Comments for Putting this to bed at http://www.18to88.com , comment 1 to 73 out of 20 comments http://www.18to88.com Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:56:12 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8453 By all means, count it! Count every 4th Quarter between them in the postseason. Besides we had already won 3 SB's before that, and the following season he threw 50 Scores. DZ - he's only thrown 4 TD's in the 4th Quarter of the Posstseason?? Oh that's right, of games YOU select. - J.C. Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:28:51 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8452 One of those Brady picks was in the 2006 Divisional, where Troy Brown stripped Marlon McCree. Don't you know that was the whole plan? Brady was so clutch in throwing that pick. You can't count that one. - dmstorm22 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:21:24 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8446 Brady's numbers (per JC): 87 for 141, 864, 4 TDs, 4 Picks 76.7 rating 6.1 YPA Clutch my ass. Again for the game to be counted, the Pats had to trail by one score or less with the ball in the fourth quarter, or lead by one score or less. - DZ Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:00:54 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8445 That data was for JC for asked for it somewhere or another. I posted it here. - DZ Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:19:51 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8444 Ok, I can't find play by play data for the 2000 WC game against Miami, but I doubt it matters much. Since 2003, in the fourth quarter of close games (defined as Indy had the ball down a score or up a score), Manning is 80/128, 997 yards, 5 TD, 3 picks. That's a rating of 89.9, with a 7.8 YPA. Those are better numbers than his overall playoff numbers. The three picks came against NE (down 14...but they would later score to make it 7, and get the ball back), KC (they were up 8, won anyway), and NO this past Sunday. The games involved were: 2003: @ KC, @ NE 2005: Pitt 2006: KC, @ Balt, NE, CHI 2007: SD 2008: @ SD 2009: NYJ, NO I did not count: 1999, 2000 (no game data...I believe only the 2000 game was a one score game in the fourth). 2002: @NYJ Colts trailed by 30 2003: Denver Colts led by a bunch 2004: Denver Colts led by a bunch 2009: Baltimore Colts led 20-3 Fair enough? - DZ Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:16:52 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8442 The first time I saw that label was before a game against in Oakland, I believe in 2001 or 2. An Oakland player said, "What's Peyton Manning anyway? How many playoff games has he won? At Tennessee how many bowl games did he win?" That started it. The answer to how many bowl games he won? Three in four years. It's always been a BS question. - DZ Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:38:05 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8441 There were 3 minutes left. And they were playing Drew Brees who hadn't been stopped all game. The point is that Indy couldn't use all the time to score. NO was getting the ball back. They were going to have the ball last. They were going to win. - DZ Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:36:05 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8434 And AJ, why do you think people call Manning a choker? That's not a rhetorical question, and it's not me trying to be inflammatory. When, or why, did he acquire that label? That's an honest question. Try to answer it to the best of your ability. - J.C. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:23:52 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8433 Where do you calculate the odds of winning the game, down a touchdown with 5 minutes left, all your timeouts and Peyton Manning as your QB as 22%? What fucked up, fictitious equation did you pull that from? Clearly that algorithm does NOT factor in variables. - J.C. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:21:44 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8389 Did anyone actually [i]watch[/i] the replay of that pick? Both deep safeties [i]and[/i] the cover linebacker turned towards the right to cover the receivers there. Wayne was one-on-one with Porter. Since when is Manning [i]not[/i] supposed to throw to Wayne when that happens? Well, the clear answer now is when the corner on the island reads the play and jumps it, but it was the right read to begin with. Before anyone tries bringing up the tired and long disproven "choke" idiocies again, stop and think how many QBs would've made that read that fast to begin with. And how many QBs would've gotten their team that far. Manning's no choker, and it's only people with superficial understandings of the game and total ignorance of plays offered as examples that can even make that claim. - A.J. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:07:28 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8364 I see your point. For some reason I was thinking we were still on the other side of the 50, which clearly we weren't since it was a 70-something-yard pick return. I guess I drank too much to remember all the details...... BTW.....I puke in my mouth every time I see Jennings on the field. I hope we won't have to worry about that next year. Now if I can just make it to September.... - Klinewalter Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:35:09 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8353 At the time of the pick, the Colts were at the 31, with 3:24 left. The Saints had three timeouts and a two minute warning. So let's say the Colts decided to go super slow down and play for the last score. If each set of downs were to go to third down, they pick up a first at the 26 with 3:24 (assuming he throws to someone other than Wayne). They would have to use the full play clock on every play, not get a first down before third down, and not stop the clock once with an incomplete pass. I don't think that scenario is likely at all. The Colts were too close to the endzone with too much time to play. The Saints were going to get the ball back, almost no matter what Indy tried. A touchdown by Manning on that drive would have been nice, because it would have saved us from this pointless discussion, but the end result was likely the Saints ball with at least a minute and a half to play. Considering that Hayden and Powers were both on the bench at that point, do you really think Lacey and Jennings at corner and a one legged Freeney had any chance of stopping the Saints? Obviously, it's possible, but not very likely at all. Even if the Colts had managed to stop the Saints on that possession, there still would have been OT to deal with, which is a 50/50 proposition. If Manning's pick six had come with 5 minutes to play, you'd be 100% right. Unfortunately, it came with three minutes and change. Indy was in no man's land. There was no playing for the last possession given the timeouts and the yardage left. - DZ Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:42:35 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8351 I believe you mentioned earlier that the pick really didn't matter because if we would have scored on that drive you had no reason to believe that we could stop the Saints from scoring right after that for the win. (I'm too lazy to read back through all of the comments to find the exact qoute so correct me if I'm wrong) Which at the time I would have to agree with you, but what if?..... We had what 5 minutes or something on the clock? What's to say that we don't put together another 5 minute drive that doesn't allow the Saints to have enough time to score? Then it's atleast a tie game at that point, and maybe CC will make up for all of his horrible coaching decisions by going for the 2-pt conversion and the win. We moved that ball on them all night including some great runs by Addai. I see no reason to believe this would not have been possible. Just wondering what your thoughts are. - Klinewalter Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:33:28 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8345 [quote]Again, I gave you numbers, you gave opinions. The "another idiotic comment" phrase was posted by another reader. Not me. So was "as patiently as possible". [/quote] Yeah, those were both mine. But I'll take it as a compliment to get confused for being you! And you know, honestly, Manning didn't play *perfectly* (but then, who does?). You could fault him for not looking-off Wayne on the pick. You could fault him for taking a deep shot to Collie in four-down territory. At the same time, though, the person more at-fault on the pick was Wayne for sitting on his route (not to mention, Porter just made a great play) - just as the person more at-fault on the long pass was Collie, for playing for a PI call instead of fighting for the ball. THAT is why Manning isn't to blame. It is not unreasonable for a QB to expect his receivers to run their routes properly and to make plays for the ball. If Wayne comes back for that ball, there is no pick. If Collie fights for the ball, either he catches it, or makes a stronger case for drawing the PI call. And all of that completely negates the fact that Manning should have been handed the ball with either a 7-point (if Caldwell doesn't send in gutless play-calls in the 2-minute-drill) or a 4-point lead to start the second half, but was instead facing a 3-point deficit. It also negates the fact that Manning put the Colts offense in position to blow the game open, but Garcon dropped a wide-open pass. It also negates the fact that, after the Manning-Collie miss, Caldwell made the world's dumbest decision to attempt a 51-yard FG, giving the Saints a short field and momentum on the drive that proved to produce the game's winning TD. That's why any of Manning's short-comings Sunday night were insignificant in the overall analysis of why the Colts lost. - Chip Bennett (in registration limbo) Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:05:08 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8342 Yeah, sorry. I still disagree and haven't been shown any reason to blame Manning for that loss. He bears some responsibility, but it's so far down the food chain that it's not worth discussing. As well as he played, Indy should have won. That's the bottom line. Did he play well enough that the Colts should have won? Yes. Did Caldwell coach well enough? No. Did Wayne play well enough? No. Did Garcon? No. Did the defense? Hell no. Did Hank Basket? No That's enough blame for me. No point in killing one of the few guys who did play well for one mistake after the game was already slipping away. - DZ Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:19:02 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8341 I thought it would be fair if you could at least assign equal blame to Manning, which you didn't, and refuse to do. It was everyone else fault except Manning. Anyway. Nice chatting with you, best of luck next year, right? - Davido Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:11:43 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8340 I forgot about the part where you didn't understand the passing rules. Honestly, you haven't made much of a case. You've made a lot of mistakes. But not much of a case... - DZ Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:08:21 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8339 No, I sit an argue forever as long as the other guy has some statistics or new arguments. When he just ignores the stats I show, and continues making the same point that has already been discredited, then I resort to running him off with name calling. Clearly, if you think Manning was to blame for that game (or any Colts' playoff loss since 2003) you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention. If your best argument is "9-9 in the playoffs is mediocre and John Elway wasn't an elite quarterback", then you are an idiot. I know all about the coach who said it (there have been more than one btw), I've heard it before. I consider it anti-intellectual nonsense. Again, I gave you numbers, you gave opinions. The "another idiotic comment" phrase was posted by another reader. Not me. So was "as patiently as possible". You aren't even reading the comments or paying attention to the people that wrote them. That makes it hard to take you seriously. As near as I can tell, you didn't even watch the game. You didn't get the down right on the very play you seem to think made all the difference. You have no arguments (other than QBs bear the guilt for wins and losses regardless of what really happened in the game), so there's not much left to do but mock you. - DZ Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:05:51 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8338 Oh no, don't put yourself down like that dude - you're [b]much [/b]better than that! Like how, when I wasn't accepting your concept of stats as the be-all/end-all, you went straight for the jugular with some priceless nuggets like: "...we actually pay attention to the game" (i.e., I don't) ...or, how about your opening salvo: "Another idiotic comment. " A classic, to be sure! ...or the condescending : "Again (as patiently as possible the day after a Super Bowl loss)", like explaining your point of view AGAIN would show me the light. Hallelujah. I should have credited my comment to the coach that said it, my bad: http://www.burntorangenation.com/2008/10/10/632356/the-numbers-game-stats-are But hey, your condescension is the norm on this blog when your assertions get challenged. You don't agree to disagree, you never change your mind, you just go after the person commenting, calling them "idiotic". And hey, you're the Admin, so I guess you can do what you want to ;) Right? - Davido Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:54:51 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2010-archives/february/putting-this-to-bed.html#comment-8337 I admit that it lacked the style and class of "stats are for losers", but I did my best. - DZ Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:33:26 +0100