Super Bowl XLIV: New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts

Oops, I did it again.

ALSO, a "FAIL" freebie:

Thank you, Channel 11 News... :grin:

Spoiler

 

No they matter, and up until that point, this was really the first postseason where he didn't suck. But looking back on his past postseasons, the man plays worse in the postseason than he does in the regular season....considerably worse. Prior to this game, Manning had a 9-8 playoff record, which means it was a losing record prior to this season and really pathetic before the SB run...where he played like garbage for the majority of it. Prior to this game he threw 22 tds to 17 intros in the postseason, and had an 85.2 rating. In the biggest pressue moments he plays worse, not better. Yet the media continues to ride him as if he were elevating his game in these big moments. I wasn't suprised at all when he threw the pick 6.

And I give him props for bringing it against the two wild card teams he faced, with good defenses that couldn't score to save their lives. He still choked today, and it wasn't the first time in the postseason.

Edit: To put it into proper perspective, Dirk played great in the 06 playoffs up until his Finals flameout. You can say the same for Karl Malone when they played the Bulls. Yes, the previous rounds matter but they aren't the biggest moment. The wild card or conf game do not matter as much as the SB.

 

So, in the biggest games, he's 1-1. What a record of choking!

I'm not even a manning fan, but stupid logic.

 

Since his post-season stats ratings/stats are worse than his regular season it means he's playing bad ?

Maybe it is because he is playing the best teams in the entire league.

When you play the Texans twice a year you are going to have inflated regular season stats.

 

That felt like one of the fastest super bowls ever. Anyone have this feeling?

 

yep said the same thing to myself. not many penalties or reviewed plays

 

Really? Because last year (2008), he had a QB rating of 90 in their one playoff game. The previous year (2007), 97. The year before that, they won a Superbowl. The year before that (2005), another QB rating of 90. The year before (2004), he played two games - one with a QB rating of 145 and the other of 70 (he sucked). The previous year (2003), he had 3 games with QB ratings of 158.3 (a perfect rating), 139, and 35. Before that in 2002, he certainly sucked in his first ever postseason game.

So by my count, outside of the Superbowl year, he had QB ratings of 90+ in 7 of 10 games, including 3 games above 135, with all 3 bad games occurring in the first 3 years of the playoffs for them. Doesn't really seem to be sucking in every postseason or every game that counts.

 

Same

It went by so fast, the mediocre commercials didn't help either

 

Dude, any other QB is down 7 in the 4th and driving....and throws a pick 6 to seal the SB for the other team....folks will say he choked. If Matt Schuab throws that he is getting killed. Favre threw his intro last week and he got killed. Even when they won the SB, he had 3 tds and 7 picks in that postseason. If it were any other player whose play got worse as the games got more important, he would be getting killed.

 

/debate end

 

Is that better or worse than his regular season play? And here is the link for the postseason games. You don't notice the dropoff in those losses? The Patriots, Steelers and Chargers were the teams that were able to get pressure on him. The knock on Manning has always been in big games or under pressure, his play will falter.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00_playoffs.htm

Edit: Additionally, in one of those games against the Chargers Manning had a 97.7 passer rating (in 2008). Do you remember watching that game....where they lost to SD at home...without Rivers or LT (well Rivers got hurt during the game)? Where he had two picks in scoring territory, and got stopped on 4 downs twice to win the game at the end, once from within the 10 yard line? If Schuab had that game would folks on this board say he was clutch because of his passer rating, or would they blast him for the key intros and note how you have to convert to win the game on 4 downs twice...once inside the red zone?

 

The turning point of this game was when Garcon dropped that 3rd down pass.

 

So you are citing 3 losses.
2 of those teams that he lost to won the superbowl those respective years.

Could it be possible that maybe the other teams were just better ?

You are trying to knock on the guy because he lost to superbowl champion teams ?

You cant win them all.

 

Woah look at the date this video was added!!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tXITJVEX9Hc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tXITJVEX9Hc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXITJVEX9Hc

 

In some of the losses, yes. What about the wins? That gets back to the point that your idea only works if you say the important games are only the losses.

And yes, his QB rating is probably going to be worse in the postseason when playing against only the best teams in the league, as opposed to when playing all the teams in the league.

And of course he also threw for 400 yards and 3 TDs in that game despite no running game whatsoever.

I have no idea whether they'd say he's clutch or not. But they'd be stupid to say he sucked if he threw for 400 yards and 3 TDs.

 

Before I answer, do you say Dirk and Karl Malone just lost to the better team, or do you think of how they performed worse when their teams needed them the most? Do we cut David Robinson slack because Hakeem was a better player (he played great until the WCF)? Do we not love Hakeem because of how he always elevated his game, even against the best (isn't that what you expect your star to do...is this not why some say Montana is the best ever)?

My point is simple. If any other QB did what Manning did today, he would get killed. If there was another QB with the falloff from reg season play to playoff play, he would get killed (stats and record). You never even hear about how crappy Manning played when the Colts actually did win the SB (double the picks to TDs). I just don't like the doublestandard is all. We will quickly call Schuab a choker when he throws a pick 6 to put his team behind in a reg season game, but not Manning when he throws one to lose the SB.

 

Where does this Super Bowl rank in history?



I fell asleep in the fourth quarter and realized that the Saints were up by two scores.


That should tell you something.

 

The SB is more important than the conf finals, which is more important than the wild card, etc. The NBA Finals is more important than the conf finals, which is more important than the first round. Etc....

His play is much worse in the postseason. The dropoff is not minor. Even when they won it all.

So if Schuab threw for 400 and 3 tds, but had 2 crucial picks in scoring opportunity (one which really went for a pick 6 but they called a penalty), and had two chances to win the game but got stopped on 4th down twice, once in the red zone....would you really say he played well because he did get 400 yards and 3 tds?

I'm saying in the biggest moments I expect him to nut up like he did tonight. It's not like this is the first time this has happened for Manning in the postseason. He is the Karl Malone of football. The only difference is his team was able to actually win once despite his poor postseason play.

Edit: To give it more perspective, do folks typically not call Moon a choker (someone did in this very thread)? His playoff passer rating was 93.7 (1989), 94.9 and 118.4 (91/92), 103 (the buffalo game in 93) and 91.8 (the montana game in 94). Let me know when you find a lot of folks saying he got it done in those games....

 

Agreed on Sean Peyton becoming an instant legend in this one. Another Parcells disciple.

That clock management to end the first half was masterful. Didn't rush to use all of the timeouts because he didn't want to give Manning time if they got a first down. Most coaches in that situation would burn timeouts immediately and hope for a 3 and out. Peyton made is so that if they did get the ball back, it would be on a short field with a timeout or two in their pocket- and it worked out for a field goal.

I shudder to think of what Kubiak would've done in that situation. This is his worst area IMO. I could just see him taking timeouts on first and second down, then the Colts converting and having a minute and a half to march down the field for at least a field goal.

 

BFD. I never understood score "predictions." It's one thing to discuss the spread or margin of victory, but picking random numbers is...picking random numbers.