NFL '13 SEASON THREAD

[WSU151]

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

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.

Great stats, but they were stuffed inside the Chargers' 10 yard line late in the 4th. 4 plays inside the 10...no points.

[See Red]

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

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. 2 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.

Because when his arm gets hit as he throws, the interception falls solely on him and not the offensive line, right? I don't know what the circumstances of those two INTs were in that game but that stat line should be enough to win a football game.

[rams80]

Yeah, any INT that comes off of a QB's arm being bumped isn't really his fault.

[GFB]

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. Brady, while a great QB in his own right, benefited from far more talent around him and maybe the best NFL head coach since Bill Walsh.

I don't see how Brady has "benefitted from far more talent around him." Brady had, what, 1/2 years with an aging Randy Moss and then the young TE duo that has fallen apart due to injuries to Gronk and Hernandez to prison. Outside of that, what has Brady had? Wes Welker as a primary receiver? Deion Branch? Troy Brown? Kevin Faulk? Then compare that with Manning who has had Harrison, Wayne, James, Clarke, Thomas, Welker as a 3rd option. Granted, the Pats had a good defense in the early dynasty years, but they needed Brady to bail them out with winning drives in 2 of their 3 Super Bowl victories and gave up 2 late touchdown drives in both their SB losses. Also, while Brady has had BB his whole time in New England, Manning did have the holy Tony Dungy for a while in Indianapolis.

Manning is the best regular season QB I've ever seen and can run an offense like a finely tuned machine. Manning is even a better pure passer than Brady, but Brady is the better quarterback. I feel confident in saying that if you put Brady on the Broncos today, he would have scored more than 8 points. He may not have won, but he at least would have kept it closer. And for all the hype that Manning gets for studying tape and finding ways on film for exploiting defenses, he sure didn't look like a QB that had 2 weeks to prepare for a defense that didn't do anything different or special. I'll just say that he's fortunate to have played one of the worst SB teams of all time in Rex Grossman's Bears, otherwise he'd be looking up the barrel from 0/3 in Super Bowl appearances.

[ninersdd]

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

With Billy Volek engineering the winning drive also.

[IceCap]

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

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. 2 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.

Because when his arm gets hit as he throws, the interception falls solely on him and not the offensive line, right? I don't know what the circumstances of those two INTs were in that game but that stat line should be enough to win a football game.

Speaking of the Chargers (hey, you brought them into this ), you remind me of Norv Turner. He, during his reign of error, came out after a loss and said "we were four turnovers away from making a game of it."

That stat line is not enough to win a football game. Two interceptions can mean (and often are) the difference between victory and defeat. Whether that falls on the quarterback or the offensive line or the receiver is one thing, but regardless throwing two picks means you do not deserve to win the game.

As for that 2007 playoff game vs the Chargers? I'm pretty sure at least one was entirely on Manning.

[See Red]

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

With Billy Volek engineering the winning drive also.

Without LT, too. That was some elite Colts defense.

[IceCap]

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

With Billy Volek engineering the winning drive also.

Without LT, too. That was some elite Colts defense.

Their regular season numbers indicated they were elite.

[Kramerica Industries]

Yeah, I'm getting some really weird memory flashbacks to that game. Rivers tore his ACL on a screen play that actually resulted in a 50+ yard TD scamper from Darren Sproles, if my memory serves, and Billy Volek had to come in after SD gave it back and save the day.

That game was quite weird. It was also pretty much that game and that game alone that left me certain the 8-8 Chargers would beat the 12-4 Colts in their playoff meeting the following season as well. It's really weird and really either satisfying or irritating how a team can have another team's number for no real explicable reason. 2007-2010 San Diego vs. 2007-2010 Indianapolis certainly qualifies in that regard.

[See Red]

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

With Billy Volek engineering the winning drive also.

Without LT, too. That was some elite Colts defense.

Their regular season numbers indicated they were elite.

The problem with the Colts defenses, though I don't remember enough to speak on the 2007 team specifically, was that they were based entirely on their ability to play with a lead. It was get a lead and let Freeney and Mathis tuck their ears back and rush the passer. I sincerely doubt that they were in the top third of the league for rush defense even that year and that's not how you win in the playoffs.

[Kramerica Industries]

The problem with the Colts defenses, though I don't remember enough to speak on the 2007 team specifically, was that they were based entirely on their ability to play with a lead. It was get a lead and let Freeney and Mathis tuck their ears back and rush the passer. I sincerely doubt that they were in the top third of the league for rush defense even that year and that's not how you win in the playoffs.

That sounds...a whole ton familiar actually, doesn't it?

[IceCap]

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

With Billy Volek engineering the winning drive also.

Without LT, too. That was some elite Colts defense.

Their regular season numbers indicated they were elite.

The problem with the Colts defenses, though I don't remember enough to speak on the 2007 team specifically, was that they were based entirely on their ability to play with a lead. It was get a lead and let Freeney and Mathis tuck their ears back and rush the passer. I sincerely doubt that they were in the top third of the league for rush defense even that year and that's not how you win in the playoffs.

So now we're dealing with qualifiers? The 2007 Colts defence was one of, if not the, best defences in the league that year. So the statement that Manning never had a stellar defence on the Colts has to, at the very least, come with an asterisk.

[Still MIGHTY]

Peyton Manning was the best Bronco on the field tonight. (After reviewing the stats, I'll throw Danny Trevathan in there too. Garbage-time Demaryius Thomas doesn't count.) That's not saying too much considering how Denver played.

That whole game was a flat out catastrophe from the opening snap. Peyton wasn't great. Receivers were bad. Rushing game was bad. Offensive line was bad. Defense was bad. Special teams was bad. Pretty much anything and everything that could have went wrong for the Broncos did. A lot of that was forced by Seattle. That was a damn impressive performance by the Seahawks. It really was. Great effort by Seahawks + horrific effort by Broncos = Super Blowout.

Also Mike, you really are taking an inordinate amount of joy out of this. I can practically see you smirking through the keyboard.

[CS85]

[rams80]

Peyton Manning was the best Bronco on the field tonight. (After reviewing the stats, I'll throw Danny Trevathan in there too. Garbage-time Demaryius Thomas doesn't count.) That's not saying too much considering how Denver played.

That whole game was a flat out catastrophe from the opening snap. Peyton wasn't great. Receivers were bad. Rushing game was bad. Offensive line was bad. Defense was bad. Special teams was bad. Pretty much anything and everything that could have went wrong for the Broncos did. A lot of that was forced by Seattle. That was a damn impressive performance by the Seahawks. It really was. Great effort by Seahawks + horrific effort by Broncos = Super Blowout.

Also Mike, you really are taking an inordinate amount of joy out of this. I can practically see you smirking through the keyboard.

First time we've seen the Super Bowl be a Madden "screw you" game?

[Kramerica Industries]

So now we're dealing with qualifiers? The 2007 Colts defence was one of, if not the, best defences in the league that year. So the statement that Manning never had a stellar defence on the Colts has to, at the very least, come with an asterisk.

I will say that the whole "32nd ranked run defense" championship team stigma kind of permeates my line of thinking of those 2006-07 Colts. I don't remember any major differences between the units in those two seasons aside from Bob Sanders, and while Bob Sanders clearly had a huge effect on their defense, I do have a hard time thinking he took a well-below average unit to a well-above average unit just by being on the field.

I'm not going to argue what the numbers say, especially due to my lack of familiarity with the numbers (coupled with my lack of research and, frankly, lack of desire to do research at this point in time), it just strikes me as, eh, a bit weird. But I've yet to find a trump card to argue otherwise.

[IceCap]

Also Mike, you really are taking an inordinate amount of joy out of this. I can practically see you smirking through the keyboard.

I was. I do think I should apologize if I went a bit overboard on that front. I actually got it out of my system a while back though. Any giddiness in my most recent posts stems from the recalled memories of that 2007 Chargers/Colts playoff game. Which I don't think is unfair. That's less so "giddy at a Manning loss" and more so "giddy about an unexpected fantastic effort from my favourite team."

[Jimmy!]

That's not to say that Manning doesn't deserve any blame, but anyone placing all the blame on him doesn't know about football.

Now Greg, we've got a podcast in two days. So I don't want to waste any back and forth here. I just want to address two points. The first one's here. I never said Manning deserved all of the blame for what happened tonight. I said he deserved part of the blame. Which I maintain is a fair statement.

As for the second point...

If there's a team in the NFL that could have beaten Seattle tonight, I haven't seen it.

With respect, the Seattle team that lost to Arizona at home didn't play nearly as well as the Seattle team that won tonight.

[IceCap]

Oh I know. I was kidding. Hence the Maybe I should have gone with a instead.

[CS85]

That's not to say that Manning doesn't deserve any blame, but anyone placing all the blame on him doesn't know about football.

Now Greg, we've got a podcast in two days. So I don't want to waste any back and forth here. I just want to address two points. The first one's here. I never said Manning deserved all of the blame for what happened tonight. I said he deserved part of the blame. Which I maintain is a fair statement.

As for the second point...

If there's a team in the NFL that could have beaten Seattle tonight, I haven't seen it.

With respect, the Seattle team that lost to Arizona at home didn't play nearly as well as the Seattle team that won tonight.

BUT THE BRONCOS THAT PLAYED TONIGHT SHOULD'VE BEEN THE REAL BRONCOS FROM THE FIRST MONTH OF THE SEASON _{myerp herp derp} THEN WE WOULD HAVE SEEN _hayerp THE REAL TEAM AND THE REAL BRONCOS WOULD HAVE _gerp WON 148302-3 BECAUSE THOSE SEATTLE THUGS _{herple permaderp} SHOULD NOT HAVE WON _gerp