Peyton after two quarters...

[JTrout]

say it with me..... M.... V.... P... [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
say it with me..... M.... V.... P... [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

You are forgetting the "C", the "O" and the "-".

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
You are forgetting the "C", the "O" and the "-".

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

I'm talking about this year. (and next year, and...)

[holeplug]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell ya what, Clark and Kurn. I like Brady ALOT, but since you seem to be heading up the Brady for Prez fan club round these parts

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm haven't mentioned Brady once. I have said that Ray Lewis is the best player in the NFL (and I agree with whoever said that Priest Holmes was the second best), and I have said that Manning is an underachiever and neither the best player in the NFL, nor the best QB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think LaDainian Tomlinson is the best RB in the NFL right now. But since he plays for San Diego no one ever talks about him.

[PhatTBoll]

The problem with evaluating the "greatness" of invididual players is that it invariably requires that we look at a career as a package, rather than as a collection of discreet events (games).
Does Manning have a history of coming up short in big games? Of course. Is he beginning to show improvement in big games? Absolutely. Nobody has even mentioned the Tampa Monday night game last year. Down 3 touchdowns, with 4 minutes left, on the road, against the undefeated, defending Super bowl champs, and he led them back to victory. The first playoff game against Denver: faced with a team that had just waxed them two weeks earlier, he turns in an almost flawless performance. The second playoff game against KC: another flawless performance that almost went to waste because of Indy's flummoxed defense and special teams coverage. And then the New England game, where the officials decided that the rules should stop applying to the Pats defensive backs.
None of the Peyton-bashers has even mentioned these games, except the NE game which tends to prove their point. Do the first three games I discussed even enter into the calculus? Or do they get tossed out because they don't support your opinion?

As for the argument that Peyton has been surrounded by so much talent and hasn't gotten the job done...Did it ever occur to you that the main reason why Marvin has gotten so much credit for being such a great receiver is that he has Peyton Manning throwing him the ball? Have you even considered that?

A final assignment for the Peyton-bashers:

Reconcile these statements:

1. Defense wins championships.

2. Over the course of Peyton Manning's career, the Colts' defense has been below average.

3. Peyton Manning is not a great quarterback because he has not won a championship.

4. Peyton Manning does not play defense.

Let's hear it.

[Clarkmeister]

LT is right behind Priest and on a par with Moss for the #3 slot IMO.

[Toro]

You make some pretty good points for an academic argument. But the bottom line is that in that AFC championship game vs. the Patriots last year he threw 4, I repeat 4 interceptions.

If he continues to perform like that in big playoff games he will never get to, let alone win a Super Bowl and if that failure is directly attributable to him (and I think it is if he throws 4 intys), he can never be considered one of the all time greats.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
You make some pretty good points for an academic argument. But the bottom line is that in that AFC championship game vs. the Patriots last year he threw 4, I repeat 4 interceptions.

If he continues to perform like that in big playoff games he will never get to, let alone win a Super Bowl and if that failure is directly attributable to him (and I think it is if he throws 4 intys), he can never be considered one of the all time greats.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point wasn't that last year's AFC championship game shouldn't be considered. Of course it should, and he played badly. But none of the arguments against him has even mentioned the big games where he played well, which have occurred more often over the past couple years.

If you are evaluating a player's overall greatness, aren't you required to consider the games where he played well? That's what I was getting at in that part of my post.

[Daliman]

Didn't the NFL specifically change the receiver coverage rule due to the Pats coverage tactics in this game?

and, to the poster who mentioned his comeback vs the Bucs last year; well done

Does Brady have a comeback CLOSE to that?

Why wasn't brady so great in 2002, when his team didn't even make the playoffs?

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't the NFL specifically change the receiver coverage rule due to the Pats coverage tactics in this game?

and, to the poster who mentioned his comeback vs the Bucs last year; well done

Does Brady have a comeback CLOSE to that?

Why wasn't brady so great in 2002, when his team didn't even make the playoffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No, the rule was not changed at all. The rule is exactly the same as always. But in response to some serious whining by the Colts, the NFL has diredcted officials to enforce this rule more strictly. This is already turning out to be quite a farce in a lot of games this year where fouls are called on phantom and ticky tack touches.

2. Brady doesn't have a single comeback as dramatic as that one but he has numerous(I'm too lazy to research it) comeback victories and I believe he is something like 8-0 in overtime games.

3. Asking why Brady wasn't so great in 2002 is really disingeuous. He was Super Bowl MVP in 2001, in 2002 the Pats were 9-7 and missed the playoffs on the 3rd tie breaker and he was Super Bowl MVP in 2003. I think a lot of NFL quarterbacks would be envious of that record.