To me Peyton is not out of the woods yet. I think he has to win this game for his playoff legacy to be secure. If he makes a timely turnover or pick in the 4th quarter or something that costs Denver the game you know what the story line will be again. Just win Peyton and shut all the critics up.
San Diego and New England both completely failed to hit Peyton. If you don't lay a finger on Peyton, you're dead. The Colts were able to beat the Broncos in October because they got to Peyton and Mathis hit him. Obviously it's easier said than done, but I think that Seattle will certainly make things much more difficult for Peyton than San Diego and New England. Peyton could wear the same 18 uni that he wore against the Pats on Sunday. I don't think there was a spec of dirt on it.
Well he never was out of the woods to begin with it only appears that way because Sherman has taken the spotlight from Manning for the postgame.
Again? This narrative was never over to begin with and he's already won an SB go figure. And even if the Broncos win they will find something else he has to do in order to prove to the world he's a good QB.
Because apparently the past decade and a half wasn't proof enough.
I agree. There is a big difference between one Super Bowl title and two Super Bowl titles. A lot of quarterbacks have won one Super Bowl, but only a handful have won multiple rings. Peyton will be in an elite class if he seals the deal in the Meadowlands. Most importantly, he will have unquestionably pulled off the greatest quarterback season in NFL history. Add that to the fact that he is coming back from an extremely severe injury that left even him in doubt about his future, and it will make one hell of a story.
The ring seven years ago means that he will always be a champion and you can never take that away from him. But to win another one at his age in a season where he put up these beyond obscene numbers, and it will be enough for quite a few people to consider him the GOAT.
Well ESPN is ridiculous so that makes sense. This "can he win the big one" narrative has been outdated for years or should've been but not for Manning apparently. That's what I don't get I mean he's going to play in his 3rd SB there are great QBs who never even played in one let alone win but apparently he can't get it done in big games go figure.
And winning this game won't proclaim him the fabled GOAT discussion because he would only have 2 rings... they'll make up some other narrative of how he has to win 3 to even breathe the same air as the other possible "GOAT" QBs.
The only thing they can't dispel if he wins on Super Bowl Sunday is that he would be the first QB to lead two different teams to win an SB.
Winning two also removes the whole Eli has more argument. I wonder where he'd fall on the oldest list.
It's just really impressive to think the debate on whether or not he's the GOAT has been going on for 10 years with Peyton adding arguments to each side throughout.
Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.
A win would also set two other records for Peyton that will most likely stand the test of time. He would be the first QB to start and win a Super Bowl with two different teams, and he will have gone the longest time between Super Bowl wins.
No that would be Ray Lewis 12 years 2000 and 2012
You **** up once, you lose two teeth
I think it will very much depend on who is talking. There are quite a few media types who still hold a generally negative world view of everything Manning. They will still point to his .500ish playoff record, one & dones etc. and say that Brady, Montana and their additional SB wins and general clutchness trumps any edge Manning has established statitically or in the regular season.
If pressed I would probably call Manning the GOAT simply because most of those Colt teams he led were pretty flawed. He elevated them above their actual station in a way the Brady's & Montana's rarely had to do.
The one glaring exception to this logic and in my mind Manning's one great failure is the 2005 team that lost at home in the divisional round to the Steelers. That team was very well balanced and easily the best in the league.
^^ Really ?? C'mon Reg.
I think he raises a valid point I mean remember Bart Scott's interview after the Jets upset the Pats in Foxboro a few years back talking about how he can't wait, how the Pats D couldn't stop a nosebleed.
I don't recall a lot of outrage there and Sal Pal was there handling it effectively at least compared to Erin Andrews.
Or how about when Namath was drunk wanting to kiss Suzy Kolber but she handled that like a pro as well.
Richard Sherman does this with Erin Andrews and some people are quick to label him a thug(despite having no off the field issues) and using the n-word.
I mean its one thing to think he's a jerk but the racist remarks towards him said more about them than they did about Sherman.
So - what does Andrews being the 'reporter' have to do with it ??
(Quotes used because - well - she ain't one, but I digress ...............)
Well I agree I don't find Sideline Barbie impressive from a reporting standpoint and how she handled it played a role into how it was perceived.
Big black scary dude yellin at the TV with a white woman who looked taken aback by the whole thing standing next to him.
That's what Reggie is stating here.
Pam Oliver wouldn't have reacted that way and if she did it wouldn't have mattered because well she's black and there's not going to be anyone that will act "overprotective" with her.
Richard Sherman was an aggressive, loud mouth, egotistic idiot and Erin Andrews was the bad guy for being caught off-guard? Really? I think most reporters would have been caught off guard there. I thought he was going to start swearing on air. They were smart to cut away immediately.
I don't think anyone believes Erin is the bad guy here I do think she was out of her element but I thought that about her before this took place.
Lack of class does not have a skin color associated with it.
I understand that some used the word "thug" and it has, for some who say it, some racist connections.
I also understand the issues of the heat-of-the-moment on-field interview. But he was still a classless turd 45 minutes later.
Some have made way too much of it, but I still think it was pretty embarrassing, the screaming, the self-promotion, the disrespect, the me-first attitude in a team sport.
Sure he may be intelligent, but it's not too much to expect players to not act like that until PR people give them a talking to, days later
The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)
Reggie Miller is an idiot.