.

There's no way the Patriots are getting home-field against those teams unless they play much better over the second half of the season. They pretty much have to win every game here on out, and this team hasn't looked like a team that's capable of doing that.

Oh, and I think Colts win big at Foxboro on Monday Night, too. The 2005 Patriots are a far cry from the awesome team we saw last year.