Rob0729

I don't disagree about that, but that isn't because they were sucking for Luck. That was stupidity of Polian to think that Manning would never miss a game. They overpaid for Kerry Collins in a desperation move thinking he could keep the team competitive in a lousy AFC South (remember everyone were predicting the Texans to be the worst team in the division before the season, not one of the best teams in the AFC).

As for me talking about the Colts' offensive talent, I am talking about players besides the QB.

RodThePat

Yeah, Peyton Manning sure was great on that 2010 season. The Colts played 5 teams who could pose a problem to them that year, the Giants, the Patriots, the Eagles, the Cowboys and the Chargers. Against those teams, Manning had a 1-4 record, with 12 TDs and 13 INTs. The rest of his games were played against the Texans x 2 (they were 6-10 that season, with a horrible defense), the Titans x 2, the Jaguars x 2, the Chiefs, the Raiders, the Broncos and the Redskins. Those were some of the worse teams in the league, and against them he threw a Brady-like 21 TDs and 4 picks. So he absolutely feasted on crappy teams and lost to pretty much every team that had an honest chance of beating them. Wow, MVP indeed.

I mean, Brady had a loaded offense that year, with Welker coming off knee-surgery, the corpse of Deion Branch, two rookie TEs and a UFA RB. Oh, and the Patriots had a very good defense that year too, right? Just ask Matt Flynn. Please, stop because you're embarrassing yourself.

Deus Irae

It's not B.S. at all.

Manning was under 7 yards per attempt for the first time since his rookie year.

Manning went without a 4th quarter comeback for the first time since 2001.

Manning was 6th in the NFL in INTs, with 17. That was his highest total since 2002.

Manning was less than 2:1 in TD:INT ratio. That was the first time since 2002.

Manning's 4.9% TD% was tied for his lowest since..... 2002.

Manning's QB rating was his lowest since...... 2002

That passer rating was good for #10 in the NFL, not particularly higher up than "average".

That's nowhere near being so impressive that an average QB couldn't have replaced him with 9-10 wins.

There's a reason that Manning wasn't at the top of the ballot, and it sure as hell wasn't because people don't like Peyton Manning.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

Ive_Killed_People

Ok just for my records...You are a Colts fan right?

Rob0729

First, when did I say the Pats had a very good defense? I said it was decent and much better than the Colts' defense. Down the stretch, they held four out of five teams to 7 points or less. Against the Bears, they let up one garbage time TD when it was 36-0 midway through the third. They gave up a garbage time TD (up 38-0 with 2:11 left in the game) against the Dolphins. The Pats' defense was very good down the stretch of 2010 in the regular season.

Second, Matt Flynn had a good game, but nothing like his 480 yard, 6 TD game last year against a good Lions team. He threw for something like 250 yards, 3 TDs, and 1 INT. It was a very good game for him, but let's not make it sound like he was a stud.

Third, you are skewing the combined stats for Manning a bit by combining them. Against the Giants (won 38-14), Manning threw for 255 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs. Against the Pats (lost 31-28), he threw for 396 yards, 4 TDs, and 3 INTs (Colts could only rush for 71 yards on 20 carries). Against, the Cowboys (won 38-35 in OT) he threw for 365 yards, 2 TDs, and 4 INTs (because the Colts could only rush for 40 yards on 17 carries). Against the Eagles (lost 26-24), he thew for 294 yards,1 TD, and 2 INTs (the Colts rushed for 62 yards on 19 carries). Against the Chargers (lost 36-14), he threw for 285 yards, 2 TDs, and 4 INTs (the Colts rushed for 24 yards on 13 carries).

Fourth, My numbers show above that Manning was the offense. When the running game stalled (which was often), he was forced to air it out.

patsinthesnow

The people that currently have Manning above Brady for MVP are just ignorant and clearly aren't even analyzing the situation.

Brady is beating him in nearly every statistical category and is leading a historic offense (37ppg) that will most likely finish top 5 all time and who knows, could even maintain the #1 spot.

Manning is leading a pretty good offense, but nowhere near as good with 28.9ppg tied for 44th all time, 8 points behind Brady's offense.

There is no rationale for Manning currently as MVP over Brady.

Rob0729

Manning was forced to air out the ball because he had zero running game and defense. He was without Clark and Collie for a large portion of the season too. That is why his numbers sucked. If you put an average QB in that situation and it would have been a disaster.

It was the worst team that either Brady or Manning has ever been on.

I thought Brady deserved the MVP in 2006 because he had very little to work with and still got the Pats to the AFC Championships and that was his worst year in terms of yards other than 2001, his second worst year in terms of YPA, his third worst year in terms of TDs. Statistically, it was one of Brady's worst years in the league, but in reality it may be one of his best and a year he definitely deserved the MVP. But it went to Manning because he had the stats.

Again, this isn't the best player award (granted it usually becomes the best player award), it is the most valuable player award. Manning had absolutely nothing to work with including one of the worst head coaches in recent history and he somehow got the Colts to 10 wins.


He wasn't great and Brady was clearly better. In fact, I think Brady would have done better with that Colts' team that year, but for that given season Manning was more of the MVP of his team because he had far less to work with and had to carry the team more. You put the 2010 Brady on that 2010 Colts' team and I think Brady would have deserved the MVP and probably would have gotten the Colts to 11 or 12 wins. But he wasn't in that situation.

Rob0729

No. I am just trying to look at it objectively. I don't think Manning was a better QB in 2010. Not even close. I just think he was more important to his team that year because he had far less to work with in that season. Brady didn't have his 2007 offense and the 2003 Pats' defense, but it was far better than what Manning had to work with.

Again, as I said in my last post, I think Brady would have done much better than Manning did in the situation Manning had in 2010, but the situation made Manning more valuable.

AndyJohnson

How do you come to the conclusion that Brady played better but Manning's team would have missed him more?
What a teams record would have been without the guy is just a silly point. It is nothing more than a guess that has no fact behind it. Essentially, you made up a reason.
By the way, the Colts defense ranked higher, and likely only allowed more points because of all of Mannings Ints. We had undrafted RBs, rookies TE, a hobbled Welker and an old Deion Branch as 'weapons'.
What exactly do you think the Patriots would have done without Brady, when they weren't good at anything but QB?

Rob0729

I think more importantly, you need to look at defenses. The Broncos have the 4th ranked defense and 8th ranked in points allowed. The Pats have the 27th ranked defense and 13th ranked in points allowed. Von Miller is third in the league in sacks with 14. Dummerville is 14th with 8. Both have more than the Pats' sack leader in Ninkovich and Jones (both with 6).

Just like my argument with Manning for 2010 MVP, you have to look at the team around them. Manning gets far more help on the defense.