Originally Posted By: Longneck
Originally Posted By: goombah


You're a huge Indy homer, so you are completely splitting hairs about the points. The real debate is what QB do you want when your team is down by a TD or less. That answer for non-Indy fans is Brady. You threw out that Brady was picked off in the Super Bowl against the Giants - I simply forgot, but that just proves Brady is not Superman. That INT vs. Indy last year was the result of his entire team blowing the huge lead and having to throw into a prevent defense with little time on the clock. You're conveniently forgetting the choke job efforts Manning had vs. Pittsburgh in 2006 and his poor playoff game performances vs. the Pats (save the 2007 AFC Championship Game), let alone his horrific showing against the Jets in 2002.

You're taking this personally b/c you like Manning and the Colts. I do too. But the vast majority of non-partisan observers would take Brady over Manning with the game on the line and his team down by 7 or fewer points. You may hate Brady & NE, but the reality is he's the most clutch QB in the NFL of the past 10 years. His 1st Super Bowl was very similar to the matchup of NE - NYG: NE was given no chance against the high scoring Rams and he calmly lead his team for the winning drive in his first Super Bowl with less than 2:00 in his first year starting in the NFL. That is impressive. And that's coming from a fan who was vehemently rooting against the Pats, particularly this past year.



I do love the Colts, but this isn't personal, just business. wink I am using stats and critical thinking to try to prove my points rather than just emotions, so I don't know why you say I am taking it personally other than the fact that I happen to be a Colts fan.

Manning has a reputation for not being very clutch but it's based on only a few games.

The Pittsburgh game you talk about Manning doing poorly in he completed 22 of 38 passes for 290 yards, 1 TD 0 INTs. You'd have a different opinion of him if Vanderjerk made the FG and the Colts won in overtime, but our kicker missed so they never had the chance. There were many missed opportunities in that game for the Colts, and most of them weren't Manning's fault.

You can't lay the losses all on Manning and the wins all on Brady. A 42-0 loss in the playoffs means the defense did a pretty horrible job too.


That's fair - those losses weren't totally Manning's fault nor were the wins entirely Brady.

That Pittsburgh game though, the stats are misleading. Much of those numbers were padded when the Colts found themselves down 16-0, much of it due to Manning's ineffectiveness. I remember Manning looking uncomfortable and having horrible mechanics for much of that game. Plus his line could not handle the blitz. That game was, IMO, one of their worst losses ever. They had home field throughout the playoffs, were 14-2 in a year when Manning was amazing. Worst of all, that was a home game against a 6th seed. Granted the Steelers got hot at the right point in the season, but they should have been blown out by the Colts in that situation. They would have never even been in position for Vandy's miss had Cowher not made one of the dumbest calls in playoff history - that fumbled Bettis goal-line handoff instead of kneeling down and waiting for the FG attempt to effectively put the game out of reach.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I would take Manning on my team in a heartbeat. He's a first-ballot HOFer. But I don't think there is any argument that Manning has been blessed with far greater skill players throughout his career than just the one season Brady enjoyed in 2007. Manning had Edge & then Addai, along with Harrison & Wayne. Until 2007, Brady never had a stud, All-Pro WR and the best RB he had was Corey Dillon, who was definitely on the downside of his career. I don't think much of Maroney and the rest of his backs from previous Super Bowl seasons were all by committee.