Cujo

NFL '13 SEASON THREAD

Recommended Posts

Tom Jackson just said that Seattle's got a seven year run at the top ahead of them. I guess he's forgetting that, in two years, they have to renegotiate a bunch of contracts in a salary capped league.

There was a graphic that showed, who was it, the '71 Dolphins, '74 Steelers, '81 49ers, and somebody else (but pre-1994), as the youngest teams to play in the Super Bowl, collective age wise, and Berman promptly mentioned how all those teams ended up going on big runs afterwards, and what that could mean for the Seahawks going forward as well.

Problem, of course being, that the salary cap didn't exist back then. Now, for reasons I may or may not have actually outlined in my last post (because who knows what the hell I'm even typing these days), I think Seattle is going to keep the ship going, but they aren't going to be able to keep this particular unit together forever. With the salary cap, tough decisions have to be made. It's not entirely fair that teams that assemble excellent units through brilliant drafting and developing have to make tough decisions because these good players finally come up for contracts that are worthy of their play, but, hey, salary caps people. Parity is awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is it not too soon to talk about this win in context of other dominant championship wins? It has to rate right near the top, right? No team had scored more points than the Broncos, and they were nearly blanked. That's pretty special.

It's gotta be right up there with the '85 Bears win over the Patriots. That's what it reminded me of anyway.

The first Super Bowl I ever watched was the second Cowboys-Bills super bowl so in my time I've seen only three or four "80's style blowouts" and this one was the worst. Even before the score got bad you could just tell what team was there to win a championship and what team was there because the NFL needed someone to represent their conference. Me thinks this game won't be one of those Super Bowls we remember with much fondness. You know how people sort of gloss over the Ravens-Giants super bowl because it was a one-sided affair and nothing of note really happened? I think this one will receive a similar place in the collective consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said beat them tonight.

And I was kidding :P

BUT PEYTON MANNING SHOULD HAVE WON

HE SHOULD HAVE CEMENTED HIS LEGACY

HE IS THE GREATEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL TIME

DIDN'T YOU WATCH HIM ON SNL?!

HE DOES FUNNY COMMERCIALS

HE SHOUTS "OMAHA"

YOU MUST LOVE HIM

This is pretty much what's fuelling my (not so) humble brag re: the Broncos loss. I've been in the "Manning, more often then not, folds when the pressure's on"/"he's not as good as Brady" camps for a while now. The Broncos' ascendance and Manning cementing his legacy was a foregone conclusion at the start of the season. I kept saying "let's wait until the postseason" and I had to deal with "this is Peyton's year, it's breaking his way" throughout. Well...here we are.

They had 267 total yards against the Rams (145 passing). You're not saying the defense put them in position to win that game? Why? Because he set one of the best kickers ever up for a hardly automatic 48-yarder? That's at least a little bit insane. Defense won that game.

I'm saying Brady made plays when it mattered. Very Montana-esque (not saying he's better then Montana, not by a loooooong shot). Something Manning proved incapable of doing in two of his three Super Bowl appearances, including his two most recent. And plenty of playoff games. That's my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I want to point out. The defining play of the game, Seattle had absolutely nothing to do with.

True.

When is it not too soon to talk about this win in context of other dominant championship wins? It has to rate right near the top, right? No team had scored more points than the Broncos, and they were nearly blanked. That's pretty special.

It's gotta be right up there with the '85 Bears win over the Patriots. That's what it reminded me of anyway.

Yeah I would agree with this. It's rare we see this dominance and physicality in a Super Bowl. I'd say the 2007 Giants' defense was pretty dominant against the Patriots offense and rank in the top 5. The Buccaneers dominated the Raiders, and the 49ers had two dominating wins, but they weren't just physically dominant.

Not sure if you were trying to reply to what I said, but... (Didn't see your reply when I replied, it was blank)

I'm in no way saying anything other than Seattle just completely took it to Denver tonight. While Denver played their worst game since Manning has been here, it's not like they just played that way because... Seattle forced Denver into mistake after mistake and readily capitalized on them.

I was only saying that the defining play (at least in my mind), Seattle had nothing to do with. Which was the first snap Denver had.

Actually, thinking about it, the defining play was the INT for the touchdown. The Broncos could have easily comeback from a safety on the first play. But when it looked like they were going for points to cut the lead before half, the pass gets tipped, and it's 6 the other way, essentially clinching the game.

I agree. They were moving the ball somewhat well, and were in FG range, weren't they?

Knowshon not at least attempting to make a play on that ball and at least knock it down or be in position to tackle the guy who was behind him when the ball got tipped (and the Thomas fumble because that was ridiculous) will likely always be my biggest memory from this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I want to point out. The defining play of the game, Seattle had absolutely nothing to do with.

True.

When is it not too soon to talk about this win in context of other dominant championship wins? It has to rate right near the top, right? No team had scored more points than the Broncos, and they were nearly blanked. That's pretty special.

It's gotta be right up there with the '85 Bears win over the Patriots. That's what it reminded me of anyway.

Yeah I would agree with this. It's rare we see this dominance and physicality in a Super Bowl. I'd say the 2007 Giants' defense was pretty dominant against the Patriots offense and rank in the top 5. The Buccaneers dominated the Raiders, and the 49ers had two dominating wins, but they weren't just physically dominant.

Not sure if you were trying to reply to what I said, but... (Didn't see your reply when I replied, it was blank)

I'm in no way saying anything other than Seattle just completely took it to Denver tonight. While Denver played their worst game since Manning has been here, it's not like they just played that way because... Seattle forced Denver into mistake after mistake and readily capitalized on them.

I was only saying that the defining play (at least in my mind), Seattle had nothing to do with. Which was the first snap Denver had.

Actually, thinking about it, the defining play was the INT for the touchdown. The Broncos could have easily comeback from a safety on the first play. But when it looked like they were going for points to cut the lead before half, the pass gets tipped, and it's 6 the other way, essentially clinching the game.

I would call that the game changing play. I still see the snap as the defining play, because it pretty much defined how the rest of the ENTIRE game went.

That INT is why I voted for Smith for MVP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My contribution to this conversation...The Seahawks won and I'm ecstatic! Also, Manning is still better than Brady. Brady won his last championship 9 years ago. If Manning is not clutch then it is only fair to say that Brady is not that clutch either.

Brady was pretty clutch in Super Bowl 42 in the loss to the Giants. Patriots took the lead on their second to last drive (with their last drive just being hail marys). Eli just happened to be more clutch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm re-jiggering this one because I edited in the second part, by which point it was already buried. Might as well get some actual value from it.

And Brady's postseason resume of late really isn't that great...

Neither has Peyton's. Peyton's lone Super Bowl victory came two years after Brady's third. Since then both have been to two, and both have lost two. And Brady never looked as outmatched as Manning did tonight. He also never threw away a Super Bowl like Manning did. So both have had less then stellar postseason success recently. The difference was that Brady had success early on with three Super Bowl rings and Manning struggled, finally getting one.

...and the early successes were largely due to New England having an elite defense (I'll remind you that Manning has never had anything that resembled one of these).

Football is, at the end of the day, a team game. Now this is, rightfully, pointed out to remind us that you can't judge quarterback greatness on rings alone. Which is true. Yet I think we tend to overemphasis that point and go to far in the other direction at times. No, rings are not the be-all-end-all of a quarterback's legacy. Yet they cannot be discounted either. As stellar as Dan Marino's career was he will never escape the fact that he never won a Super Bowl. Manning has one, yes, but he should have a few more given his stellar regular season numbers. No, his defences were never that great, but he still managed to get them to the playoffs year in and year out, posting 10+ win seasons in the process. So at a certain point we have to address the fact that something happens with Manning where he, more often then not, falls apart in the postseason.

There's two ways to think about this. The other way, the way I choose to see it, is that Manning was on a lot of (talent-wise) pretty mediocre run-of-the-mill football teams in his career and he often took them farther in the playoffs than they should've gone. (He took a Jim Caldwell coached team to the Super Bowl for crying out loud!) That means that when those teams got deep enough he was faced with the task of carrying all of that on his back against a very tough opponent and that's usually when things went sideways for him.

He also doesn't play defense or special teams and a lot of the playoff losses were errors by those groups outside of his control.

This loss doesn't change anything for me. He's still my guy if I'm picking a QB from the last 15 years to start a team with.

This is pretty much exactly my argument as well on this matter. In fairness, those Colts teams did have quite a bit of talent on Peyton's side of the ball, talent that would play anywhere (Harrison, Wayne, Edge, Clark namely) but many of those Colts teams were average-to-horrible on defense, which not only placed extra burden's on Peyton that 2001-2004 Brady didn't have to deal with (not his fault of course), but the Colts would still end up losing more games due to being a weaker overall team which is why they had to go to New England in the '03 and '04 postseasons instead of being at home. The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were much better complete teams than Peyton Manning ever played on in Indianapolis.

As I've said, you can't go wrong with whoever you pick if forced to choose, but it's an argument that lends itself to some extreme oversimplification, and that's where I have a hard time not getting irked reading some POV's. Both sides have plenty valid arguments in their favors, I just wish I would hear more of those valid arguments than people who are tempted to say "3 > 1" (again, general complaint, not CCSLC-specific).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is it not too soon to talk about this win in context of other dominant championship wins? It has to rate right near the top, right? No team had scored more points than the Broncos, and they were nearly blanked. That's pretty special.

It's gotta be right up there with the '85 Bears win over the Patriots. That's what it reminded me of anyway.

The first Super Bowl I ever watched was the second Cowboys-Bills super bowl so in my time I've seen only three or four "80's style blowouts" and this one was the worst. Even before the score got bad you could just tell what team was there to win a championship and what team was there because the NFL needed someone to represent their conference. Me thinks this game won't be one of those Super Bowls we remember with much fondness. You know how people sort of gloss over the Ravens-Giants super bowl because it was a one-sided affair and nothing of note really happened? I think this one will receive a similar place in the collective consciousness.

I think this one is far more significant that the Ravens-Giants. The Broncos set all kinds of offensive records this year. Peyton Manning, one of the best QBs in NFL history, had the best year ever for a QB in terms of yards and touchdowns. The Broncos weren't just "the AFC needs a team, let's send them". And they got creamed tonight.

This was a different level than Kerry Collins getting crushed by a good Ravens defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm re-jiggering this one because I edited in the second part, by which point it was already buried. Might as well get some actual value from it.

And Brady's postseason resume of late really isn't that great...

Neither has Peyton's. Peyton's lone Super Bowl victory came two years after Brady's third. Since then both have been to two, and both have lost two. And Brady never looked as outmatched as Manning did tonight. He also never threw away a Super Bowl like Manning did. So both have had less then stellar postseason success recently. The difference was that Brady had success early on with three Super Bowl rings and Manning struggled, finally getting one.

...and the early successes were largely due to New England having an elite defense (I'll remind you that Manning has never had anything that resembled one of these).

Football is, at the end of the day, a team game. Now this is, rightfully, pointed out to remind us that you can't judge quarterback greatness on rings alone. Which is true. Yet I think we tend to overemphasis that point and go to far in the other direction at times. No, rings are not the be-all-end-all of a quarterback's legacy. Yet they cannot be discounted either. As stellar as Dan Marino's career was he will never escape the fact that he never won a Super Bowl. Manning has one, yes, but he should have a few more given his stellar regular season numbers. No, his defences were never that great, but he still managed to get them to the playoffs year in and year out, posting 10+ win seasons in the process. So at a certain point we have to address the fact that something happens with Manning where he, more often then not, falls apart in the postseason.

There's two ways to think about this. The other way, the way I choose to see it, is that Manning was on a lot of (talent-wise) pretty mediocre run-of-the-mill football teams in his career and he often took them farther in the playoffs than they should've gone. (He took a Jim Caldwell coached team to the Super Bowl for crying out loud!) That means that when those teams got deep enough he was faced with the task of carrying all of that on his back against a very tough opponent and that's usually when things went sideways for him.

He also doesn't play defense or special teams and a lot of the playoff losses were errors by those groups outside of his control.

This loss doesn't change anything for me. He's still my guy if I'm picking a QB from the last 15 years to start a team with.

This is pretty much exactly my argument as well on this matter. In fairness, those Colts teams did have quite a bit of talent on Peyton's side of the ball, talent that would play anywhere (Harrison, Wayne, Edge, Clark namely) but many of those Colts teams were average-to-horrible on defense, which not only placed extra burden's on Peyton that 2001-2004 Brady didn't have to deal with (not his fault of course), but the Colts would still end up losing more games due to being a weaker overall team which is why they had to go to New England in the '03 and '04 postseasons instead of being at home. The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were much better complete teams than Peyton Manning ever played on in Indianapolis.

As I've said, you can't go wrong with whoever you pick if forced to choose, but it's an argument that lends itself to some extreme oversimplification, and that's where I have a hard time not getting irked reading some POV's. Both sides have plenty valid arguments in their favors, I just wish I would hear more of those valid arguments than people who are tempted to say "3 > 1" (again, general complaint, not CCSLC-specific).

The 2007 Colts had the number 1 defense in points allowed, the number 3 defense in yards allowed, and number 2 in turnovers. That's a pretty dominating defense. If that's not a good defense, I'm not sure what is. And they lost to the Chargers in the divisional round. Surely not a point in Peyton's favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm re-jiggering this one because I edited in the second part, by which point it was already buried. Might as well get some actual value from it.

I just wish I would hear more of those valid arguments than people who are tempted to say "3 > 1" (again, general complaint, not CCSLC-specific).

I'm not saying "3 > 1." I'm saying Manning never quite managed to play in a Montana-esque manner come the postseason, while Brady managed to make key plays and orchestrate key drives. Of course he had a defence that did its part. Still, Brady had to do his. And succeeded more often then not. Certainly more then Manning did. That's my argument. "3 > 1" is just a result of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons you don't see many '80s style blowouts anymore is because of what could possibly be perceived as one of the "positives" of the salary cap era. How many blowouts have there been in the last 20 years?

1994: 49-26 SF

1995: 27-17 DAL

1996: 35-21 GB

1997: 31-24 DEN

1998: 34-19 DEN

1999: 23-16 STL

2000: 34-7 BAL

2001: 20-17 NE

2002: 48-21 TB

2003: 32-29 NE

2004: 24-21 NE

2005: 21-10 PIT

2006: 29-17 IND

2007: 17-14 NYG

2008: 27-23 PIT

2009: 31-17 NO

2010: 31-25 GB

2011: 21-17 NYG

2012: 34-31 BAL

2013: 43-8 SEA

I count 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2013 as being the only games decided by more than two touchdowns, so there you go.

I personally prefer knowing I'm watching elite football teams, but I guess there's some de facto tradeoffs that occur with this. Whatever.


I'm re-jiggering this one because I edited in the second part, by which point it was already buried. Might as well get some actual value from it.

I just wish I would hear more of those valid arguments than people who are tempted to say "3 > 1" (again, general complaint, not CCSLC-specific).

I'm not saying "3 > 1." I'm saying Manning never quite managed to play in a Montana-esque manner come the postseason, while Brady managed to make key plays and orchestrate key drives. Of course he had a defence that did its part. Still, Brady had to do his. And succeeded more often then not. Certainly more then Manning did. That's my argument. "3 > 1" is just a result of that.

The 2007 Colts had the number 1 defense in points allowed and the number 3 defense in yards allowed. If that's not a good defense, I'm not sure what is. And they lost to the Chargers in the divisional round. Surely not a point in Peyton's favor.

Indeed. And what a glorious victory that was :D

Well, I know you aren't (though in general I can tell this is one of the rare topics where we are at direct odds), I was referring to the more generalized argument I hear on this topic. Which, trust me, happens far too often, but I'm sure I'm not alone on that boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2007 Colts had the number 1 defense in points allowed and the number 3 defense in yards allowed. If that's not a good defense, I'm not sure what is. And they lost to the Chargers in the divisional round. Surely not a point in Peyton's favor.

Indeed. And what a glorious victory that was :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm re-jiggering this one because I edited in the second part, by which point it was already buried. Might as well get some actual value from it.

And Brady's postseason resume of late really isn't that great...

Neither has Peyton's. Peyton's lone Super Bowl victory came two years after Brady's third. Since then both have been to two, and both have lost two. And Brady never looked as outmatched as Manning did tonight. He also never threw away a Super Bowl like Manning did. So both have had less then stellar postseason success recently. The difference was that Brady had success early on with three Super Bowl rings and Manning struggled, finally getting one.

...and the early successes were largely due to New England having an elite defense (I'll remind you that Manning has never had anything that resembled one of these).

Football is, at the end of the day, a team game. Now this is, rightfully, pointed out to remind us that you can't judge quarterback greatness on rings alone. Which is true. Yet I think we tend to overemphasis that point and go to far in the other direction at times. No, rings are not the be-all-end-all of a quarterback's legacy. Yet they cannot be discounted either. As stellar as Dan Marino's career was he will never escape the fact that he never won a Super Bowl. Manning has one, yes, but he should have a few more given his stellar regular season numbers. No, his defences were never that great, but he still managed to get them to the playoffs year in and year out, posting 10+ win seasons in the process. So at a certain point we have to address the fact that something happens with Manning where he, more often then not, falls apart in the postseason.

There's two ways to think about this. The other way, the way I choose to see it, is that Manning was on a lot of (talent-wise) pretty mediocre run-of-the-mill football teams in his career and he often took them farther in the playoffs than they should've gone. (He took a Jim Caldwell coached team to the Super Bowl for crying out loud!) That means that when those teams got deep enough he was faced with the task of carrying all of that on his back against a very tough opponent and that's usually when things went sideways for him.

He also doesn't play defense or special teams and a lot of the playoff losses were errors by those groups outside of his control.

This loss doesn't change anything for me. He's still my guy if I'm picking a QB from the last 15 years to start a team with.

This is pretty much exactly my argument as well on this matter. In fairness, those Colts teams did have quite a bit of talent on Peyton's side of the ball, talent that would play anywhere (Harrison, Wayne, Edge, Clark namely) but many of those Colts teams were average-to-horrible on defense, which not only placed extra burden's on Peyton that 2001-2004 Brady didn't have to deal with (not his fault of course), but the Colts would still end up losing more games due to being a weaker overall team which is why they had to go to New England in the '03 and '04 postseasons instead of being at home. The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were much better complete teams than Peyton Manning ever played on in Indianapolis.

As I've said, you can't go wrong with whoever you pick if forced to choose, but it's an argument that lends itself to some extreme oversimplification, and that's where I have a hard time not getting irked reading some POV's. Both sides have plenty valid arguments in their favors, I just wish I would hear more of those valid arguments than people who are tempted to say "3 > 1" (again, general complaint, not CCSLC-specific).

But how are we so sure that Clark, Harrison, Reggie Wayne, James and company weren't at least partially products of playing with Peyton?

I mean, the Colts went from being almost undefeated and Super Bowl runner ups to being 2-14 in no-time once Peyton got hurt. The Patriots won 11 games without Brady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2007 Colts had the number 1 defense in points allowed and the number 3 defense in yards allowed. If that's not a good defense, I'm not sure what is. And they lost to the Chargers in the divisional round. Surely not a point in Peyton's favor.

Indeed. And what a glorious victory that was :D

Also was the Chargers 2nd win over the Colts that year...they had that Sunday night game where Jammer picked off Manning three times. So to confuse him twice was pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2007 Colts had the number 1 defense in points allowed and the number 3 defense in yards allowed. If that's not a good defense, I'm not sure what is. And they lost to the Chargers in the divisional round. Surely not a point in Peyton's favor.

Indeed. And what a glorious victory that was :D

And Manning was 33-48 for 402 yards, 3 TD's and 2 INT's in that game. Not great, but should be good enough to win a football game.

Clearly Manning's fault they rushed for 44 yards that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm re-jiggering this one because I edited in the second part, by which point it was already buried. Might as well get some actual value from it.

And Brady's postseason resume of late really isn't that great...

Neither has Peyton's. Peyton's lone Super Bowl victory came two years after Brady's third. Since then both have been to two, and both have lost two. And Brady never looked as outmatched as Manning did tonight. He also never threw away a Super Bowl like Manning did. So both have had less then stellar postseason success recently. The difference was that Brady had success early on with three Super Bowl rings and Manning struggled, finally getting one.

...and the early successes were largely due to New England having an elite defense (I'll remind you that Manning has never had anything that resembled one of these).

Football is, at the end of the day, a team game. Now this is, rightfully, pointed out to remind us that you can't judge quarterback greatness on rings alone. Which is true. Yet I think we tend to overemphasis that point and go to far in the other direction at times. No, rings are not the be-all-end-all of a quarterback's legacy. Yet they cannot be discounted either. As stellar as Dan Marino's career was he will never escape the fact that he never won a Super Bowl. Manning has one, yes, but he should have a few more given his stellar regular season numbers. No, his defences were never that great, but he still managed to get them to the playoffs year in and year out, posting 10+ win seasons in the process. So at a certain point we have to address the fact that something happens with Manning where he, more often then not, falls apart in the postseason.

There's two ways to think about this. The other way, the way I choose to see it, is that Manning was on a lot of (talent-wise) pretty mediocre run-of-the-mill football teams in his career and he often took them farther in the playoffs than they should've gone. (He took a Jim Caldwell coached team to the Super Bowl for crying out loud!) That means that when those teams got deep enough he was faced with the task of carrying all of that on his back against a very tough opponent and that's usually when things went sideways for him.

He also doesn't play defense or special teams and a lot of the playoff losses were errors by those groups outside of his control.

This loss doesn't change anything for me. He's still my guy if I'm picking a QB from the last 15 years to start a team with.

This is pretty much exactly my argument as well on this matter. In fairness, those Colts teams did have quite a bit of talent on Peyton's side of the ball, talent that would play anywhere (Harrison, Wayne, Edge, Clark namely) but many of those Colts teams were average-to-horrible on defense, which not only placed extra burden's on Peyton that 2001-2004 Brady didn't have to deal with (not his fault of course), but the Colts would still end up losing more games due to being a weaker overall team which is why they had to go to New England in the '03 and '04 postseasons instead of being at home. The 2003 and 2004 Patriots were much better complete teams than Peyton Manning ever played on in Indianapolis.

As I've said, you can't go wrong with whoever you pick if forced to choose, but it's an argument that lends itself to some extreme oversimplification, and that's where I have a hard time not getting irked reading some POV's. Both sides have plenty valid arguments in their favors, I just wish I would hear more of those valid arguments than people who are tempted to say "3 > 1" (again, general complaint, not CCSLC-specific).

But how are we so sure that Clark, Harrison, Reggie Wayne, James and company weren't at least partially products of playing with Peyton?

I mean, the Colts went from being almost undefeated and Super Bowl runner ups to being 2-14 in no-time once Peyton got hurt. The Patriots won 11 games without Brady.

We could probably give Matt Cassel a little bit of credit. He did take the Chiefs to the playoffs a couple years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how are we so sure that Clark, Harrison, Reggie Wayne, James and company weren't at least partially products of playing with Peyton?

I mean, the Colts went from being almost undefeated and Super Bowl runner ups to being 2-14 in no-time once Peyton got hurt. The Patriots won 11 games without Brady.

Hahah, look, that wasn't even the slightest knock on Peyton, certainly you've picked up on my stance regarding him. And the second line in your post is almost literally verbatim of something else I have said before on this topic.

Harrison, Clark, Wayne, and others were already very good at what they did. Peyton Manning made them better. The symbiotic relationship that exists there is something I figure is assumed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2007 Colts had the number 1 defense in points allowed and the number 3 defense in yards allowed. If that's not a good defense, I'm not sure what is. And they lost to the Chargers in the divisional round. Surely not a point in Peyton's favor.

Indeed. And what a glorious victory that was :D

And Manning was 33-48 for 402 yards, 3 TD's and 2 INT's in that game. Not great, but should be good enough to win a football game.

Clearly Manning's fault they rushed for 44 yards that game.

I love the way fanbases can "merge." Kind of like that unholy union between Red Wings and Lightning fans when Yzerman became the Bolts' GM.

Anyway, no. It's not good enough for a win. Two picks? Like the two he threw tonight? I don't care what kind of numbers you put up. If you throw up two pics you don't deserve to win.

Also was the Chargers 2nd win over the Colts that year...they had that Sunday night game where Jammer picked off Manning three times. So to confuse him twice was pretty good.

Yeah, but the Chargers have a Colts voodoo doll hidden away somewhere :D

Anyway the "Colts without Manning when 2-14, the Pats without Brady went 11-5" isn't really germane to the discussion regarding Manning vs Brady in the postseason. My point is simply that both were in situations where they had to make key plays, and Manning made less of those then Brady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had 267 total yards against the Rams (145 passing). You're not saying the defense put them in position to win that game? Why? Because he set one of the best kickers ever up for a hardly automatic 48-yarder? That's at least a little bit insane. Defense won that game.

Ty Law's pick 6 made the difference. That and two other Ram turnovers and OH HI ALCOHOL AND RAISED BLOOD PRESSURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.