Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

    I saw on the NFL network where questions about Manning's arm were popping up... besides the INTs they were pointing at taking a knee in regulation with TO's in his pocket and deep throws...
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I saw on the NFL network where questions about Manning's arm were popping up... besides the INTs they were pointing at taking a knee in regulation with TO's in his pocket and deep throws...

      I remember a short sideline pass to Stokley in the fourth quarter that was pitifully low. Stokley had to practically get on his knees to catch it. The ball was dead.
      Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-14-2013, 08:44 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Barely lagging behind two guys that get pretty much all the attention as the best two postseason QBs of all time, confirms Peyton's postseason struggles?

        I think it confirms that Peyton's performance isn't the driving force of why the Colts struggled for so many years. Any QB not named Brady or Montana would love to have those statistics.

        EDIT: I think Peyton is the GOAT, but I understand why people think otherwise. I just think when you look at the entire body of work each player has given, and not over-inflate team success, Peyton gets the edge. I don't think if you swapped out Brady for Manning that what happened in the post season would flip as well.
        It's easy for the stats to get skewed a bit. Peyton has "only" played 20 playoff games, so it doesn't take much to skew the stats. For example, 9 of Peyton's 32 postseason touchdowns (28%) came in the two beat downs against Denver in 03 and 04. He has made the playoffs 12 times, yet almost 30% of his post season touchdowns came in two games.

        Peyton is a top 5 all time QB, but the postseason resume' prevents him from being the best ever, IMHO. Aside from the miraculous run six years ago, his post season career has been defined by missed opportunities and a bunch of "what could have been" moments. Our defense let Pitt get out to a hot 14-0 start in the first quarter seven years ago, but they only allowed 7 points after that. Our offense scored just 3 points throughout the first three quarters. And that's when we had Edgerrin James, so the running game cannot be blamed there. It was Manning who didn't hand the ball off enough to Edge while forcing throws. That was the best team of the Manning era and we just didn't get the job done. Then you have the two miserable showings in Foxboro, the 41-0 beatdown at the Meadowlands, the back to back losses against San Diego, the pick six against the Saints while not scoring a single point after the 6 minute mark in the third quarter, and the costly pick on Saturday.

        There have been too many offensive letdowns for Manning to be absolved of a sizable chunk of the blame. You can't blame eight one and dones and five home losses on poorly constructed teams when those teams were dominant in the regular season. That's not to say that the teams didn't have flaws, but Manning deserves blame for the numerous instances where the offense didn't play up to par in games where the defense played well enough to still win. I just don't think Manning can get all of the accolades for his team's success in the regular season while being absolved the blame for the 9-11 playoff record. The 9-11 playoff record and 8 one and dones are just as much a part of his legacy as all of the regular season wins.

        It's painful to admit, but I don't see any area where Peyton edges Brady except for regular season MVP's. Manning also obviously has better career totals because he had a three year head start on Brady. Brady has the five Super Bowl appearances, three championships, two league MVPs, two Super Bowl MVPS, and from 2007 onward he has been an absolute statistical freak. He had the 50 TD season in 07, missed 08, had a solid bounce back campaign in 09, and has been a beast the past three seasons. Brady has had the better career, IMO.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-14-2013, 11:02 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          They beat them this year and were a Lee Evans drop away from beating them in the AFC Championship game last year.
          I hate to nitpick but it's mystifying to me why almost everyone calls this a "drop".

          Sterling Moore made very few good plays in his career, so the best one should not be ignored



          Sports science even broke it down:

          "Moore hit it out of Evans' hands less than a third of a second after Evans hauled it in. His slap generated just 50 pounds of force (about as much as a clap of the hands)...By using his hand like the blade of an ax splitting wood, Moore applies a concentrated force to the edge of the ball. This torque causes an initial rotation of fewer than 90 degrees, but that's enough to spin the ball off of Evans' forearm and out of his grasp.

          Our analysis reveals that when Evans' second foot makes contact with the ground, evidenced by the changing shape of his shoe, the ball has already been knocked loose. So in fact, it was not a catch. The officials got it right."
          http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...ores-slap-away
          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!).

          Comment


          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

            I think "drop" gets loosely used when a receiver fails to hold on to the ball. I wasn't implying that the officials got the call wrong or anything like that. Moore made a great play, but Evans has to secure the ball in that scenario.

            He had time to secure the ball. A better receiver keeps possession of it and gets the touchdown. This angle shows there was time for him quickly secure it before Moore slapped it. He starts taking steps, yet doesn't tightly secure the ball as he should. It's certainly not an easy play, but it's the type that you're expected to make as an NFL receiver.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-GrnnPVM#t=28s

            Comment


            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

              No matter how good Peyton is, and no matter how many times we make excuses for his playoff losses, at some point you have to start looking for the common denominator in all of those losses.

              I'll be the first to admit it's way easier to think this way now that he's not the QB of my favorite team.

              Comment


              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I'll throw Player C in the mix as well.

                460 completions, 734 attempts, 5772yds, 38tds, 21INTS

                20/36.7 for 62.27%, 250.96yds, 1.65tds 0.91INTs per playoff game.

                I concede that Players A and C have better stats, but A&C are known as two of the best (if not the best two) playoff QBs of all time. While Player B is known as someone that chokes in the playoffs. Is the difference between the stats really that significant to think that Player B's team playoff struggles fall on his shoulders, while all the rings between A&C are because they're just so good?

                A - Tom Brady
                B - Peyton Manning
                C - Joe Montana
                QB's job is to win the game not merely put up stats. Manning is the greatest all-time stat monger the game has ever seen. He will always get his stats no matter what the game looks like. But to suggest he is in the same league as Montana and Brady when it comes to the playoffs is insane. They have 7 SB title's between them while Manning has only 1 (and pretty much stunk up the place during that playoff run). You play to win the game - not put up stats

                Comment


                • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  It's easy for the stats to get skewed a bit. Peyton has "only" played 20 playoff games, so it doesn't take much to skew the stats.
                  Tom Brady "only" has 23. So did Montana.

                  They're that close in the number of games, even with Peyton's eight one and dones, because Brady and Montana both have some, and they also have missed the postseason, while they were completely healthy.
                  Last edited by Since86; 01-15-2013, 10:41 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                    Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                    QB's job is to win the game not merely put up stats. Manning is the greatest all-time stat monger the game has ever seen. He will always get his stats no matter what the game looks like. But to suggest he is in the same league as Montana and Brady when it comes to the playoffs is insane. They have 7 SB title's between them while Manning has only 1 (and pretty much stunk up the place during that playoff run). You play to win the game - not put up stats
                    Pretty hard to win the game with crappy stats. You've got to handle your business on the field with stats, before you can hope to win. It's such an easy cop out.

                    There are 21 other starters out there, not including special teams. And whether or not those 21 guys win is completely dependent on just one other guy?


                    I'm not saying Peyton has outperformed Brady or Montana, I'm asking does the drop off between the two to Peyton really warrant calling them the best ever and him a choker?

                    Brady needed Adam V to win two of the three SB. They've not won since he left. History would be completely different if those two 40yd kicks would have missed. I know about the "if's" in there, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like Brady carried the Pats off into the sunset.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Pretty hard to win the game with crappy stats. You've got to handle your business on the field with stats, before you can hope to win. It's such an easy cop out.

                      There are 21 other starters out there, not including special teams. And whether or not those 21 guys win is completely dependent on just one other guy?


                      I'm not saying Peyton has outperformed Brady or Montana, I'm asking does the drop off between the two to Peyton really warrant calling them the best ever and him a choker?

                      Brady needed Adam V to win two of the three SB. They've not won since he left. History would be completely different if those two 40yd kicks would have missed. I know about the "if's" in there, but I'm just pointing out that it's not like Brady carried the Pats off into the sunset.
                      Peyton had better stats (minus the turnovers) than Flacco had but who made the crucial throws?
                      The crappy stats comment is just not accurate. How many times did Joe Montana have a bad game but come up big in the final minutes to win a game?
                      I dont think anyone can call Manning a choker. That is just too harsh. What he is not is a leader who inspires his team. A real leader would never have taken a knee with 30 seconds left in regulation and 2 timeouts. As John Unitas said: "You know you're a real leader when you tell the coach to go to hell." Brady, Montana, Unitas, or Elway would have at least tried to get their team in position to win that game. Why? Because they are real leaders and Manning is not.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Tom Brady "only" has 23. So did Montana.
                        Right. These are small enough samples that the overall stats can be skewed a bit. Like I said, almost 30% of Manning's post-season touchdowns came in the two Denver blowouts. When you're only looking at 20 or 23 games, all it takes is a few blowouts to really pump up someone's stats. I try to look at it on a game by game basis. I see an offense that underperformed year after year and a bunch of missed opportunities, aside from one magical run in early 2007. Peyton had one of the greatest halfs in the history of playoff football against the Pats and no one can ever take that away from him. But in other years, the offense routinely came up short and did not live up to its reputation. I don't think Manning can be absolved a sizable chunk of the blame for that, especially when he gets all of the credit for things going great in the regular season.

                        From a Kravitz column:

                        In Manning’s 10 playoff losses in Indy, the Colts averaged just 14.2 points per game.

                        http://blogs.indystar.com/kravitz/20...eyton-manning/

                        Comment


                        • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                          Sure it's accurate. It's not accurate 100% of the time, but you gave a general statement so I responded with one. You've got to perform in the game at some level to win.

                          If a guy is putting up stats, and his team isn't winning, then shouldn't the focus be on the problems of the team? Sounds like the player with the stats is doing their part.

                          Peyton's biggest problem is and always will be him forcing throws. It could very easily be argued that it's more of a symptom of having so much pressure on your shoulders to make up the difference from where your team is lacking in other areas. The INTs are his fault, no question about it, but it's not like he's averaging 3per game while Brady and Company are averaging none. I don't think a 0.18 difference is all that statistically significant.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            Right. These are small enough samples that the overall stats can be skewed a bit. Like I said, almost 30% of Manning's post-season touchdowns came in the two Denver blowouts.
                            And almost 30% of his INTs have came from two NE games. The skewing goes both ways, for all three players. They're all three dealing with the same issues, which is why I don't think pointing out the number of games means that much. Not saying it's wrong, just saying it's constant.

                            Again, I'm not saying that Peyton has performed better than those two. Clearly he hasn't. I'm saying does the difference in their play warrant the difference in opinion?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                              Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                              (and pretty much stunk up the place during that playoff run).
                              Eh? He was brilliant in the NE and Baltimore games. I think the Baltimore game was one of his best ever.
                              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Broncos/Manning 2012-2013 Season Thread

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                And almost 30% of his INTs have came from two NE games. The skewing goes both ways, for all three players. They're all three dealing with the same issues, which is why I don't think pointing out the number of games means that much. Not saying it's wrong, just saying it's constant.

                                Again, I'm not saying that Peyton has performed better than those two. Clearly he hasn't. I'm saying does the difference in their play warrant the difference in opinion?
                                I think it does. When you're ranking all time quarterbacks, every little detail matters. Virtually everyone agrees that Manning is a top 5 all time QB, or at the very worst top 7 or 8. But when you're ranking the top three or deciding who is the best ever, then post-season record is inevitably going to enter the discussion.

                                Let's compare Brady and Manning. I think their regular season successes are about even. Both have won a ton of games, both have won their division a billion times, and both have put up freakish stats. Brady from 2007-present has been putting up ridiculous statistics. Manning gets Brady on MVP's and obviously has higher career totals since he started playing three years earlier, but overall I think they are a wash in the regular season. Maybe slight edge to Manning since has played a bit longer and has the two extra MVPs.

                                The biggest difference between Brady and Manning is the playoff record. It's not necessarily the 11 losses that hurt Manning because anyone who is extremely successful for a long time and makes the playoffs every year is inevitably going to have postseason losses. You can't win the Super Bowl every year. What kills Manning are the eight one and dones and only nine wins in twelve postseason appearances. Four of those wins, almost half, occurred in one single postseason. Outside of the 06 miracle, Manning's postseason career has been filled with disappointment. Is it all his fault? Of course not. But as Kravitz said, the offense only averaged 14 points in his 10 Indy playoff losses. It's happened so many times that it really can't be ignored.

                                Brady only has two playoff home losses (compared to Manning's 5) and two one and dones. That's not to say that Brady is the sole reason for that, but who is the common denominator on the field for the Pats over the course of the last 12 years? It's Brady. He deserves a ton of credit for taking care of his home field in the playoffs.

                                The glaring difference between Manning and Brady in the playoff record is enough to tip the scales in Brady's favor since they are similar on most everything else, IMO.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-15-2013, 01:44 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X