NFL playoff thread

[YGBFKM]

LTL claims that he played poorly in all three games. Manning completed 22 of 38 passes for 290 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions in the playoff loss to Pittsburgh. He would be remembered for leading the team on a great comeback if Mike Vanderjagt hadn't choked on the tying field goal attempt in the final seconds.

And this is the mistake of looking at the stat sheet and not remembering the game. Manning was terrible for the first three quarters as the Steelers went ahead 21-3. He threw nothing but incomplete passes on his first two drives, as the Steelers took a 14-0 lead, and he was jumpy all day. And then they got the ball back in the fourth quarter with a chance to take the lead and he took two sacks, and then they got it back after the Bus' fumble and he threw two incomplete passes to leave Vanderjagt going for the 46-yarder. Be comforted by the stat line if you like, but he was not good in that game.

What do the kids call this, PWNED?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed... I'm not on here a ton during the weekend...

I was talking to a friend who is a Packers fan yesterday and he was bitching about how their defense broke down against the Niners. My contention was that Kaepernick's performance was an all-timer, one of those performances we'll still be talking about 20 years from now and it wasn't that the Packers defense was that bad, but Kaepernick was that good...

A little of both. Generally I agree that it was an all-timer. But the Packers fans can still be upset about the team's refusal to mantain any semblence of inside-contain when they rushed on third downs.

I thought the fake on the 56-yard touchdown was one of the better executed plays I've seen in awhile... The Packers have been pretty mediocre against the run for most of this season, but it says a lot that well before halftime, Kaepernick had the playoff rushing record for a QB. I think everybody knew he was athletic, but I didn't know he was capable of a game like that, and I've watched every Niners game but one this season (I missed the Rams tie).

It certainly doesn't hurt having an offensive line like the Niners have.

 

[slc10]

It was mainly John Fox who cost the Broncos the game on Saturday. His playcalling was abysmal. He didn't have Tim Tebow or Jake "I am a Cajun who needs to stay at" Delhomme as QB but one of the best in history. Elway brought him in to get to New Orleans. Fox got way past conservative and they went double overtime.

 

[outofplace]

LTL claims that he played poorly in all three games. Manning completed 22 of 38 passes for 290 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions in the playoff loss to Pittsburgh. He would be remembered for leading the team on a great comeback if Mike Vanderjagt hadn't choked on the tying field goal attempt in the final seconds.

And this is the mistake of looking at the stat sheet and not remembering the game. Manning was terrible for the first three quarters as the Steelers went ahead 21-3. He threw nothing but incomplete passes on his first two drives, as the Steelers took a 14-0 lead, and he was jumpy all day. And then they got the ball back in the fourth quarter with a chance to take the lead and he took two sacks, and then they got it back after the Bus' fumble and he threw two incomplete passes to leave Vanderjagt going for the 46-yarder. Be comforted by the stat line if you like, but he was not good in that game.

Speaking of failing to remember the game properly, blaming him for those two sacks proves that you don't. Joey Porter came untouched from Manning's blind side on both. Manning had absolutely no chance on either play. That was the game that Manning was criticized for throwing his offensive line under the bus. I remember hearing the comments and thinking Manning shouldn't have said anything, but he wasn't wrong.

Regarding those incomplete passes, one of them he had Reggie Wayne one-on-one deep against Bryant McFadden, then a rookie cornerback playing in the nickle package. He took the shot, which was the right read. Bryant just happened to make a good play on the ball.

You bring up the 46-yarder as if that was outside of Vanderjagt's range. At the time, he was one of the elite kickers in the game and he hadn't missed in the dome all season. That's a kick he should make.

 

[LongTimeListener]

True.

Also true that Peyton Manning did not have a good game.

That Colts team started 13-0. It's fair to say they didn't live up to expectations. And the quarterback playing poorly was a leading driver of that failure.

 

[BTExpress]

It's an indication -- not a factual declaration but a pretty strong suggestion -- that he had the deck stacked in his favor those games and let them get away.

All I ask is that people be honest with themselves and admit WE FAILED instead of always projecting their failures:

"We expected you to run roughshod over those teams . . . you failed to do so . . . therefore, you failed."

Perhaps a better way of looking at the Steelers-Colts playoff game in 2005 is like this:

"WE FAILED going into the game to see the Steelers as a serious playoff threat. WE FAILED to see their 5-game winning streak entering the game as having any significance. Likewise, WE FAILED to see the Colts' 3-game losing streak coming into the game --- and the fact that they had gone more than a month without a victory --- as perhaps an omen that an upset was possible, if not probable. WE FAILED to see that an offensive line that let their QB be sacked only 17 times all season would be steamrolled by Pittsburgh and let the Steelers sack the QB 5 times and be in his face all day, this playing a major role in his sub-par performance. WE FAILED in just about every analytical dissection of this game and allowed the Colts to go into that game as ridiculous 9.5-point favorites against a team that would wind up winning Super Bowls that season and again two years later."

Isn't that a little more fair than the usual "X's team lost = X choked" nonsense that passes for analysis around here?

 

[outofplace]

LTL claims that he played poorly in all three games. Manning completed 22 of 38 passes for 290 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions in the playoff loss to Pittsburgh. He would be remembered for leading the team on a great comeback if Mike Vanderjagt hadn't choked on the tying field goal attempt in the final seconds.

And this is the mistake of looking at the stat sheet and not remembering the game. Manning was terrible for the first three quarters as the Steelers went ahead 21-3. He threw nothing but incomplete passes on his first two drives, as the Steelers took a 14-0 lead, and he was jumpy all day. And then they got the ball back in the fourth quarter with a chance to take the lead and he took two sacks, and then they got it back after the Bus' fumble and he threw two incomplete passes to leave Vanderjagt going for the 46-yarder. Be comforted by the stat line if you like, but he was not good in that game.

What do the kids call this, PWNED?

Note that I just easily countered most of his post. So no, I don't think that's what the kids mean by PWNED.

In other words, wrong again, Alphabet boy.

 

[YGBFKM]

The "WE" is a collective group whose membership has changed over time. But there remains one constant.

 

[LongTimeListener]

It's an indication -- not a factual declaration but a pretty strong suggestion -- that he had the deck stacked in his favor those games and let them get away.

All I ask is that people be honest with themselves and admit WE FAILED instead of always projecting their failures:

"We expected you to run roughshod over those teams . . . you failed to do so . . . therefore, you failed."

Perhaps a better way of looking at the Steelers-Colts playoff game in 2005 is like this:

"WE FAILED going into the game to see the Steelers as a serious playoff threat. WE FAILED to see their 5-game winning streak entering the game as having any significance. Likewise, WE FAILED to see the Colts' 3-game losing streak coming into the game --- and the fact that they had gone more than a month without a victory --- as perhaps an omen that an upset was possible, if not probable. WE FAILED to see that an offensive line that let their QB be sacked only 17 times all season would be steamrolled by Pittsburgh and let the Steelers sack the QB 5 times and be in his face all day, this playing a major role in his sub-par performance. WE FAILED in just about every analytical dissection of this game and allowed the Colts to go into that game as ridiculous 9.5-point favorites against a team that would wind up winning Super Bowls that season and again two years later."

Isn't that a little more fair than the usual "X's team lost = X choked" nonsense that passes for analysis around here?

If that were the only time it happened, maybe.

Three times they lose at home when favored by 9-9.5 points ... what did we fail to see this time, that the Ravens' late-season swoon and letting the Broncos plow over them last month was just a rope-a-dope?

EDIT: Also it was a one-game losing streak. The last two games were Bill Polian having his starters put their thumbs up their asses. You're in full-on excuse-making mode if you're going with "three-game losing streak." That was a historic team that had the '72 Dolphins nervous.

 

[outofplace]

True.

Also true that Peyton Manning did not have a good game.

That Colts team started 13-0. It's fair to say they didn't live up to expectations. And the quarterback playing poorly was a leading driver of that failure.

The defense didn't show up for the first quarter. That kinda hurt, too.

Manning didn't play nearly as poorly as you suggest. As I already demonstrated, your memory of the game beyond the stat sheet isn't nearly as good as you thought it was.

 

[LongTimeListener]

You demonstrated nothing, but getting into a fight with you is the lowest form of civilized communication, so ... bygones.

 

[BTExpress]

Three times they lose at home when favored by 9-9.5 points ... what did we fail to see this time, that the Ravens' late-season swoon and letting the Broncos plow over them last month was just a rope-a-dope?

You failed to see a 70-yard TD reception with 30 seconds left that, statistically, has about an 0.5% chance of succeeding. Nothing wrong with not seeing that . . . but those are the "Hail Flutie" types of things that change games and reputations.

With 40 seconds left in the game, if you play it out statistically 100 times, the Broncos come away with a 7-point win 99 times. Not too off the mark from expectations.

EDIT: Also it was a one-game losing streak. The last two games were Bill Polian having his starters put their thumbs up their asses. You're in full-on excuse-making mode if you're going with "three-game losing streak." That was a historic team that had the '72 Dolphins nervous.

Correct. And WE FAILED to see that the 9.5-point favorites came into that game with about as much momentum as a dead snail. Hadn't played competitive NFL football in a month.

It's funny . . . stories you see this week talk about how the 49ers are peaking at the right time, yada, yada, yada. The 2005 Colts came into the Steelers game as the 180-degree opposite of that . . . but WE FAILED to read it as having any significance.