PDA

View Full Version : Superbowl Mania: Explain?



The Vorpal Tribble
2010-02-07, 05:46 PM
Ok, basics.

I'm a guy. A straight guy. An athletic straight guy.

BUT.

I don't get sports media mania and curious what it is exactly that gets so many folks hyped up. It tends to more strongly favor guys, but know a few gals all excited. The majority because their BF got them into it.

I like playing football. It's fun. Good stuff.

The commercials interest me more than the Superbowl itself though. What is it about the Superbowl that interests folks in America more than practically any other event, period? I mean, it rivals Christmas.

What is it?

Mando Knight
2010-02-07, 05:53 PM
The commercials. 70% of the people I know that aren't interested in one of the teams playing watch the Super Bowl mostly for the commercials. The rest like the commercials, but mostly watch to see a game of football.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2010-02-07, 06:00 PM
First, you have to keep in mind that the vast majority is media hype (ESPN over covers/analyzes just about everything. The basically beat a horse dead, and then some much of the time). Second, the NFL is unique to the other major sports in that it's championship game is one even and not a series, so it's rather easy to hype up, unlike say the World Series because you know it's going to go at least 4 games (along with the NBA and NHL). Third, it's a damn good excuse to throw a party. Fourth, this year is a bit unique with New Orleans having been traditionally an awful franchise (and a fanbase that has stuck with them all the way), and have never been to a Super Bowl before. Of course Peyton Manning, who when it's all said and done, could be the greatest QB ever to play the game is going for his second ring also has a lot to do with it too. I could probably go more in depth with many of these topics, but this is the main gist of things.

In another note since we're on the sports topic, with March Madness (NCAA basketball tournament) also get a lot of people excited. A lot has to do with pools/gambling, but it's also one of the few things in sports where a team that's really an underdog has a chance to do quite well (GMU going to the final four a few years ago for example). It's truly a few weekends where anything can happen (although a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed in an opening round game, although there have been a few close ones over the years).

Copacetic
2010-02-07, 06:01 PM
Much like Christmas, the Superbowl used to mean something very different from what it means now. The commercial opportunities from advertising on the height of football attracted lots of large businesses, who promptly bastardized the whole shebang into a Hallmark Holiday. Welcome to America.

Em Blackleaf
2010-02-07, 06:09 PM
Well, we're watching the Superbowl this year because my (not Krimm) brother really really wants to see the halftime show and I guess we all thought, "Whatever. We might as well watch it. It's not like anything else will be on TV." :smalltongue: I think we'd all care more if the Vikings were playing.

I'm not a huge fan of football (I'm more of a baseball person), but if my anyone in family does decide to watch the Superbowl, then I pay attention to the commercials. I think that's how the rest of my family is.

So, I could take it or leave it. I think most people watch it because of the hype or something and they feel like they can't miss it because everyone else watches it. That or the commercials. Or they actually like football/their favorite team is playing. *shrug*

I actually completely forgot that it was on today. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Oh, and people like excuses to throw parties.

CoffeeIncluded
2010-02-07, 06:19 PM
I'm no football fan. But I'm watching the halftime show. Why?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD; IT'S THE WHO!!!

Drakevarg
2010-02-07, 06:36 PM
Superbowl Mania; an annual, nationwide fit of insanity.

I offer the same explaination for the Christmas shopping season.

KuReshtin
2010-02-07, 06:42 PM
I'm watching it because I just love football. Since I'm in the UK, I don't get the commercials that you guys over in the US get, which is a bit of a bummer, cause they're usually pretty decent.

It will mean that I'll not go to bed until about 4am, though because of the time difference, but that's something I'm willing to do. Hell, I've got tomorrow off from work. :smallsmile:

PJ the Epic
2010-02-07, 06:45 PM
Superbowl? What is this Superbowl you speak of? I have never heard of such a thing.

Anyway, I don't get it either. I'm a "nerd" so I'm not exactly the most athletic guy in the world, but I just don't see the enjoyment of watching a bunch of overpaid clods beat each other senseless for a rubber ball.

KuReshtin
2010-02-07, 06:54 PM
Superbowl? What is this Superbowl you speak of? I have never heard of such a thing.

Anyway, I don't get it either. I'm a "nerd" so I'm not exactly the most athletic guy in the world, but I just don't see the enjoyment of watching a bunch of overpaid clods beat each other senseless for a rubber ball.

You can be a nerd and still like football. I'm in awful physical shape, and not at all athletic, but I played amateur football over here in the UK for 7 years, and have now crossed over to officiate (hence my avatar).

Oh, and it's a leather ball, not a rubber ball.

PJ the Epic
2010-02-07, 06:56 PM
You can be a nerd and still like football. I'm in awful physical shape, and not at all athletic, but I played amateur football over here in the UK for 7 years, and have now crossed over to officiate (hence my avatar).

Oh, and it's a leather ball, not a rubber ball.

Exactly. I can't even tell what the ball is made of. I'm just not into the sport, that's all. It seems to me as a more...? I don't know, but I'm just not into it. I rather like other thinks, like fencing, tennis, and swimming.

And the occasional bobsled. :smallbiggrin:

CrimsonAngel
2010-02-07, 06:59 PM
I don't care for sports.

THAC0
2010-02-07, 07:05 PM
Three words: Violin-playing beaver. :smallbiggrin:

Don Julio Anejo
2010-02-07, 07:30 PM
Eh, no-one around here even knows the Superbowl is today (the "eh" at the beginning of this phrase should be a good indication as to why). On the other hand the last time we went to the Stanley Cup finals (and then lost), we had a whole riot with looting, setting stuff on fire and in general acting like it's Liverpool vs. Man U.

Perenelle
2010-02-07, 07:31 PM
Three words: Violin-playing beaver. :smallbiggrin:

that was amazing. :smalltongue:

PhoeKun
2010-02-07, 07:54 PM
I'm no football fan. But I'm watching the halftime show. Why?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD; IT'S THE WHO!!!

They have aged. Horribly. Oh my goodness, this halftime show is like watching a train wreck.

Krade
2010-02-07, 08:33 PM
Yeah, it was bad. I didn't watch it, but I could hear it from my computer. I thought Daltry was retiring because he can't do it anymore. I guess it doesn't matter, It is The Who.

As for the whole football thing, I enjoy watching the Colts win. Born and raised and living in Indianapolis kinda forces me to care. It's... hard to explain. I don't particularly care about sports, but the Colts are just so easy to like.

Coidzor
2010-02-07, 08:51 PM
Because Google has been manipulating the population of the US via time travel so that 99% of the population will be watching the broadcast when they pull whatever it is they're going to pull superbowl night...

*hides in his tin foil bunker*

Katana_Geldar
2010-02-07, 08:57 PM
Channel 10 was joking it would take three days to dismantle that set. Are we sure they had enough lasers? :smalltongue:

Tirian
2010-02-07, 09:02 PM
The Who was amazingly weak. Sheesh, maybe they'll go with Simon and Garfunkle next year.

That Google ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU) was AMAZING, though. Best commercial since Boom De Yada.

THAC0
2010-02-07, 09:18 PM
Yeah, it was bad. I didn't watch it, but I could hear it from my computer. I thought Daltry was retiring because he can't do it anymore. I guess it doesn't matter, It is The Who.

As for the whole football thing, I enjoy watching the Colts win. Born and raised and living in Indianapolis kinda forces me to care. It's... hard to explain. I don't particularly care about sports, but the Colts are just so easy to like.

In that case, you, uh, might not want to actually watch this, then! :smallcool:

Krade
2010-02-07, 09:21 PM
Aaand interception-touchdown Saints for a 14 point lead with 3 minutes to go. Oh well. This is why I didn't go to a bar to watch the game.

tyckspoon
2010-02-07, 09:25 PM
They've scored more points faster before!

Yeah. I wandered down to the TV to see how the game was going just in time to catch that. Gotta admit it was a beautiful play.

KuReshtin
2010-02-07, 09:26 PM
Aaand interception-touchdown Saints for a 14 point lead with 3 minutes to go. Oh well. This is why I didn't go to a bar to watch the game.

Peyton's got the ball, and it's 2 minutes left in the game and they're at the Saints 30-something yardline. A quick strike and an onside kick, maybe, and it'll be a frantic finish. Again.

PhoeKun
2010-02-07, 09:34 PM
Peyton's got the ball, and it's 2 minutes left in the game and they're at the Saints 30-something yardline. A quick strike and an onside kick, maybe, and it'll be a frantic finish. Again.

Or, you know. Not. Congratulations to the city of New Orleans and the Saints. You guys deserve it.

Lappy9000
2010-02-07, 09:41 PM
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD; IT'S THE WHO!!!Sweet mother of mambo Yes.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2010-02-07, 09:44 PM
I'm watching it because I just love football. Since I'm in the UK, I don't get the commercials that you guys over in the US get, which is a bit of a bummer, cause they're usually pretty decent.

Go to www.cbssports.com/superbowlads

Crimmy
2010-02-07, 09:49 PM
Guys, guess what:

THE SAINTS WON THEIR FIRST FRICKIN' SUPER BOWL!

Fawkes
2010-02-07, 09:53 PM
Sweet mother of mambo Yes.

No, not Yes, the Who.

Selrahc
2010-02-07, 09:56 PM
So yeah. In the UK, first ever game of football watched. Don't really like any sport at all. This was surprisingly fun though for four reasons.

1. Company. Watched it with a group of people who all love the sport. That is kind of infectious.

2. Gambling. Bet 20 on the Saints so the game was a good bit better at holding my interest.

3. Alcohol. American Football lasts an ungodly time. I was able to get pretty sloshed by the end which helped in really getting into the final plays.

4. Enjoying yourself is fun. An excuse to do that is a good thing, and the superbowl made a pretty good excuse.

So yeah, take that as an outsiders perspective on why the superbowl could be such a big thing.

EDIT: Also the Who were great.

Makensha
2010-02-07, 09:58 PM
Well, I don't know why the rest of the world cares, but having your state's team go to the superbowl certainly causes a bit of mania to float in the air. Course, having your team cut apart in the superbowl causes a bit of trouble too.:smallfrown:

The problem was that the Colts were winning at half-time. If they had been losing, they would've won.

SensFan
2010-02-07, 10:18 PM
The problem was that the Colts were winning at half-time. If they had been losing, they would've won.
Not too sure where you got that from...
They were 11-1 this year when leading at the half, with the loss coming in a game where they pulled their starters with a lead in the 3rd quarter.
Process of elimination means they were (only) 5-1 when trailing at the half, the loss being a game their starters didn't play.

KuReshtin
2010-02-07, 10:19 PM
Well, I don't know why the rest of the world cares, but having your state's team go to the superbowl certainly causes a bit of mania to float in the air. Course, having your team cut apart in the superbowl causes a bit of trouble too.:smallfrown:

The problem was that the Colts were winning at half-time. If they had been losing, they would've won.

There are a whole lot more people around the world who enjoy American Football than a lot of Americans imagine. The UK has an amateur football league with about 50 teams and a university league with probably even more teams than that.
Remember that the first NFL regular season game that was played in the UK (Giants vs Dolphins) sold out Wembley Stadium (86.000 seats) in less than an hour, and had 500.000 pre-registrations for tickets.

Tha Colts were 11-1 this season when they were ahead at half time. The Saints offense kept Manning off the field and the Saints defense stepped up when they needed to to secure the win for the Saints.

Congrats to the Saints. Well deserved.

PhoeKun
2010-02-07, 10:23 PM
The problem was that the Colts were winning at half-time. If they had been losing, they would've won.

No no, the problem is that I picked them when someone called me asking for betting advice. If I had picked the Saints, they'd (the Saints) have lost.

Yes, I have this power. Consider it payback for the 4th and 2 fiasco. Nyahaha! :smalltongue:

skywalker
2010-02-07, 10:32 PM
In another note since we're on the sports topic, with March Madness (NCAA basketball tournament) also get a lot of people excited. A lot has to do with pools/gambling, but it's also one of the few things in sports where a team that's really an underdog has a chance to do quite well (GMU going to the final four a few years ago for example). It's truly a few weekends where anything can happen (although a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed in an opening round game, although there have been a few close ones over the years).

March Madness kicks the Super Bowl's butt.

March Madness has more games, but each one is more exhilarating than the Super Bowl. Also, college guys almost always care a lot more than pros.

Football is fun, pro football is silly. I recently read that a pro football broadcast (which typically lasts 3 hours) has about 12 minutes of actual football going on. That is ridiculous.

Anyway, football is America's favorite sport by far. The Super Bowl is the biggest game. Seems pretty obvious to me.


They have aged. Horribly. Oh my goodness, this halftime show is like watching a train wreck.

+1

I mean, I dunno. On the one hand, I'm like "Old dudes still rock!" But on the other hand, this is the band that sang "Hope I die before I get old!" They got old. I like them, but I don't think there's ever been an old Super Bowl band whose hits were so linked with "youth."

SensFan
2010-02-07, 10:56 PM
I recently read that a pro football broadcast (which typically lasts 3 hours) has about 12 minutes of actual football going on. That is ridiculous.
I assume this is a joke of some sort? Given the fact there's an hour of game-time in a game of football and all...

SilentDragoon
2010-02-07, 11:00 PM
Harvard study or something. Don't forget about 25 seconds of 'game time' before every play is the quarterback faking out the defense then snapping with a second left as the clock winds down.

zeratul
2010-02-07, 11:01 PM
March Madness kicks the Super Bowl's butt.

March Madness has more games, but each one is more exhilarating than the Super Bowl. Also, college guys almost always care a lot more than pros.



Agreed, march madness is indeed far superior. This is especially true if you live somewhere with a really good college basketball team, and being from Syracuse this is of course the case for me :smallamused: (third in the country, woot, probably second come tomorrow).

SensFan
2010-02-07, 11:06 PM
Harvard study or something. Don't forget about 25 seconds of 'game time' before every play is the quarterback faking out the defense then snapping with a second left as the clock winds down.
Ah, but that's a big part of football.
(And FWIW, look at the game tonight. No time was 'killed' near the end of the first half, and only 40-some seconds were 'killed' at the end of the game.)

Football is my favorite sport to watch by a considerable margin, but if you sit down to watch a game of football with the mindset of wanting non-stop action like in hockey, you're going to be disappointed. Football is much more comparable to baseball or basketball in that regards. The interest is about much more than what happens between the start and end of each play.

edit:
I'll take the Super Bowl over March Madness any day. Pro sports are just so much better than kids playing, quite apart from the fact I prefer the game of football to basketball.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2010-02-07, 11:12 PM
edit:
I'll take the Super Bowl over March Madness any day. Pro sports are just so much better than kids playing, quite apart from the fact I prefer the game of football to basketball.

I am definitely going to have to disagree with you immensely on that one. In many ways, I think college games are far superior to watch than the pros. You do not get upsets in pro sports like you do in college. The parity in college sports I have found generates it's own excitement and the like because you know an unranked team can (and has on many occasions) beaten a highly ranked team, and has the possibility to week in and week out. You just don't get that kind of scenario in pro sports.

SilentDragoon
2010-02-07, 11:15 PM
This game was a bit different though, if it had been two heavy running teams like Jets/Ravens or something there would've been a ton of clock bleeding. Not complaining or anything, just commenting on where the time difference is. I prefer March Madness because I have no attachments to the majority of teams, so I can just enjoy well-played games instead of agonizing over my team finding new and inventive ways to lose.

SensFan
2010-02-07, 11:18 PM
I am definitely going to have to disagree with you immensely on that one. In many ways, I think college games are far superior to watch than the pros. You do not get upsets in pro sports like you do in college. The parity in college sports I have found generates it's own excitement and the like because you know an unranked team can (and has on many occasions) beaten a highly ranked team, and has the possibility to week in and week out. You just don't get that kind of scenario in pro sports.
As a University student, I know what you mean. I'd easily go to the varsity games on campus over any pro sports game.
My problem with stuff like March Madness (and the Bowl games) is that you're putting Super Bowl-type pressure on kids, who not only are too young to have that much pressure on them, but aren't even playing sports as a career choice; they're in school.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2010-02-07, 11:28 PM
As a University student, I know what you mean. I'd easily go to the varsity games on campus over any pro sports game.
My problem with stuff like March Madness (and the Bowl games) is that you're putting Super Bowl-type pressure on kids, who not only are too young to have that much pressure on them, but aren't even playing sports as a career choice; they're in school.

I just don't buy that argument. By your reasoning, they're kids at 22/21 still playing football (or whatever sport), and then able to handle the attention as a rookie in their sport at 22/23? Trust me, I knew several athletes when I was in college (graduated 4 years this June), and there are plenty of opportunities for them to succeed outside of the sport. They may be in college, but for the most part are still adult enough to be able to make decisions, and handle the attention, and that has been proven time and again over the years.

On a side note to you March Madness fans. WHERE HAVE YOU ALL BEEN!!!! I've been trying for the past 5 years to get enough people interested in a GiTP pool, yet like only two people ever who interest.

SensFan
2010-02-07, 11:32 PM
I just don't buy that argument. By your reasoning, they're kids at 22/21 still playing football (or whatever sport), and then able to handle the attention as a rookie in their sport at 22/23? Trust me, I knew several athletes when I was in college (graduated 4 years this June), and there are plenty of opportunities for them to succeed outside of the sport. They may be in college, but for the most part are still adult enough to be able to make decisions, and handle the attention, and that has been proven time and again over the years.

On a side note to you March Madness fans. WHERE HAVE YOU ALL BEEN!!!! I've been trying for the past 5 years to get enough people interested in a GiTP pool, yet like only two people ever who interest.
a) If they're playing pro, it means they decided they want to be subjected to that pressure. 3/4 or more of the college athletes won't.
b) If they're playing pro, they get a ton of money for their troubles. College athletes don't.

Crouton
2010-02-07, 11:33 PM
I just love football. Ironically, that includes both European and American, but for me, the Super Bowl is the Holy Grail of sporting events. I'm a St. Louis fan, so 10 years ago, I was in heaven.

I love college ball too, but with the flawed playoff system... well, its just not the Super Bowl.

I think part of it has to do with the fact that you go through 16 absolute battles throughout the season. Then, if your team makes it to the playoffs, every game is live or die and rarely (with the exception of the 2006 National League Championship, and then subsequently the World Series) do I have my nerves jacked up as much as I do watching good football. If its a good game, even if I don't care about the teams, my nerves get jacked up if there are a ton of good plays. I think the glory of sports like American football and baseball are that truly the fans live or die on each play. Its hard to replicate.

PhoeKun
2010-02-07, 11:36 PM
You do not get upsets in pro sports like you do in college.

Giants 17, Patriots 14.

I will now light myself on fire.

DraPrime
2010-02-07, 11:59 PM
Giants 17, Patriots 14.

I will now light myself on fire.

Urrrgh, don't remind this Massachusetts resident of that game. Please. :smallannoyed:

skywalker
2010-02-08, 12:07 AM
a) If they're playing pro, it means they decided they want to be subjected to that pressure. 3/4 or more of the college athletes won't.
b) If they're playing pro, they get a ton of money for their troubles. College athletes don't.

College athletes get an education worth close to $100,000 for free. If you're being technical, they have to play a freaking game 3 times a week. They live in the best dorms, they eat the best food, and they get all sorts of staff leniency, girls are all over them, etc. Troubles? I don't think so. Compare that to a student who has to hold down a steady job, or make really good grades to keep their scholarship. Have a B average and play basketball? I'd trade places with anybody on my school's basketball team.

I would actually pay money to step out on the field, court, or whatever. You wouldn't even have to pay me. I know that not everyone has the love for their school that I do, but still. They're getting paid to play a game, even in college.

On top of all that, until recently, a lot of people were getting married at this age. A lot of college players have kids, and if having a kid is not more pressure than playing in a basketball game, then they have their priorities way messed up.

I don't think there's pressure at all. Athletes, at all levels, love to compete and excel. The most pressure put on them is probably by themselves.

Krade
2010-02-08, 12:51 AM
Giants 17, Patriots 14.

I will now light myself on fire.

That was HILARIOUS! I don't even really care about either of those teams beyond the fact the the Giants' QB is the Colts' QB's little brother. But that victory was awesome. It was a very good, and enjoyable game to watch.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2010-02-08, 12:57 AM
Giants 17, Patriots 14.

I will now light myself on fire.

I didn't say that upsets in the pros never happens, it just doesn't happen with the frequency that it occurs in college athletics. College sports is the one arena in sports that the phrase any given team can win on any given day has merit. That is certainly not so in many pro games, and certainly not the NFL.

PhoeKun
2010-02-08, 01:02 AM
That was HILARIOUS! I don't even really care about either of those teams beyond the fact the the Giants' QB is the Colts' QB's little brother. But that victory was awesome. It was a very good, and enjoyable game to watch.

...I wasn't laughing. In fact, I cried. You can ask SweetRein. Tears in eyes.

I wanted one touchdown for every time I had to put up with hearing the word "Belicheat". What I got was that stupid freaking helmet catch. Even now, it makes me sick thinking about how one of the most statistically dominant NFL seasons in the history of the game eroded away just like that.

It's just, because of that, I'm not especially willing to believe the line about upsets never happening at the pro level. The underdog won tonight, for crying out loud.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2010-02-08, 01:29 AM
It's just, because of that, I'm not especially willing to believe the line about upsets never happening at the pro level. The underdog won tonight, for crying out loud.

Yes, technically you are correct that the underdog by Vegas standards won tonight, but I would hardly call the Saints winning the game an upset. When I mean underdog/upset, I'm talking 15 seeds beating 2 seeds in the NCAA basketball tournament, unranked teams beating top 5 teams in NCAA football and the like. In the NFL, that would equate the Lions going to Indy or New Orleans and winning (or this year in the NBA, the Nets going to LA or Cleveland and winning the game). That kind of thing just doesn't happen with all that much frequency, but in college sports, it's almost a weekly happening. I mean the #1 ranked team in college basketball has changed no less than 5 times this year alone.

THAC0
2010-02-08, 01:42 AM
Yes, technically you are correct that the underdog by Vegas standards won tonight, but I would hardly call the Saints winning the game an upset. When I mean underdog/upset, I'm talking 15 seeds beating 2 seeds in the NCAA basketball tournament, unranked teams beating top 5 teams in NCAA football and the like. In the NFL, that would equate the Lions going to Indy or New Orleans and winning (or this year in the NBA, the Nets going to LA or Cleveland and winning the game). That kind of thing just doesn't happen with all that much frequency, but in college sports, it's almost a weekly happening. I mean the #1 ranked team in college basketball has changed no less than 5 times this year alone.

Or Appalachian State beating Michigan. :smallbiggrin:

skywalker
2010-02-08, 02:23 AM
I didn't say that upsets in the pros never happens, it just doesn't happen with the frequency that it occurs in college athletics. College sports is the one arena in sports that the phrase any given team can win on any given day has merit. That is certainly not so in many pro games, and certainly not the NFL.

Super Bowl 42 is one of the few pro sports games that has inspired me the way March Madness does every year. Watching the Helmet Catch live was one of the craziest things ever.


I wanted one touchdown for every time I had to put up with hearing the word "Belicheat". What I got was that stupid freaking helmet catch. Even now, it makes me sick thinking about how one of the most statistically dominant NFL seasons in the history of the game eroded away just like that.

You would have to put up with it less if you hired a coach who didn't cheat...

I mean, there there Phoe, it'll be okay.

I notice Belicheck got himself a new sweatshirt!


Yes, technically you are correct that the underdog by Vegas standards won tonight, but I would hardly call the Saints winning the game an upset. When I mean underdog/upset, I'm talking 15 seeds beating 2 seeds in the NCAA basketball tournament, unranked teams beating top 5 teams in NCAA football and the like. In the NFL, that would equate the Lions going to Indy or New Orleans and winning (or this year in the NBA, the Nets going to LA or Cleveland and winning the game). That kind of thing just doesn't happen with all that much frequency, but in college sports, it's almost a weekly happening. I mean the #1 ranked team in college basketball has changed no less than 5 times this year alone.

Most people believed Vegas to have undersold the Colts tonight. I know I did. Going into the game, a lot of people were rooting for the Saints, but they "knew" Indy was going to win. After the first quarter, things looked grim indeed for the Saints. But they survived and then made that onside kick. That was the difference. And I think we all knew that the game had changed, right there.

About upsets in college, the #1 has actually only changed 3 times, and let's look at what happened in more detail. Kansas, the first #1, was beaten by Tennessee, ranked 16th at the time. Texas, taking over the spot, lost to #10 Kansas State, and only recently fallen UConn. Kentucky surrendered the spot by losing to unranked (and not so good) South Carolina. Even so, these were very shallow upsets. All of the losses came on the road, and all came at the hands of powerful teams with the exception of Kentucky's loss.

There were 8 victories by unranked teams over ranked teams last week, however. Also 2 upsets within the top 25. So your point is completely valid. On any given night, somebody can rise up, and eventually will. It's why I love the sport so much.


Or Appalachian State beating Michigan. :smallbiggrin:

That was a beautiful day. Such an incredible moment.

PhoeKun
2010-02-08, 02:29 AM
Yes, technically you are correct that the underdog by Vegas standards won tonight, but I would hardly call the Saints winning the game an upset. When I mean underdog/upset, I'm talking 15 seeds beating 2 seeds in the NCAA basketball tournament, unranked teams beating top 5 teams in NCAA football and the like. In the NFL, that would equate the Lions going to Indy or New Orleans and winning (or this year in the NBA, the Nets going to LA or Cleveland and winning the game). That kind of thing just doesn't happen with all that much frequency, but in college sports, it's almost a weekly happening. I mean the #1 ranked team in college basketball has changed no less than 5 times this year alone.

I don't buy into the hype of college rankings for a second. At the end of the day, the we know the best teams are the best teams, and any scrappy underdog that might have caught them sleeping is brushed aside as having gotten lucky. Does anyone who beats USC ever get any praise for it? I certainly haven't heard it. Meanwhile, the SEC beats the snot out of anything that opposes it, and at the end of the year one of its flagship schools hoists the crystal football. This is parity?

The NFL is a gathering of the nation's premier football talent, and from year to year, most teams have a legitimate shot at the championship. The few that don't are generally just run ineptly *cough* Oakland *cough*. We just watched the Miami Dolphins go from 1-16 to 11-5 with a playoff berth last year. The Saints won their first Super Bowl after 43ish years of flat out sucking. The Patriots ushered in a decade of dominance after being a league doormat pretty much from the word go. Both this year and last, teams with rookie quarterbacks and no real star power made it to their conference championship games.

...How is this not parity? Because the utterly demoralized and possibly cursed Detroit Lions have really bad talent scouts and tend to give up halfway through games? I don't get it.



You would have to put up with it less if you hired a coach who didn't cheat...


They had an undefeated regular season after the taping stopped. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. People who spit on the Pats for finally clawing their way out of the muck that was the pre-Bledsoe era drive me up a wall.

Philistine
2010-02-08, 02:34 AM
If you're not interested in the game, however, the Superbowl is one night, then it's done and over with. "March Madness" BS drags on and on and on and on and ON. Superbowl >>> March Madness IMO, because the Superbowl ends.

kpenguin
2010-02-08, 02:54 AM
That Google ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnsSUqgkDwU) was AMAZING, though. Best commercial since Boom De Yada.

I didn't catch that since I don't generally watch sporting events, but that was so adorable.

skywalker
2010-02-08, 03:25 AM
I don't buy into the hype of college rankings for a second. At the end of the day, the we know the best teams are the best teams, and any scrappy underdog that might have caught them sleeping is brushed aside as having gotten lucky. Does anyone who beats USC ever get any praise for it? I certainly haven't heard it. Meanwhile, the SEC beats the snot out of anything that opposes it, and at the end of the year one of its flagship schools hoists the crystal football. This is parity?

The NFL is a gathering of the nation's premier football talent, and from year to year, most teams have a legitimate shot at the championship. The few that don't are generally just run ineptly *cough* Oakland *cough*. We just watched the Miami Dolphins go from 1-16 to 11-5 with a playoff berth last year. The Saints won their first Super Bowl after 43ish years of flat out sucking. The Patriots ushered in a decade of dominance after being a league doormat pretty much from the word go. Both this year and last, teams with rookie quarterbacks and no real star power made it to their conference championship games.

...How is this not parity? Because the utterly demoralized and possibly cursed Detroit Lions have really bad talent scouts and tend to give up halfway through games? I don't get it.

You're completely right, there is more parity in pro sports. Which, in my opinion, makes them more boring. Because you don't often have the Cinderella story. Because when the Jaguars beat the Colts, they're still the Jaguars. They're still a professional football team. Not as good, for certain, but they're still pros.

When Appy State beats Michigan? Yes, we're all aware that they "caught Michigan napping." Does it matter? No! For one day 70-something kids had an absolutely perfect moment.


They had an undefeated regular season after the taping stopped. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. People who spit on the Pats for finally clawing their way out of the muck that was the pre-Bledsoe era drive me up a wall.

I don't spit on the Pats for clawing their way out of the muck. I didn't say they cheated that season. I was in love with the 2001 Patriots. They were an incredible story, Brady the sixth-rounder turned hero. But here's the deal, they cheated, and it will never be known just how much they did. As a Pats fan, you're gonna have to hear about that one for a while, probably until Belichick stops coaching at the least. That's just one of those things.

It doesn't help that Belichick is such a jerk, or at least seems to be. He is the King of Secrets. He stands on the sidelines in that ratty sweatshirt in seeming contempt of the idea that a coach should look "presentable." He is loud and obnoxious.

The Patriots really could've been a feel-good story, you know. Brady the 6th rounder, Tedy Bruschi, who came back from a stroke?! What a great guy! But then Brady had to go and marry a super-model and start radiating "I'm better than you," Belichick had to be one of the biggest jerks in the league, and then they cheated.

And so, when they came into Super Bowl XLII, they came not as triumphant heroes, but as the Evil Empire who thought they had already won. And the American myth bit them for it. The wild-card Giants, who had one Pro Bowl invitee, missing Tiki Barber, led by ancients (Toomer and Strahan) and Eli Manning (who had underachieved in comparison to his draft class, and is still widely considered the "black sheep" of the Manning family) reminded them that there was still a game to be played, and wiped that megawatt smile off of Tom Brady's face.

...

And that, children, is the story of how the Patriots went from being the potential new "America's Team" to "Evil Empire of Football" in the span of a little less than a decade.

I'm sorry Phoe, but people don't spit on the Pats for digging out of that hole. People don't spit on the Pats period, it's the other way around. People don't resent the Pats for climbing out either. People resent them a little for the way they did it, and a lot for what they did once they reached the top.

PhoeKun
2010-02-08, 03:42 AM
I'm sorry Phoe, but people don't spit on the Pats for digging out of that hole. People don't spit on the Pats period, it's the other way around. People don't resent the Pats for climbing out either. People resent them a little for the way they did it, and a lot for what they did once they reached the top.

I think that you misunderstand, or I have misspoken. Possibly both. The type of discourse vis a vis the Patriots and the extent of their illegal activities that you are engaged in with me right now is, I promise you, not something I'm used to. And not just because you're bothering to explain your position, either. And for the record I don't think Belichick or Brady are anywhere near as insufferable as you paint them to be, but I guess that might just be a matter of perspective.

I'll admit I'm probably a little defensive on the subject, but I'm not really sure how else it could have turned out. After the third Super Bowl, it suddenly became not OK for me to be a Pats fan. It made me The Enemy, as if I were somehow responsible for Belichcik's icy demeanor or the team's general swagger. And when Spygate broke, people couldn't wait to tell me how the only three championships in team's history were tainted. "Put an asterisk by them! Hahahaha! Stupid Cheatriots!"

In essence, I am told nine times out of ten when the subject comes up, that the moment of validation for my lifetime for rooting for a miserable team doesn't count. To make matters worse, that somehow spread to the Red Sox. Oh, and I get accused of being a bandwagon fan because I live in places other than New England (I inherited my teams from my mother, but that doesn't count I guess). The sheer depth of the vitriol people hold for the Patriots is astonishing, and more than a little scary.

I want a Wes Welker jersey, but I'm afraid it'd get me mugged. :smalleek:

Moofaa
2010-02-08, 04:44 AM
To be a little more on-topic I must say I don't get sports-mania. Mainly due to a lack of interest. I know a little about football and will watch the superbowl if I am able. Mainly I watch it for the ads and so I can talk about the game with the other people at work and not be left out.

I know nothing at all about other sports, and only found out that March Madness referred to basketball last year.

Living in Ohio its all "Go Bucks!". Also I think the number of women into football must be abnormally high in Ohio, as I tried looking on e-harmony for kicks and noticed every profile says "I like football" "Go bucks!" and other similar things.

I think I would be more interested if they changed things up a little. Like having 3 teams on a triangular field at one time. THAT would make for an interesting game. Actually I think I got that idea from a Robert Aspirin novel.

Temotei
2010-02-08, 04:50 AM
We get to have parties on the night of the Superbowl. :smallcool:

Hang out at a friend's house, where much fun will be had? Yes please.

skywalker
2010-02-08, 05:39 AM
I think that you misunderstand, or I have misspoken. Possibly both. The type of discourse vis a vis the Patriots and the extent of their illegal activities that you are engaged in with me right now is, I promise you, not something I'm used to. And not just because you're bothering to explain your position, either. And for the record I don't think Belichick or Brady are anywhere near as insufferable as you paint them to be, but I guess that might just be a matter of perspective.

I see. Well, Allow me to apologize then. I saw a statement next to a quote of myself and took it to be characterizing me as one of those you described. I wanted to defend myself from that, which is where the lengthy discourse came from. I'm also liable to get a good idea for a discourse, and let it just come tumbling out. I enjoy backing up a position, you see, and so I am liable to wax at length about something you probably don't care that much about.

I was primarily trying to point out that at some point in the eyes of the general public, it stopped being about a team that was once spat upon, and started being about Brady and Belichick (I think, for the most part, the rest of the team gets off mostly free... With the possible exception of Randy Moss) spitting upon the public. I do not know how it happened, but I suspect, as I said previously, that it had to do with jealousy of Brady, and resentments of Belichick's demeanor.


I'll admit I'm probably a little defensive on the subject, but I'm not really sure how else it could have turned out. After the third Super Bowl, it suddenly became not OK for me to be a Pats fan. It made me The Enemy, as if I were somehow responsible for Belichcik's icy demeanor or the team's general swagger. And when Spygate broke, people couldn't wait to tell me how the only three championships in team's history were tainted. "Put an asterisk by them! Hahahaha! Stupid Cheatriots!"

Most people have a sort of blinder when it comes to sports. They root for their home team through thick and thin (and jerks. I don't know how much you pay attention to college ball, but I recently went thru this locally with a guy named Lane Kiffin), but don't tolerate any other team being that way. This is why the Yankees are loved in NYC and hated all other places. While neither the demeanor nor the swagger are your fault, the fact that you still root for that team probably bothers some people. Plus, sports fans gauge other fans by what team they're a fan of. Whereas people think certain things about you automatically when they find out you're a Pats fan, people think certain things about me when they find out I'm a Colts fan (namely, either I think "Volunteers are for life," or that I'm a fan of robotic, soulless football).


In essence, I am told nine times out of ten when the subject comes up, that the moment of validation for my lifetime for rooting for a miserable team doesn't count. To make matters worse, that somehow spread to the Red Sox. Oh, and I get accused of being a bandwagon fan because I live in places other than New England (I inherited my teams from my mother, but that doesn't count I guess). The sheer depth of the vitriol people hold for the Patriots is astonishing, and more than a little scary.

It would bother me, personally, to think that my moment of validation had been set up (at least in part, potentially a large portion of it) by unfair play. If you'll notice, public opinion can go south on a person (or team) real quick if that comes out. Pete Rose, the best hitter in the history of baseball, banned from the Hall because he bet on some games. The whole steroid frenzy is another example. People go nuts about this sort of thing.

The Red Sox are a completely different issue. It has something to do with spending a lot of money and becoming the 2nd Evil Empire of baseball. I don't know how you did it either, but it was probably when you quit losing and started winning consistently. America loves a scrappy underdog. Perennially contending with the Yankees for Dominion over the AL East does not a public darling make.

Anyway, that's more of my discourse on the matter. Could do a more in-depth look at it tomorrow, I'm tired right now.

Makensha
2010-02-08, 05:42 PM
Tha Colts were 11-1 this season when they were ahead at half time. The Saints offense kept Manning off the field and the Saints defense stepped up when they needed to to secure the win for the Saints.

Congrats to the Saints. Well deserved.

Its more of a friends and family joke than anything serious, the Saints deserve their trophy.

Krade
2010-02-08, 08:15 PM
Eli Manning (who had underachieved in comparison to his draft class, and is still widely considered the "black sheep" of the Manning family)

I was under the impression that their other brother (I forget his name at the moment) that doesn't play football was the "black sheep" of the Manning family. I mean, when your dad used to be a pro ball player, then both of your brothers are pro ball players, then you aren't a pro ball player seems more like a "black sheep" situation to me.

SensFan
2010-02-08, 08:25 PM
Eli Manning (who had underachieved in comparison to his draft class, and is still widely considered the "black sheep" of the Manning family).
I dunno about that, I think Eli has a considerably better post-season resume than his brother, and really, that's the only way to judge how good a QB really is.

Consider this: Peyton Manning is now 9-9 in the playoffs, and 1-1 in Super Bowls. Playing on a team that has been one of the best in the league consistently during the season for 10 years or so.

PhoeKun
2010-02-08, 08:36 PM
I was under the impression that their other brother (I forget his name at the moment) that doesn't play football was the "black sheep" of the Manning family. I mean, when your dad used to be a pro ball player, then both of your brothers are pro ball players, then you aren't a pro ball player seems more like a "black sheep" situation to me.

From what I've read, Cooper Manning is actually much more of the glue that holds the family together rather than the Black Sheep.


I dunno about that, I think Eli has a considerably better post-season resume than his brother, and really, that's the only way to judge how good a QB really is.

Consider this: Peyton Manning is now 9-9 in the playoffs, and 1-1 in Super Bowls. Playing on a team that has been one of the best in the league consistently during the season for 10 years or so.

And if you're comparing Peyton to... say, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, or Kurt Warner, this would be exceedingly relevant.

Comparing him to Eli? It's entirely different circumstances. The Giants have always had pieces in place to carry the team forward, and most of the good that they've done has been predicated on the success of those other pieces, barring some amazing screw up on Eli's part. He's a game manager, and has never once struck fear into the heart of a defense.

The Colts are built from the ground up around Peyton Manning. He is the alpha and the omega of that team, and they don't go anywhere or do anything if he's not there and successful.

If the Colts never win another Super Bowl, and Peyton's playoff record hovers around .500 for the rest of his career, he might develop an (arguably undeserved) reputation for struggling in critical situations, but at the end of the day he's a Hall of Fame quarterback. Eli is... not.

Krade
2010-02-08, 08:38 PM
I dunno about that, I think Eli has a considerably better post-season resume than his brother, and really, that's the only way to judge how good a QB really is.

Consider this: Peyton Manning is now 9-9 in the playoffs, and 1-1 in Super Bowls. Playing on a team that has been one of the best in the league consistently during the season for 10 years or so.

Eli has also only been pro for 4 years compared to Peyton's what? 14? You can't really do an accurate comparison like that with such a difference in career length.

snoopy13a
2010-02-08, 08:41 PM
I was under the impression that their other brother (I forget his name at the moment) that doesn't play football was the "black sheep" of the Manning family. I mean, when your dad used to be a pro ball player, then both of your brothers are pro ball players, then you aren't a pro ball player seems more like a "black sheep" situation to me.

Cooper Manning has a health issue (narrow spinal column) that forced him to stop playing football while in college. Interestingly, he was a wide reciever and not a quarterback.

Puppychowguy
2010-02-08, 09:09 PM
I have to, have to, have to say something to purple cube O doom about parity in College to Pro sports.

You are completely wrong. Pro sports there are free agents and trades and management that make a difference. Boston Celtics went from last to first after KG and Ray Allen went there. NFL, NHL, and others are the same. MLB is not because they do not have a cap and money buys championships. Yankees etc... Doesn't always happen but mostly does.

College sports are based on recruiting...and where will all the good players go? They will go to the schools that win and big conferences. Count the championships in College and almost all of them are a few handful of schools because of this reason. UCLA has 11, Kentucky has 7, Indiana and UNC each have 5. Pro sports it is way harder to be consistently good because of egos and money, as well as other factors.

In College TCU went against Boise State and Boise State has been undefeated before and are a Great Great team, but will have no shot because of the stupid un-parity and mindset in College athletics. I mean for god sakes Lane Kiffen just recruited an 11 year old. Parity in college is non-existent and I do not like watching 56-3 routes all of the time. You are wrong in this regard. The only reason you see all this parity is the 15 seed beating a 2. Of course any team can win and parity will also become more "relevant" when there are a million (hyperbole) teams competing.

In the NFL, for the first time in a long time the number one seeds in each conference even made it to the Super Bowl and when is the last time you saw almost all the seeds in College basketball not actually in the tournament. They will always be in the tournament because they will always be good enough because of recruiting and the tradition at the school.

In the NFL and Pro sports teams go from first to last or vice versa all of the time. When can you say that about College? You can't.

Sorry about the rant. Watching the posts in this thread were mind-blowing.

Krade
2010-02-08, 09:35 PM
Cooper Manning has a health issue (narrow spinal column) that forced him to stop playing football while in college. Interestingly, he was a wide reciever and not a quarterback.

Ah, see? I didn't know that. Thank you for enlightening me.

SensFan
2010-02-08, 09:55 PM
Eli has also only been pro for 4 years compared to Peyton's what? 14? You can't really do an accurate comparison like that with such a difference in career length.
Peyton has 14 years in the league (or so; going with your number for ease), Eli has 5.
*Eli has a better playoff record (4-3 vs. 9-9)
*Eli has a better SB record (1-0 vs. 1-1)
*Eli has the same number of rings

All this with the Colts being a better team by a significant amount. And really, the Giants Super Bowl has quite a lot to do with Eli. The play that won them the game was one of the best all-time, and it was all him.

Puppychowguy
2010-02-08, 10:01 PM
According to Sensfan Eli Manning is better than Dan Marino, and Trent Dilfer is better than all of them.

Krade
2010-02-08, 10:08 PM
Peyton has 14 years in the league (or so; going with your number for ease), Eli has 5.
*Eli has a better playoff record (4-3 vs. 9-9)
*Eli has a better SB record (1-0 vs. 1-1)
*Eli has the same number of rings

All this with the Colts being a better team by a significant amount. And really, the Giants Super Bowl has quite a lot to do with Eli. The play that won them the game was one of the best all-time, and it was all him.

My argument still stands. Anything can happen by the time either one of them retire. So, as stated, an accurate comparison cannot be made until one or both of them retire. Sure those are their current stats, but those mean amazingly little when you consider how much longer each of their careers could be.

By this logic, the smartest thing Brees could do right now is retire, thus sealing his name as the QB with the greatest play-off record of all time!

PhoeKun
2010-02-08, 10:18 PM
Peyton has 14 years in the league (or so; going with your number for ease), Eli has 5.
*Eli has a better playoff record (4-3 vs. 9-9)
*Eli has a better SB record (1-0 vs. 1-1)
*Eli has the same number of rings

All this with the Colts being a better team by a significant amount. And really, the Giants Super Bowl has quite a lot to do with Eli. The play that won them the game was one of the best all-time, and it was all him.

I'm going to try to emphasize this again. The Colts are the stronger team because Peyton is a stronger player. Everything the Colts do revolves around him. Even the defense takes its cue from Peyton. You cannot give him enough credit for everything that team has done in this past decade (and I hate saying that, being a Pats fan).

Secondly, the play that won the Giants the game involved a man pinning a football to the top of his helmet with his fingertips while another man did everything in his power to rip it free. How in blazes is that "all Eli"? The pass he threw required the single most improbable catch in NFL history. Cut the bull.

SensFan
2010-02-08, 10:29 PM
I'm going to try to emphasize this again. The Colts are the stronger team because Peyton is a stronger player. Everything the Colts do revolves around him. Even the defense takes its cue from Peyton. You cannot give him enough credit for everything that team has done in this past decade (and I hate saying that, being a Pats fan).

Secondly, the play that won the Giants the game involved a man pinning a football to the top of his helmet with his fingertips while another man did everything in his power to rip it free. How in blazes is that "all Eli"? The pass he threw required the single most improbable catch in NFL history. Cut the bull.
Trust me, I know everything you're saying; I'm also a Pats fan.

You might be forgetting that the play in the Super Bowl, Eli Manning was - as far as anyone in the world could tell - sacked by about 4 Pats. He got out of that, and then on the run through a perfect pass downfield.

Puppychowguy
2010-02-08, 10:34 PM
You might be forgetting that the play in the Super Bowl, Eli Manning was - as far as anyone in the world could tell - sacked by about 4 Pats. He got out of that, and then on the run through a perfect pass downfield.


Ummm...I give him credit for getting out of the impossible situation, but perfect pass? Come on, he heaved it to the first guy he saw downfield with any shot.

Perfect Pass? You gotta be kidding me.

PhoeKun
2010-02-08, 10:45 PM
Trust me, I know everything you're saying; I'm also a Pats fan.

You might be forgetting that the play in the Super Bowl, Eli Manning was - as far as anyone in the world could tell - sacked by about 4 Pats. He got out of that, and then on the run through a perfect pass downfield.

There were at least 5 blown holding calls on that play (check the film), and the pass was overthrown to the point where the receiver needed to use his head and the will of god as aids in reeling it in. A perfect pass drops just in over the defender and into the receiver's waiting hands.

There was nothing perfect about that pass. There was plenty miraculous about that play, but we learned nothing about Eli's talent from it. His numbers in that game were pedestrian, just like they had been all season. I think, barring Strahan getting that defense to play its heart out and what appeared to be a Brady ankle injury, Eli's playoff record would be 3-4 and his SB record 0-1.

He's relatively new to the league, so there's always that chance of improvement. But taking things as they are right now, Peyton's first-ballot Hall of Fame material, and Eli is never going on the ballot in the first place.

KuReshtin
2010-02-09, 04:52 AM
Peyton Manning is one of the best, if not THE best, QB to play in the NFL.
The Colts defense had struggled for a long time before they got Tony Dungy in as head coach, and they were still playoff contenders, even if their playoff record was one-and-done for a few seasons.
Why? Because Peyton Manning makes that team a contender.

Eli is nowhere near as complete a QB as Peyton is.

SensFan
2010-02-09, 08:33 AM
Peyton Manning is one of the best, if not THE best, QB to play in the NFL.
I don't even know if I would put him in the top3 currently in the NFL.

KuReshtin
2010-02-09, 09:08 AM
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Philip Rivers
Brett Favre
Peyton Manning

Those would be my picks for top 5 in the league, in no particular order.

And to round up the Top 10 (again in no particular order)

Donovan McNabb
Tony Romo
Carson Palmer
Matt Schaub
Eli Manning

Mark Sanchez is still too raw to get in on the list yet.
Not totally sold on Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan, but they might be up there in a few years as well.

SensFan
2010-02-09, 09:18 AM
You didn't even mention the two best QBs in the league.

PhoeKun
2010-02-09, 02:43 PM
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Philip Rivers
Brett Favre
Peyton Manning

Those would be my picks for top 5 in the league, in no particular order.

And to round up the Top 10 (again in no particular order)

Donovan McNabb
Tony Romo
Carson Palmer
Matt Schaub
Eli Manning

Mark Sanchez is still too raw to get in on the list yet.
Not totally sold on Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan, but they might be up there in a few years as well.

I'd be very curious to hear your reasoning behind some of these choices.

I don't mean to devolve into homerism, but shouldn't Tom Brady be entering the "top QB" conversation before Mark Sanchez even gets a "not there yet" (no duh) nod?

SensFan
2010-02-09, 03:07 PM
I'd be very curious to hear your reasoning behind some of these choices.

I don't mean to devolve into homerism, but shouldn't Tom Brady be entering the "top QB" conversation before Mark Sanchez even gets a "not there yet" (no duh) nod?
I'm assuming he just didn't think of all the QBs.
Brady and Big Ben are pretty far ahead of anyone he listed.

KuReshtin
2010-02-09, 04:22 PM
That's what I get for doing that list at work, between calls. I knew I'd forgot someone.

Brady and Roethlisberger would definitely rank in the top 10, with Brady being in the top 5.
The fact that the Patriots did as well as they did last year when Brady was injured, would indicate to me that even if Brady is a good QB, the system he's in helps him along a whole lot.
Big Ben is just a really tough SOB and usually has very little help from his O-line. He's usually helped a whole lot by his defense.
Also, I didn't mention Kurt Warner, mainly because he announced his retirement, so won't be playing next season, or he'd have been thrown in there as well.

SensFan
2010-02-09, 04:33 PM
That's what I get for doing that list at work, between calls. I knew I'd forgot someone.

Brady and Roethlisberger would definitely rank in the top 10, with Brady being in the top 5.
The fact that the Patriots did as well as they did last year when Brady was injured, would indicate to me that even if Brady is a good QB, the system he's in helps him along a whole lot.
Big Ben is just a really tough SOB and usually has very little help from his O-line. He's usually helped a whole lot by his defense.
Also, I didn't mention Kurt Warner, mainly because he announced his retirement, so won't be playing next season, or he'd have been thrown in there as well.
And yet this year, the Patriots did just about as well as last year, without a defense or a run game.
As for Big Ben, I used to think the same thing. But then look at his stats this year, when the Steelers were very much a strong passing team, with a comparitively weak defense to in previous years.

KuReshtin
2010-02-09, 04:49 PM
And yet this year, the Patriots did just about as well as last year, without a defense or a run game.

Hence why I said that Brady is a top 5 QB, but he still gets a lot of help by the Belichik system he's playing in.



As for Big Ben, I used to think the same thing. But then look at his stats this year, when the Steelers were very much a strong passing team, with a comparitively weak defense to in previous years.

Big Ben's numbers are comparable to those of Tony Romo, although he threw a few more INTs and was sacked a whole lot more, which would be why I said that he's a top 10 QB.

ForzaFiori
2010-02-09, 04:51 PM
I'm a huge fan of football, mainly because, in the south, Football is what everyone cares about. If your college team isn't doing good, your town/area constantly catches crap. same with pro team.

Which really sucks when you live in Clemson, SC. The Tigers and Panthers BOTH let me down this year. At least my HS team did ok.

Anteros
2010-02-10, 02:06 AM
Trust me, I know everything you're saying; I'm also a Pats fan.

You might be forgetting that the play in the Super Bowl, Eli Manning was - as far as anyone in the world could tell - sacked by about 4 Pats. He got out of that, and then on the run through a perfect pass downfield.

Being a Pats fan only hurts your case for objectivity. No fanbase hates Peyton Manning more than the Patriots.


There were at least 5 blown holding calls on that play (check the film), and the pass was overthrown to the point where the receiver needed to use his head and the will of god as aids in reeling it in. A perfect pass drops just in over the defender and into the receiver's waiting hands.


There is holding on every single play in the NFL. They hardly ever call it during the super bowl. During the latest superbowl there was not one holding call, despite only having one sack all game. Brady benifitted from similar non-calls throughout the game, so please don't blame the officiating.


I don't even know if I would put him in the top3 currently in the NFL.

This is possibly the most ridiculous statement regarding Manning I have ever seen.

The best QBs in the league this year:
1: Brees
2: Manning
3: Favre
4. Rivers
5. Rodgers

Brady on the other hand has been largely irrelevant for 2 years now. Blame the injury if you like, it doesn't change the stats.

Now, if we judge by entire careers then Brady is still the best. I'd put it at:

1: Brady
2: Manning
3: Favre
4: Brees
5: Warner

Either way, saying Manning is not top 3 currently is ridiculous.


I'm assuming he just didn't think of all the QBs.
Brady and Big Ben are pretty far ahead of anyone he listed.

I almost have to believe you're simply trolling with this statement. I can at least understand the argument for Brady, but Ben? The defense earned those rings, not Ben.

(By the way, I am not a fan of Manning or the Colts. I simply find your statements silly.)

P.S. (Who Dat!)

PhoeKun
2010-02-10, 02:42 AM
There is holding on every single play in the NFL. They hardly ever call it during the super bowl. During the latest superbowl there was not one holding call, despite only having one sack all game. Brady benifitted from similar non-calls throughout the game, so please don't blame the officiating.

I'll blame whoever I have to so I can get to sleep at night. :smalltongue:

...I don't actually blame the officials, but I will not under any circumstances credit Eli for the Helmet Catch. It was an extraordinarily, stupendously, once-in-a-lifetime lucky type play. No one will ever make that catch again. Especially not David Tyree, who I think has had two catches since. Damn it.



This is possibly the most ridiculous statement regarding Manning I have ever seen.

The best QBs in the league this year:
1: Brees
2: Manning
3: Favre
4. Rivers
5. Rodgers

Brady on the other hand has been largely irrelevant for 2 years now. Blame the injury if you like, it doesn't change the stats.

I believe this to be a relatively accurate assessment of the year, although I'd probably bump Rodgers out for Brady. Rodgers put out ever so slightly better numbers this year, but by the end, Brady was doing it with broken fingers, broken ribs, and no legitimate number 3 receiver (and a lot of the year, no legit number two, thank you very much Randy Moss *kicks a can. At a puppy*).

You have to blame the injury for Brady's irrelevance in the '08 season - he played less than a quarter. This year he threw for over 4000 yards with 28 TDs... that's not really anything to sneeze at, is it? (I know. It was still a giant leap backwards from 2007, and I haven't been this nervous watching him play since he first replaced Bledsoe. Just... let me have top 5. Please).



Now, if we judge by entire careers then Brady is still the best. I'd put it at:

1: Brady
2: Manning
3: Favre
4: Brees
5: Warner

Either way, saying Manning is not top 3 currently is ridiculous.

While that's probably an accurate assessment of their respective careers to this point, who do you think has the highest ceiling? Right this moment, I'd have to think it's Brees. It's an unknown if Brady can return to peak form, and Manning just blew his chance to become a possible best all-time. But Brees is flying high right now. Is he going to build on this success, or was this year the height of his powers?

SensFan
2010-02-10, 08:01 AM
This is possibly the most ridiculous statement regarding Manning I have ever seen.

The best QBs in the league this year:
1: Brees
2: Manning
3: Favre
4. Rivers
5. Rodgers

Brady on the other hand has been largely irrelevant for 2 years now. Blame the injury if you like, it doesn't change the stats.
If there is a football game tonight, and you give me the choice of any QB in the world, my pick order would be:
1. Brady
2. Brees
3. Big Ben
4. Manning
5. Favre

I just don't think Manning is as good as his stats show. He's proven time and time again that he can't win in the clutch (one SB game aside). He's easily the most overrated player in the league, playing on the most overrated team.


I almost have to believe you're simply trolling with this statement.
I'll kindly ask you to respond intelligently to my points, rather than descend to ad hominem.

KuReshtin
2010-02-10, 08:21 AM
If there is a football game tonight, and you give me the choice of any QB in the world, my pick order would be:
1. Brady
2. Brees
3. Big Ben
4. Manning
5. Favre

I just don't think Manning is as good as his stats show. He's proven time and time again that he can't win in the clutch (one SB game aside). He's easily the most overrated player in the league, playing on the most overrated team.


I don't think Manning is at all overrated. Since he took over as the starting QB of the Colts, they've been perennial playoff contenders, and haven't had single-digit wins for a long time.
The Super Bowl this weekend could have been a lot different had it not been for two crucial plays in the 4th quarter.

- Tracy Porter did an outstanding job undercutting that pass to Reggie Wayne and took it back for the TD. It might be a mistake on Manning's part, throwing the ball there, but Porter did an excellent job reading that and getting the pick.
- Reggie Wayne's dropped pass at the goal line on the Colts final drive. The pass was right where it needed to be, but Reggie failed to grab it. If he'd caught that ball, that would have been a TD and the Colts would have had a chance at the onside kick.

if I had to chose a QB to start for my team in a game today, my list would probably be:

1. D Brees
2. P Manning
3. T Brady
4. B Favre
5. A Rodgers

PhoeKun
2010-02-10, 09:49 AM
- Tracy Porter did an outstanding job undercutting that pass to Reggie Wayne and took it back for the TD. It might be a mistake on Manning's part, throwing the ball there, but Porter did an excellent job reading that and getting the pick.

Three people share the blame on that interception.

1) Jim Caldwell. The Colts had not revealed, practiced, or thought about a single solitary new play or wrinkle to an old play in months. Further, they had just run the exact same play to convert the 4th and 2 just 2 plays ago. 2 plays! Of course Porter was sitting on it, he'd have to be an idiot not to know what was coming.

2) Reggie Wayne. I'm not precisely sure why, but it looks like he fudged the timing on his route and didn't turn when he was supposed to. Of course, Porter was probably going to come up with that anyway, but if Wayne gets in position properly, he's set up to make a play on the ball, and maybe that's not a Pick-6. Makes it a pretty different game, for sure.

3) Peyton Manning. Did you see how ridiculously open Dallas Clark was on that play? Manning sure didn't. If he looks at anybody other than Wayne for even a second, he doesn't throw the pick. In fact, Clark had a good shot at a Colts touchdown. Huge mistake. Manning was rattled by that point in the game.

I think if you're a Colts fan you have to blame the coaching more than anything. The reason Manning got shaken up isn't because of anything the Saints defense did or didn't do (although I think the sudden lack of blitzing probably confused him), but because he could see the writing on the wall. Caldwell was calling an ultra conservative game, and Brees was catching on fire. It was an extremely high pressure situation, since it left one offense trying to stop the other one, because the defense sure wasn't going to do it.

There's any number of things that could have swung the game. If Caldwell allowed the Colts to perform their 2 minute drill going into halftime after the goal line stop, at the very least the Saints don't get the 3 points from that field goal. Given how good they've been at that this year, I think they had a decent chance of scoring themselves, instead. Why would you run the ball 3 times there when Peyton Manning is your quarterback?

Or there was the game ender - sending out 42 year old Matt Stover to attempt a 51 yard field goal. Nothing against Stover, but when your age starts to compete with your longest completed field goal, it's probably not wise to push your luck. Punt it, try to pin the Saints inside the 10. Go for it, try to get the first down. Heck, take a knee, do anything other than hand the ball to the #1 scoring offense on the 41 yard line. Just awful.

KuReshtin
2010-02-10, 10:03 AM
I've actually watched that single play probably about 35 times since Sunday, but mostly because of a discussion I had with one of my mates in Tampa, who really didn't want the Saints to win. he started complaining about the officials, and mentioned what he thought was a block in the back on Manning during the return.
So I watched the play a bunch of times to try to determine if I, as a football official myself, would have called a BiB on that.

My answer was: no.

But since I was so preoccupied with watching the block on Manning, I actually didn't pay much attention to the rest of the play until Porter broke on the ball.

You are right about Reggie Wayne not looking as if he was off his timing on that route, and a comment the guys on NFL Total Access made actually seems very poignant.
reggie Wayne hadn't been utilised at all for pretty much the entire game, and because of that, he seemed to have shut down a bit in the fourth quarter, when they decided to turn to him as a clutch receiver.

I also agree that those 3 points for the Saints just at the end of the first half was a big boost to them. And with the deficit being only 4 points instead of 7, I think that weighed into the discussion on whether they go for the onside kick to start the second half or not.

Also, I saw on PTI or Around the Horn last night that there were 11 (yes, Eleven!) indy fans waiting for the team to arrive back in Indy on Monday. Eleven fans.

raitalin
2010-02-10, 01:44 PM
Also, I saw on PTI or Around the Horn last night that there were 11 (yes, Eleven!) indy fans waiting for the team to arrive back in Indy on Monday. Eleven fans.

Yeah, Colts fans are not the most loyal bunch. When they decided to rest their starters at 14-0 the fans basically demanded the staff's head on a platter for not "giving the fans what they deserve".

The problem is that for about 15 years after the Colts moved to Indy they sucked and no one gave a crap about them, except maybe as the butt of a joke. The all of the sudden, starting in about '95 they became contenders and have remained dominant almost every year since. This city has no idea how to stick to a team through tough times.

skywalker
2010-02-10, 04:26 PM
I'll kindly ask you to respond intelligently to my points, rather than descend to ad hominem.

You were accused of trolling because while everyone else was posting legitimate, intelligently argued posts, you were saying this:


I don't even know if I would put him in the top3 currently in the NFL.

and this:


You didn't even mention the two best QBs in the league.

And then when pressed to list those 2, you came up with this:


I'm assuming he just didn't think of all the QBs.
Brady and Big Ben are pretty far ahead of anyone he listed.

Brady could be argued to be there for current career, altho this past year he wasn't, and by the end of his career, Manning and Favre will have had better careers, and they're both in the league at the moment.


If there is a football game tonight, and you give me the choice of any QB in the world, my pick order would be:
1. Brady
2. Brees
3. Big Ben
4. Manning
5. Favre

I just don't think Manning is as good as his stats show. He's proven time and time again that he can't win in the clutch (one SB game aside). He's easily the most overrated player in the league, playing on the most overrated team.

This is absolutely ludicrous. Nobody in their right mind would take Brees or Big Ben over Manning. He has 4 perfect passer rating games in his career, more than anyone else. Ben and Warner both have 3, but they both work in significantly less "down-the-field" systems. Manning will likely end his career with the highest career passer rating.

Maybe you wouldn't, but poll coaches, players, GMs, and the people who do this stuff for a living. They will tell you Peyton is the #1 choice.


While that's probably an accurate assessment of their respective careers to this point, who do you think has the highest ceiling? Right this moment, I'd have to think it's Brees. It's an unknown if Brady can return to peak form, and Manning just blew his chance to become a possible best all-time. But Brees is flying high right now. Is he going to build on this success, or was this year the height of his powers?

I don't think Brady can. He doesn't seem to have it anymore. I don't see that killer instinct when he walks on the field (or even when he's on it, a lot of the time), and defeat doesn't seem to leave the bitter taste in his mouth that it once did (and still does for Manning and Brees). Manning will have more chances. He is already in the top 10 all time. While he's not getting any younger, the Colts actually have gotten younger. Peyton is going to get one more contract (probably for 4 years) and he'll get to play it out with this new, younger core of options. I base all this on his statement after the Super Bowl that he "most probably" will not be playing at 40.

Brees is having a big year. While I don't doubt his ability to continue to perform at this level, I do doubt the Saints as a whole. A lot of this depends on what they do with Bush. If they re-sign him, I think it spells doom for long-term consistent success in New Orleans. He will command more than he's worth, and the Saints will have an interest in keeping him because of the off-field dimension.


Three people share the blame on that interception.

1) Jim Caldwell. The Colts had not revealed, practiced, or thought about a single solitary new play or wrinkle to an old play in months. Further, they had just run the exact same play to convert the 4th and 2 just 2 plays ago. 2 plays! Of course Porter was sitting on it, he'd have to be an idiot not to know what was coming.

2) Reggie Wayne. I'm not precisely sure why, but it looks like he fudged the timing on his route and didn't turn when he was supposed to. Of course, Porter was probably going to come up with that anyway, but if Wayne gets in position properly, he's set up to make a play on the ball, and maybe that's not a Pick-6. Makes it a pretty different game, for sure.

3) Peyton Manning. Did you see how ridiculously open Dallas Clark was on that play? Manning sure didn't. If he looks at anybody other than Wayne for even a second, he doesn't throw the pick. In fact, Clark had a good shot at a Colts touchdown. Huge mistake. Manning was rattled by that point in the game.

I think if you're a Colts fan you have to blame the coaching more than anything. The reason Manning got shaken up isn't because of anything the Saints defense did or didn't do (although I think the sudden lack of blitzing probably confused him), but because he could see the writing on the wall. Caldwell was calling an ultra conservative game, and Brees was catching on fire. It was an extremely high pressure situation, since it left one offense trying to stop the other one, because the defense sure wasn't going to do it.

1) Is the way the Colts play. It is simply the way they do things. They practice a certain number of things to the nth degree, and then they execute. They don't concern themselves with wrinkles or new plays when they go 14-2 with all the old ones. I'm not saying it's right, but that's their motto: "We will do exactly what you're expecting us to do, but most of the time you can't stop us anyway."

2) Yes, Reggie Wayne screwed that one up.

3) Dallas Clark was not an option on that play. He is only meant to appear to be so. The only option on that play was Reggie Wayne. If you understand the attitude I addressed up there in "1)," that will make sense to you.

I doubt Peyton was shaken up. I think the rest of the team might have been, but I don't think he was. If the sudden lack of blitzing did anything to Peyton, it disappointed him. When he wakes up in the morning, he pours a bowl of blitz.


There's any number of things that could have swung the game. If Caldwell allowed the Colts to perform their 2 minute drill going into halftime after the goal line stop, at the very least the Saints don't get the 3 points from that field goal. Given how good they've been at that this year, I think they had a decent chance of scoring themselves, instead. Why would you run the ball 3 times there when Peyton Manning is your quarterback?

Or there was the game ender - sending out 42 year old Matt Stover to attempt a 51 yard field goal. Nothing against Stover, but when your age starts to compete with your longest completed field goal, it's probably not wise to push your luck. Punt it, try to pin the Saints inside the 10. Go for it, try to get the first down. Heck, take a knee, do anything other than hand the ball to the #1 scoring offense on the 41 yard line. Just awful.

They ran the ball 3 times because, well, the first time, they were starting on the 1. Typical NFL wisdom dictates that you don't pass when your QB's feet are on grass that isn't green. Peyton will occasionally throw in that situation, but rarely. You should probably also blame Manning, not Caldwell (which shouldn't be too hard for you:smalltongue:). Manning is the one calling the plays almost all the time. They probably ran it 3 times because Manning got to the line, saw either a disadvantage to throwing or an advantage to running, and called the run. That's the reason why they ran in that situation and it's really that simple.

The missed field goal is another case of playing the percentages. If you go for it, and you miss it, you hand them the ball. If you kick, and you miss it, you hand them the ball. If you make it, you gain 3 points. If you punt it, you probably punt it into the endzone and only gain 20 yards. Mathematically, they probably worked it out that their best chance of a positive result was kicking the field goal. They probably reasoned that giving Brees the ball on the 20 vs. the 41 wasn't that big of a difference, and they had a much better chance of making the field goal than gaining the 2.5 yards they needed for a first. So they kicked.


I've actually watched that single play probably about 35 times since Sunday, but mostly because of a discussion I had with one of my mates in Tampa, who really didn't want the Saints to win. he started complaining about the officials, and mentioned what he thought was a block in the back on Manning during the return.
So I watched the play a bunch of times to try to determine if I, as a football official myself, would have called a BiB on that.

My answer was: no.

My answer: Yes, it's a block in the back, no, I wouldn't have called it either. The turnover is one of the last bastions of brutality in the NFL. "Oskie" (meaning, after an interception, find someone on the other team and kill him, if possible) used to be a huge deal in football. It's mentioned in General Neyland's Game Maxims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Neyland#Seven_Maxims_of_Football). It used to be seen as an opportunity to go headhunting on the QB. But they introduced rules to make hitting people away from the play illegal, and most current NFL QBs take advantage of that by taking themselves very, very far out of the play in that situation. They're probably taught to, "protect your investment" and all that.

Only Manning actively endangers himself by trying to get back the SOB who just intercepted him. If there's even a chance of it not being a block in the back, officials try to let it go these days. Most of the time, Manning doesn't even have a chance on the guy, so it was sad that on his one real opportunity, he was taken out by a technically illegal play.


You are right about Reggie Wayne not looking as if he was off his timing on that route, and a comment the guys on NFL Total Access made actually seems very poignant.
reggie Wayne hadn't been utilised at all for pretty much the entire game, and because of that, he seemed to have shut down a bit in the fourth quarter, when they decided to turn to him as a clutch receiver.

This is partially borne out. The Colts attempted 14 plays before Wayne even got a ball in his direction. However, when that drive started, they had thrown to Wayne 5 times, just as much as any other receiver other than Dallas Clark (who had gotten 6 throws). I think Wayne was covered well by the Saints until the Colts' offensive efficiency with other receivers forced them to ease off him a little bit. Wayne has had to deal with this all season. This is how most teams work: Cover the best receiver and force them to throw to the "lesser" guys. This bothers a lot of QBs but not Manning. This is why the Colts were 14-2 this season. I don't think Wayne was having trouble with not getting his catches or not being in rhythm. I think he just screwed up a bit and Porter made a tremendous play. Note that when your attitude is "we're going to do exactly what you expect us to do, but we'll do it so well you can't stop us," you actually have to play close to perfection. Oops, Mr. Wayne.


I also agree that those 3 points for the Saints just at the end of the first half was a big boost to them. And with the deficit being only 4 points instead of 7, I think that weighed into the discussion on whether they go for the onside kick to start the second half or not.

That was just plain ballsy.


Yeah, Colts fans are not the most loyal bunch. When they decided to rest their starters at 14-0 the fans basically demanded the staff's head on a platter for not "giving the fans what they deserve".

The problem is that for about 15 years after the Colts moved to Indy they sucked and no one gave a crap about them, except maybe as the butt of a joke. The all of the sudden, starting in about '95 they became contenders and have remained dominant almost every year since. This city has no idea how to stick to a team through tough times.

I think it's because of the way they play. Very professional, very calm, very "act like you've been there before." They don't inspire a whole lot of emotion. In the end, they're just professionals going to work.

Plus, no offense, but Indianapolis doesn't really inspire visions of passion or excitement, so I don't know why sports fans would be any different.

SensFan
2010-02-10, 04:30 PM
That's all well and good, skywalker, but it's really rather simple.
Manning won't even enter the conversation for best QB all-time unless he wins at least 1 more (and possibly 2 more) rings. Brady is already in that conversation, and he's at the peak of his career. There's no reason to think he won't bounce back next year, as every other player who needed major knee surgury has, Manning included.

PhoeKun
2010-02-10, 05:35 PM
I don't think Brady can. He doesn't seem to have it anymore. I don't see that killer instinct when he walks on the field (or even when he's on it, a lot of the time), and defeat doesn't seem to leave the bitter taste in his mouth that it once did (and still does for Manning and Brees). Manning will have more chances. He is already in the top 10 all time. While he's not getting any younger, the Colts actually have gotten younger. Peyton is going to get one more contract (probably for 4 years) and he'll get to play it out with this new, younger core of options. I base all this on his statement after the Super Bowl that he "most probably" will not be playing at 40.

Brees is having a big year. While I don't doubt his ability to continue to perform at this level, I do doubt the Saints as a whole. A lot of this depends on what they do with Bush. If they re-sign him, I think it spells doom for long-term consistent success in New Orleans. He will command more than he's worth, and the Saints will have an interest in keeping him because of the off-field dimension.

I am so worried about Brady it isn't funny. I don't think we can write him off just yet, based on his season totals and considering the circumstances he posted them under, but... yeah. He really doesn't seem to have the same fire. Gone is the Tom Brady who nearly headbutted his teammates into a coma psyching himself up before his first Super Bowl. Gone is the Tom Brady who lead the charge during the Eff You season. The man playing quarterback for the New England Patriots is still very good, but he's no longer a mortal lock in the clutch, and he looks unsure at times he never has before.

Worst of all, the best healthy receiving option currently on the team is Julian Edleman. Which is... arg. And who exactly do we replace him with when the time comes? Nobody's in place, and I don't see anyone in the college ranks right now who makes me go "ooh". What should I do, hope to score Tim Tebow on the cheap and believe Belichick has enough pixie dust left in his magic bag to turn him into a real quarterback? I feel sick.



1) Is the way the Colts play. It is simply the way they do things. They practice a certain number of things to the nth degree, and then they execute. They don't concern themselves with wrinkles or new plays when they go 14-2 with all the old ones. I'm not saying it's right, but that's their motto: "We will do exactly what you're expecting us to do, but most of the time you can't stop us anyway."

2) Yes, Reggie Wayne screwed that one up.

3) Dallas Clark was not an option on that play. He is only meant to appear to be so. The only option on that play was Reggie Wayne. If you understand the attitude I addressed up there in "1)," that will make sense to you.

I doubt Peyton was shaken up. I think the rest of the team might have been, but I don't think he was. If the sudden lack of blitzing did anything to Peyton, it disappointed him. When he wakes up in the morning, he pours a bowl of blitz.

The Colts play that way because they have a zombie for a head coach. They just get shielded from the criticism because Manning raises everybody's level to the point where it usually doesn't matter. The Saints exposed everything that's wrong with that attitude during that game, and if the Colts think that doesn't mean they have to change something, I don't think they're going to sniff another Super Bowl.

Oh, and point number three makes no sense to me. :smalltongue:



They ran the ball 3 times because, well, the first time, they were starting on the 1. Typical NFL wisdom dictates that you don't pass when your QB's feet are on grass that isn't green. Peyton will occasionally throw in that situation, but rarely. You should probably also blame Manning, not Caldwell (which shouldn't be too hard for you:smalltongue:). Manning is the one calling the plays almost all the time. They probably ran it 3 times because Manning got to the line, saw either a disadvantage to throwing or an advantage to running, and called the run. That's the reason why they ran in that situation and it's really that simple.

After the game, Caldwell admitted that if they had gotten the first down, they would have initiated the hurry up offense. Under what circumstances does it make sense to want to score, but only after you've killed the clock for the other guys?



The missed field goal is another case of playing the percentages. If you go for it, and you miss it, you hand them the ball. If you kick, and you miss it, you hand them the ball. If you make it, you gain 3 points. If you punt it, you probably punt it into the endzone and only gain 20 yards. Mathematically, they probably worked it out that their best chance of a positive result was kicking the field goal. They probably reasoned that giving Brees the ball on the 20 vs. the 41 wasn't that big of a difference, and they had a much better chance of making the field goal than gaining the 2.5 yards they needed for a first. So they kicked.

It's only really playing the percentages if the kicker has a real chance to make it. Stover hasn't nailed one from that distance in years, and his leg's only gotten weaker. Everyone associated with the Ravens was laughing uproariously when they saw Stover trot out, I'll guarantee it. Punt the ball and hit the endzone, you put them on the 20. Go for it and get an incompletion, you put them on the 33. Attempt a field goal with a 15% chance of success (and that's being generous), and you're putting it on the 41.

Besides, it's fair to criticize ultra-conservative playcalling when the opponent is a professional craps shooter like Sean Payton, especially on a night when he's hitting his rolls. Even though "defense wins championships", aggression usually pays off in the long run. At least by going for it, you put a little bit of fire back in the hearts of players not named Peyton Manning.

I really believe that if this year's Colts had been the kind of team that wanted to go 19-0, they would have done it. Of course, the fact that they played it safe and didn't win anyway certainly makes me happy, if nothing else. :smallwink:

@SensFan: That remains an incredibly narrow-minded way of looking at things. You don't need Super Bowl rings to be great. These things are too random to be the sole measure of greatness. Manning makes the Colts as good as they are. When he sits, they lose. And do you really mean to tell me he doesn't make you even a little bit nervous when we're playing him? I may not root for him, but I respect him.

Anteros
2010-02-10, 05:47 PM
I've actually watched that single play probably about 35 times since Sunday, but mostly because of a discussion I had with one of my mates in Tampa, who really didn't want the Saints to win. he started complaining about the officials, and mentioned what he thought was a block in the back on Manning during the return.
So I watched the play a bunch of times to try to determine if I, as a football official myself, would have called a BiB on that.

My answer was: no.

But since I was so preoccupied with watching the block on Manning, I actually didn't pay much attention to the rest of the play until Porter broke on the ball.

You are right about Reggie Wayne not looking as if he was off his timing on that route, and a comment the guys on NFL Total Access made actually seems very poignant.
reggie Wayne hadn't been utilised at all for pretty much the entire game, and because of that, he seemed to have shut down a bit in the fourth quarter, when they decided to turn to him as a clutch receiver.

I also agree that those 3 points for the Saints just at the end of the first half was a big boost to them. And with the deficit being only 4 points instead of 7, I think that weighed into the discussion on whether they go for the onside kick to start the second half or not.

Also, I saw on PTI or Around the Horn last night that there were 11 (yes, Eleven!) indy fans waiting for the team to arrive back in Indy on Monday. Eleven fans.

Please inform your friend that when the defender voluntarily turns his back to the blocker, then it is not considered a block in the back. This is what Manning does. Because he's a big girl, and isn't willing to take a hit even to win a super bowl. :smallbiggrin:

As for Brady, right now he's still flying high off of his 2007 season. Which I will admit was probably the best season for any QB ever. However, he was not a true top 5 QB this year. Perhaps he'll return to that form next year. I certainly hope so. The more elite QBs in the league the more entertaining the game becomes.

KuReshtin
2010-02-10, 06:48 PM
That's all well and good, skywalker, but it's really rather simple.
Manning won't even enter the conversation for best QB all-time unless he wins at least 1 more (and possibly 2 more) rings. Brady is already in that conversation, and he's at the peak of his career. There's no reason to think he won't bounce back next year, as every other player who needed major knee surgury has, Manning included.

Super Bowl rings does not make a QB Best all time. Hell, I'm a Cowboys fan, and I don't even think that Troy Aikman is anywhere near to be mentioned as the best QB of all time, and he won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls, just as Brady has done.
Using your criteria, you think that Dan Marino, the current NFL leader in passing yards, and up until two seasons ago, the leader in TD passes shouldn't be in the consideration for best all time. Just because he was playing on a team that was sub-par and that had basically no running game at all. Teams knew the Dolphins couldn't run the ball, so they targeted Marino, and he still beat them. I'd still contend that Marino warrants a mention in the discussion of all-time greats.

Manning has played 12 years and is about 2 seasons from breaking Marino's all-time passing record, that it took Marino 17 seasons to get.
Manning deserves a mention in that discussion as well.


Please inform your friend that when the defender voluntarily turns his back to the blocker, then it is not considered a block in the back. This is what Manning does. Because he's a big girl, and isn't willing to take a hit even to win a super bowl. :smallbiggrin:

I've stopped trying to convince him, because he's not going to listen to reason anyways. Initial contact on the block was to the side, and Manning then turned to make it look like a block in the back. To be honest, it wasn't as much a block as it was a gentle nudge. And Manning fell down.



As for Brady, right now he's still flying high off of his 2007 season. Which I will admit was probably the best season for any QB ever. However, he was not a true top 5 QB this year. Perhaps he'll return to that form next year. I certainly hope so. The more elite QBs in the league the more entertaining the game becomes.

SensFan
2010-02-10, 07:59 PM
I'm fully aware that rings does not mean elite QB, and that you don't need rings to be considered one of the best.
But Manning is on what has been one of the league's best teams for the last decade, and he's incapable of doing **** all in the playoffs.

Anteros
2010-02-10, 10:43 PM
I'm fully aware that rings does not mean elite QB, and that you don't need rings to be considered one of the best.
But Manning is on what has been one of the league's best teams for the last decade, and he's incapable of doing **** all in the playoffs.

That team is only one of the best because of Manning. If you replace him with a mediocre quarterback the Colts are an 8-8 team at best.

skywalker
2010-02-11, 01:38 AM
That's all well and good, skywalker, but it's really rather simple.
Manning won't even enter the conversation for best QB all-time unless he wins at least 1 more (and possibly 2 more) rings.

Let's make a list:
Fran Tarkenton - 0 rings.
Dan Marino - 0 rings.
Bret Favre - 1 ring.
Steve Young - 1 ring actually contributed to.
Joe Namath - 1 ring.

There you go. 5 all-time greats.


Brady is already in that conversation, and he's at the peak of his career. There's no reason to think he won't bounce back next year, as every other player who needed major knee surgury has, Manning included.

Brady is not at the peak of his career. He's 32. I don't know what peak that is, but it's not the football peak. Most agree that the physical peak is at 26. QBs get a bit of a reprieve because arm strength doesn't fade too much, and QB is such a mental position (which age can help). However, the ability to take punishment drops off a lot. You can have an old QB, but the O-line better keep him squeaky clean. Look what happened to Favre when he got a couple big hits on him 3 weeks ago.

Also, as Phoe and I are discussing, Brady does not seem to be continuing that voracious appetite for the game. To succeed in your 30s in the NFL, you have to want it bad. We're sure Peyton does. We're not so sure about Brady. You could convince me Peyton is in his peak (a lot of people said he was playing the best football of his career this year), you couldn't with Brady.

The season after his knee surgery, Peyton was named MVP. He also had an infected bursa sac, he didn't tear both his AC and MCL. Those are slightly different injuries to recover from.


I am so worried about Brady it isn't funny. I don't think we can write him off just yet, based on his season totals and considering the circumstances he posted them under, but... yeah. He really doesn't seem to have the same fire. Gone is the Tom Brady who nearly headbutted his teammates into a coma psyching himself up before his first Super Bowl. Gone is the Tom Brady who lead the charge during the Eff You season. The man playing quarterback for the New England Patriots is still very good, but he's no longer a mortal lock in the clutch, and he looks unsure at times he never has before.

You should be worried. My opinion, but yeah. I think you described him pretty aptly just now.


Worst of all, the best healthy receiving option currently on the team is Julian Edleman. Which is... arg. And who exactly do we replace him with when the time comes? Nobody's in place, and I don't see anyone in the college ranks right now who makes me go "ooh". What should I do, hope to score Tim Tebow on the cheap and believe Belichick has enough pixie dust left in his magic bag to turn him into a real quarterback? I feel sick.

Fact: Tim Tebow is a real QB. I have watched him play for 4 years, win 2 national titles, be a Heisman finalist 3 times, win once... He's a real QB. He just doesn't belong in the NFL. Awkward, slow, terrible arm motion. Just wanted to make that distinction. He's a killer QB. Just not right for the NFL. It'll be really funny to see us all eat these words if he absolutely blows it up the next few years. There aren't any QBs out there that scream "stud" right now, it's true, but you have to remember that back in the day, people thought Ryan Leaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Leaf) (Wiki link for your convenience) could be a better pro than Peyton Manning. It's hard for you to see anybody replacing Brady because he's so much better than what's on offer. Somebody will show up, I promise.


The Colts play that way because they have a zombie for a head coach. They just get shielded from the criticism because Manning raises everybody's level to the point where it usually doesn't matter. The Saints exposed everything that's wrong with that attitude during that game, and if the Colts think that doesn't mean they have to change something, I don't think they're going to sniff another Super Bowl.

Oh, and point number three makes no sense to me. :smalltongue:

They have always played that way. Dungy was exactly the same. I don't particularly think there's anything wrong with that attitude. But then again, my favorite pro teams seem to be this way. I find something appealing with the "I'm at work. My job is very personally fulfilling, but really, I'm at work. Just another day at the office, winning football games" attitude that the Colts have. My favorite NBA team is the San Antonio Spurs. :smallbiggrin:



After the game, Caldwell admitted that if they had gotten the first down, they would have initiated the hurry up offense. Under what circumstances does it make sense to want to score, but only after you've killed the clock for the other guys?

That is also how the Colts play. They bleed you to death with the clock. The Colts' offense is a "high-powered offense," but they only go full power when they have to. Every blowout win they had this season was in the first 5 weeks. The Colts will only score a bunch of points if you make them. They are good at scoring, but they are primarily good at efficiency. A victory is a victory is a victory.


It's only really playing the percentages if the kicker has a real chance to make it. Stover hasn't nailed one from that distance in years, and his leg's only gotten weaker. Everyone associated with the Ravens was laughing uproariously when they saw Stover trot out, I'll guarantee it. Punt the ball and hit the endzone, you put them on the 20. Go for it and get an incompletion, you put them on the 33. Attempt a field goal with a 15% chance of success (and that's being generous), and you're putting it on the 41.

My point is, yes, you can criticize. It is quite possible they made a mistake. But there were a bunch of people who get paid a lot of money to know the odds on this sort of thing making that call on Sunday. They know a lot better than us, I would imagine. They're not infallible, but I can understand where the call came from.

Regardless, it's not as tho that one play killed them. IMO, the Saints won the game when they made that onside kick.


Besides, it's fair to criticize ultra-conservative playcalling when the opponent is a professional craps shooter like Sean Payton, especially on a night when he's hitting his rolls. Even though "defense wins championships", aggression usually pays off in the long run. At least by going for it, you put a little bit of fire back in the hearts of players not named Peyton Manning.

I can understand how this sort of decision-making would bother you. I, personally, appreciate the "zen" attitude the Colts take. If you play the odds correctly and consistently, you will eventually win. I find something admirable in that.

But like I said before, people will assume certain things about us based solely on our respective football allegiances. Perhaps it's true.


I really believe that if this year's Colts had been the kind of team that wanted to go 19-0, they would have done it. Of course, the fact that they played it safe and didn't win anyway certainly makes me happy, if nothing else. :smallwink:

The team did want to go 19-0. Management and the coaching staff shut them down. Look at photos or video of Manning on the sidelines of the Jets game. If you had handed that guy a puppy, he would not have taken the time to kick it. He would've simply ripped it in half.


Please inform your friend that when the defender voluntarily turns his back to the blocker, then it is not considered a block in the back. This is what Manning does. Because he's a big girl, and isn't willing to take a hit even to win a super bowl. :smallbiggrin:

See my last post. I live in East Tennessee. I am a Peyton Manning fan. I watch a lot of his games. It is not fanboyism to say that Peyton Manning tries the hardest of any QB I've ever seen in situations where he suddenly becomes a defender. He is not, by any stretch of the word, fast. And yet you see him, with his funny little white boy strides, trying to catch up to some cornerback on a long-since broken pick-6 or fumble. Say what you will about the guy, but don't say he isn't willing to take a hit.


Super Bowl rings does not make a QB Best all time. Hell, I'm a Cowboys fan, and I don't even think that Troy Aikman is anywhere near to be mentioned as the best QB of all time, and he won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls, just as Brady has done.
Using your criteria, you think that Dan Marino, the current NFL leader in passing yards, and up until two seasons ago, the leader in TD passes shouldn't be in the consideration for best all time. Just because he was playing on a team that was sub-par and that had basically no running game at all. Teams knew the Dolphins couldn't run the ball, so they targeted Marino, and he still beat them. I'd still contend that Marino warrants a mention in the discussion of all-time greats.

Manning has played 12 years and is about 2 seasons from breaking Marino's all-time passing record, that it took Marino 17 seasons to get.
Manning deserves a mention in that discussion as well.

While Marino is always considered in the conversation, he is almost always summarily dismissed for his lack of a ring. Marino had fewer games in which to do what he did. Peyton has had 16 games for all 12 of his seasons. Which, actually, is something else I think makes him great: He's never missed a start. So I guess that moots the idea that Marino had fewer games to work with, since he went and busted his ACL in 1993.

Still, yes, I agree with you, Manning is a competitor for greatest QB ever, and will only get closer. He loses, of course. To Joe Montana. Maybe if the Colts stay on this tear and actually win a Super Bowl or two more, he'll get close. But right now? Joe's got 4. I know we just went thru how rings aren't everything, but he's got 4, and he was an incredible QB. Like, he was equivalent to a Manning for his team, and won 4 Super Bowls, 3 of them as the MVP.

PhoeKun
2010-02-11, 03:12 AM
Let's make a list:
Fran Tarkenton - 0 rings.
Dan Marino - 0 rings.
Bret Favre - 1 ring.
Steve Young - 1 ring actually contributed to.
Joe Namath - 1 ring.

There you go. 5 all-time greats.

I think somebody might get upset at me for this, but I really don't see Namath as an all-time great. He had, like, 3 good seasons, and he made that guarantee that makes for a good story. But really, have you looked at his career numbers? Eeyuck.



Fact: Tim Tebow is a real QB. I have watched him play for 4 years, win 2 national titles, be a Heisman finalist 3 times, win once... He's a real QB. He just doesn't belong in the NFL. Awkward, slow, terrible arm motion. Just wanted to make that distinction. He's a killer QB. Just not right for the NFL. It'll be really funny to see us all eat these words if he absolutely blows it up the next few years. There aren't any QBs out there that scream "stud" right now, it's true, but you have to remember that back in the day, people thought Ryan Leaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Leaf) (Wiki link for your convenience) could be a better pro than Peyton Manning. It's hard for you to see anybody replacing Brady because he's so much better than what's on offer. Somebody will show up, I promise.

Yeah yeah. The only thing I like about Tebow is his work ethic. It'd also be pretty cool to see someone sucker him into being a half-back. At this point, I'm grasping at straws for the Patriots, because we desperately need a backup plan. The Brady train looks way closer to over than anybody thought it would be, and we have no backup plan. I can only pray Welker recovers from his injury quickly enough to be in game form by next season. The alternative does not excite me.

Thank goodness they got pasted by the Ravens in round 1, so at least they could stay out of the top 8 and avoid the restrictions in free agency... and, I can't believe I just said that. I hate myself.



They have always played that way. Dungy was exactly the same. I don't particularly think there's anything wrong with that attitude. But then again, my favorite pro teams seem to be this way. I find something appealing with the "I'm at work. My job is very personally fulfilling, but really, I'm at work. Just another day at the office, winning football games" attitude that the Colts have. My favorite NBA team is the San Antonio Spurs. :smallbiggrin:

Well you know, they've got a 9-9 playoff record in Manning's tenure. Maybe the whole "business business business, just you try and out execute our basic schemes" approach isn't really cut out to hack it in January? It's not necessarily Manning's fault, but the team is structured to be basically figured out by the whole league come the postseason. If even a couple players slip up, then down they go. If they're just a little more adaptable, then I think they'd have more to show for it all.

As it is, the one Super Bowl win they do have is basically predicated on Reche Caldwell's inability to catch a freaking football. If he had hands, then it would have been Brady feasting on that Rex Grossman-led Bears team. So... yeah. Food for thought.



That is also how the Colts play. They bleed you to death with the clock. The Colts' offense is a "high-powered offense," but they only go full power when they have to. Every blowout win they had this season was in the first 5 weeks. The Colts will only score a bunch of points if you make them. They are good at scoring, but they are primarily good at efficiency. A victory is a victory is a victory.

My point is, yes, you can criticize. It is quite possible they made a mistake. But there were a bunch of people who get paid a lot of money to know the odds on this sort of thing making that call on Sunday. They know a lot better than us, I would imagine. They're not infallible, but I can understand where the call came from.

Regardless, it's not as tho that one play killed them. IMO, the Saints won the game when they made that onside kick.

A victory is a victory is a victory, but I think playing to bleed the clock when you're 7 points up against a high scoring team with half a game to go is pretty much asking to be beat. They don't have to be throwing for the end zone constantly, but how about a screen pass or something? After the first run gives them a little breathing room, shouldn't you be playing to move the ball further down the field? The Saints were holding three time outs, the only way they could have possibly bled the clock is if they let them.

There's a bunch of people who get paid a lot of money to crunch these numbers, but the assumptions they base their math on are fundamentally flawed. Everyone still seems to think you win the playoffs by "running the ball and stopping the run". Uh... clearly not, or else we'd have to endure an extra month of Rex Ryan quotes. A whole lot of organizations in the NFL really need to take a look at their basic assumptions when determining strategy. In the very strictest sense of the numbers, the field goal attempt might have been the right move, but that means eliminating the human factor. Stover had zero chance to make the kick. Ordering the field goal meant doing the safe thing that wouldn't get the announcers riled up at the coaching staff while backing the ball up 8 yards and handing it to the other team.

And to me, that really was the "game over" moment, much more so than the onside kick. It was an incredibly gutsy move and it resulted in a touchdown, sure, but the Colts came right back and erased that lead immediately. It set a tone for the game, but if the Colts had proven willing to match that tone on even a superficial level, they could have completely swung the momentum back in their favor. You have to adjust to your opponent, unless you're excellent on a level we've never seen before.



The team did want to go 19-0. Management and the coaching staff shut them down. Look at photos or video of Manning on the sidelines of the Jets game. If you had handed that guy a puppy, he would not have taken the time to kick it. He would've simply ripped it in half.

Blarg, it's so hard to distinguish between the Colts organization and the Colts team as it refers to just the players. Yes, the players wanted to go 19-0, you could tell. The sense you get from Manning is that he never wants to be taken out of the game under any circumstances. But I think that management decision sucked at least a little bit of that competitive fire from the team, and cost them their chance at being the ones to finally shut up Mercury Morris and company. And I sincerely hope someone manages to do it one of these days, because I just do not wanting those guys popping champagne for the rest of their lives... :smallyuk:

KuReshtin
2010-02-11, 03:42 AM
While Marino is always considered in the conversation, he is almost always summarily dismissed for his lack of a ring. Marino had fewer games in which to do what he did. Peyton has had 16 games for all 12 of his seasons. Which, actually, is something else I think makes him great: He's never missed a start. So I guess that moots the idea that Marino had fewer games to work with, since he went and busted his ACL in 1993.
You're right that marino played fewer games per average season over the course of his season, byt Peyton has played 5 games less than marino did in his career, and he needs to average about 225 yad per game for the next 50 games to beat Marino's record. That's 3 full seasons plus 2 games.
So far, throughout his career, he's averaged 261 YPG, so he'll very likely break the record in less games played than Marino.
Of course, Marino played in the era before the QBs were overly protected by the rules.



Still, yes, I agree with you, Manning is a competitor for greatest QB ever, and will only get closer. He loses, of course. To Joe Montana. Maybe if the Colts stay on this tear and actually win a Super Bowl or two more, he'll get close. But right now? Joe's got 4. I know we just went thru how rings aren't everything, but he's got 4, and he was an incredible QB. Like, he was equivalent to a Manning for his team, and won 4 Super Bowls, 3 of them as the MVP.

I'd have to agree with you that Montana is very much the target to try and reach for for any QB in the league.

skywalker
2010-02-11, 11:32 PM
I think somebody might get upset at me for this, but I really don't see Namath as an all-time great. He had, like, 3 good seasons, and he made that guarantee that makes for a good story. But really, have you looked at his career numbers? Eeyuck.

I don't think he was that great either. But, a lot of people do. QBs didn't necessarily need to be the statistical monstrosities they are these days back then. Much more important to be a leader for your team. And there's no doubt about the guarantee. Also the "Broadway Joe" persona. I dunno. Better men than me have declared him an all-time great.


Yeah yeah. The only thing I like about Tebow is his work ethic. It'd also be pretty cool to see someone sucker him into being a half-back. At this point, I'm grasping at straws for the Patriots, because we desperately need a backup plan. The Brady train looks way closer to over than anybody thought it would be, and we have no backup plan. I can only pray Welker recovers from his injury quickly enough to be in game form by next season. The alternative does not excite me.

Don't look now, but the Kevin Garnett train may be about over as well...


Well you know, they've got a 9-9 playoff record in Manning's tenure. Maybe the whole "business business business, just you try and out execute our basic schemes" approach isn't really cut out to hack it in January? It's not necessarily Manning's fault, but the team is structured to be basically figured out by the whole league come the postseason. If even a couple players slip up, then down they go. If they're just a little more adaptable, then I think they'd have more to show for it all.

The problem is this: If you put in something new, it won't be completely new. It will be similar to something your team has done before that season, simply because of the issues involved with educating your whole team about something different in the 2 weeks before the Super Bowl.

This is why even tho the Saints were quoted as having a first-half defense, a third quarter defense, and a fourth quarter defense (all different), Manning was still able to exploit them all. Because in the end, even if they didn't show it in the first half, they had shown it at some point in the season, and he already knew what to do. I see that as how the Colts approach things: Why take practice time from something we do really well (and could make perfect) to work on something we may not even utilize and definitely won't be as good at as our current set-up?

I also think they are adaptable. Just within a certain box. :smalltongue:


A victory is a victory is a victory, but I think playing to bleed the clock when you're 7 points up against a high scoring team with half a game to go is pretty much asking to be beat. They don't have to be throwing for the end zone constantly, but how about a screen pass or something? After the first run gives them a little breathing room, shouldn't you be playing to move the ball further down the field? The Saints were holding three time outs, the only way they could have possibly bled the clock is if they let them.

I agree that a more aggressive offense might have made the game end differently. But screen passes are kinda dangerous to throw on the 4 yard-line as well.


There's a bunch of people who get paid a lot of money to crunch these numbers, but the assumptions they base their math on are fundamentally flawed. Everyone still seems to think you win the playoffs by "running the ball and stopping the run". Uh... clearly not, or else we'd have to endure an extra month of Rex Ryan quotes. A whole lot of organizations in the NFL really need to take a look at their basic assumptions when determining strategy. In the very strictest sense of the numbers, the field goal attempt might have been the right move, but that means eliminating the human factor. Stover had zero chance to make the kick. Ordering the field goal meant doing the safe thing that wouldn't get the announcers riled up at the coaching staff while backing the ball up 8 yards and handing it to the other team.

I don't think a team that drafts Peyton Manning really subscribes to the "run the ball and stop the run" theory.

I also don't think the give much of a darn about what the announcers say, either.


And I sincerely hope someone manages to do it one of these days, because I just do not wanting those guys popping champagne for the rest of their lives... :smallyuk:

You seem to have these issues with several teams, not just the Colts? :smalltongue:


You're right that marino played fewer games per average season over the course of his season, byt Peyton has played 5 games less than marino did in his career, and he needs to average about 225 yad per game for the next 50 games to beat Marino's record. That's 3 full seasons plus 2 games.
So far, throughout his career, he's averaged 261 YPG, so he'll very likely break the record in less games played than Marino.
Of course, Marino played in the era before the QBs were overly protected by the rules.

I see no problem with protecting the QBs. That's the investment, and that's what puts butts in seats. General mantra we should all say in the mirror: "The NFL is not here to provide me with the purest football experience possible. It is hear to make the owners and the administrators very, very rich. And that is all."

And hey, Bret Favre got to play in that era a couple weeks ago!

Anteros
2010-02-13, 11:26 AM
See my last post. I live in East Tennessee. I am a Peyton Manning fan. I watch a lot of his games. It is not fanboyism to say that Peyton Manning tries the hardest of any QB I've ever seen in situations where he suddenly becomes a defender. He is not, by any stretch of the word, fast. And yet you see him, with his funny little white boy strides, trying to catch up to some cornerback on a long-since broken pick-6 or fumble. Say what you will about the guy, but don't say he isn't willing to take a hit.


Except it is pure fanboyism. He isn't willing to be hit. He intentionally turned his back to the defender and let himself be run out of the play instead of taking the hit and trying to get to the ball carrier.

For what it's worth, I also live in Knoxville. I am fully aware that in the eyes of people here that Manning can do no wrong, and the ground he steps upon is something to be worshipped. Heck, the Colts are my second favorite NFL team simply because of Manning. None of this changes the fact that during the most pivotal moment of his career, Manning wasn't willing to take a hit in order to make the play.

I've seen Rodgers lay the wood on a cornerback...I've seen Brees dislocate his shoulder trying to recover a fumble...I've seen Manning...effeminately turn his back to a blocker and try to draw a flag? Or perhaps curl up in a ball on the ground to avoid getting hit?

KuReshtin
2010-02-13, 12:11 PM
I've seen Rodgers lay the wood on a cornerback...I've seen Brees dislocate his shoulder trying to recover a fumble...I've seen Manning...effeminately turn his back to a blocker and try to draw a flag? Or perhaps curl up in a ball on the ground to avoid getting hit?

You forgot to mention Ben Roethlisberger's game-winning tackle vs the Colts.
2:20 into the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFoT7FpEAcs) (no, I haven't figured out the direct-linking to a specific moment in a video yet.)