The Once and Future Colt: Slinging It
In his third game as a Bronco, Peyton Manning started looking like his former, blue-and-white self. His final stat line that was good, not great: 26/52 for 330 yards, with 2 TD's and zero INT's. But for those of us who think he's the GOAT, and hope to see him solidify that claim with continued success, there were plenty of positive signs to take away from the loss to the Texans.
To my eyes, he's looking better every week. Especially in the second half, running no-huddle and pass-happy after the Texans took an early lead, he was slinging the ball around the field. He seemed to have plenty of velocity getting to their targets -- so much for the "noodle arm" diagnosis. Whatever the cause of last week's run of interceptions, this week his throws were on time and on target. (Several bad drops by his receivers didn't help his stats any; I'm guessing Demaryus Thomas is already reminding him of Pierre Garçon.)
Like during his years with the Colts, Manning moved around in the pocket under a lot of pressure, showing off that sneaky mobility and uncanny awareness of the pass rush. (It's crazy to watch Luck do this, too, in his third NFL game. There are moments where it's easy to forget that #18 isn't our QB anymore.) For a guy who was supposedly "one hit away" from a career ending injury, he took several hard hits and got back up firing. From the shotgun with a single back, he audibled to a draw play when the defense showed him a vulnerable look, alternating it with a play action of the same run that was beautiful in it's execution -- just like the good old days. There were several familiar looking plays and route combinations, and his chemistry with Brandon Stokely seems undiminished. Hearing the announcer call out a Manning to Stokely reception triggers little jolts of nostalgia for the 2003-06 era.
Why the Broncos aren't running Manning's patented no-huddle the entire game is baffling, especially playing at home. It seems like they could wear out a defense in the first half and then just roll on them. Granted, it takes more than a few months to turn a jury-rigged freight train into a "genetically encoded starship". But his new O-line seems to be getting used to him changing plays at the line, and his receivers seem to be making the right reads. Hopefully it's just a matter of time. Maybe the coaches are waiting for all the intricacies to look solid in practice, and only roll it out now in desperate circumstances. Whatever the reason, it feels like they're leaving the Ferrari in the garage and riding around town in the minivan. Why pay top dollar for one of the best QB's ever if you're not going to let him do what he does best?
On a related note, during the Colts game the announcers made a big deal of the unique silence at the Luke during Indy's offensive drives -- one of many lingering bits of the Manning legacy. The crowd in Denver needs to learn how to shut up and let him do his thing. "Wide… Omaha… Omaha… hut!"
Watch quietly, people. You're witnessing history.
Bill Barnwell is my favorite NFL writer. Here's his view on Manning:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/38624/4th-and-short-a-tale-of-two-quarterbacks
He used actual evidence in his analysis, while I used gut reactions and unbridled loyalty. But interestingly, we arrived at a similar conclusion:
"Peyton Manning isn't the same guy he used to be, but the idea that he can't throw the ball is absurd."
@pierrezombie You know, I was actually predisposed to hate Bill Barnwell the first time I found out about him through his anti-Colt article last year, saying that the Colts would have sucked even if Peyton was there. I didn't think it was delusional at all to believe that they could have had another good season last year with Peyton considering that in 2010 they were really as injured as they'd ever been and still only lost two games that weren't decided by one score. Then there was some article this year where he mentioned that Peyton's 02-09 was the greatest stretch by a QB ever and all of a sudden he was alright by me :P.
Anyway, yeah, that article seemed spot on. Can't wait for that post-bye stretch. The interesting thing will be whether he'd still make that mythical "Top 5 QBs ranking". Really annoying how many elite QBs there are anymore, though some of that may have been inflated from last year's ginormous passing aberration.
@Fondue That's weird -- I don't remember him writing that about last year's Colts. In fact, I thought he'd made a strong case for the idea that Peyton was worth 6-8 wins by himself, and that accounted for how bad the team was without him, back when every pundit on earth refused to believe that "just one player" could be worth more that 3-4 wins. But I might be completely misremembering all of that -- I should go look it up.
He's written some skeptical things about the Colts, for sure, but I never feel like he has an agenda; the times where his stats don't clearly back up his analysis, in my opinion, are few and far between. And even better, because Grantland is essentially a Bill Simmons' production, Barnwell's fair treatment of the Colts seems quite principled. Even as a guest on Simmons' BS Report podcast, Barnwell hasn't held back on praising Peyton, or countering his boss's faith that Brady is The One.
@pierrezombie Ah, fair enough. I probably just got pissed because I saw him making the same arguments that I'd seen coming from a lot of explicitly anti-Peyton guys on forums and didn't finish it. For what it's worth, though, I think that a replacement-level QB would have gotten the Colts 6 or so wins.
Good call on the draft analysis. We've been spoiled here.
@Fondue Oh yeah -- I remember that one now. Here's the funny/sad part: that is _both_ of the articles I thought I was remembering earlier! Doh. I claim stupidity by virtue of football grief; that was December 16th, when they were still yet to win a game for the season.
Reading that article, I'm not sure why I thought Barnwell had said Manning was worth more wins; maybe he followed that up after they'd won the next 2 games with a different estimate? I dunno; I'm not trying to defend him.
One thing that jumps out at the end there, "The Colts weren't an elite team before Peyton Manning got injured; they were a middling team propped up by the greatest quarterback in league history." It's hard to read the part about "a middling team", but in retrospect it's probably pretty accurate -- despite the other great players remaining on the roster, as a whole they probably were "middling" -- average, run of the mill. But note that he didn't say "one of the greatest" QB's; he said "the greatest"; i.e. the GOAT. Maybe that's the part that stuck with me. I'm pretty sure he gave Simmons the business about that on one of last year's podcasts. (But as I've just proven, don't take anything on my vague memory of it!)
Also, his draft analysis is good if you follow the assumptions he used in marking a drop off after 2006. It's hard to smile at a list that includes the names Ugoh, Gonzales, Pollack, Brown and Hughes... but he ignored the key factor of draft position -- that not all #1 picks are the same -- as was talked about here so much last year with regards to the Polian legacy. If he'd done a weighted comparison including where in the first round those players were picked, I think it'd have undercut his thesis a lot, and perhaps even changed his opinion on how much better they might have been with Peyton last year.
@pierrezombie Good to see SOMEONE stand up to Simmons' unsubstantiated BS. I need to start listening to those podcasts!
Here's the article. Barnwell predicted 6-7 wins for a Manning-led 2011 Colts. I never thought he had an agenda, but this was the first article of his I read and it was on a Simmons-produced site so I had my reasons for being a little bit skeptical at first. Pretty sure CA commented on it.
1 Like
I think what I would really need to come to grips with is if Peyton somehow managed to win multiple rings in Denver. Seems like if he wins just one he would still be "ours" in all the history books, but two? I don't think I could bear sharing a significant portion of his legacy :/
1 Like
I think you're onto something here -- I think that lingering fear of losing what he meant to us here helps why a big part of the Colts' fanbase is so ready to just let him go.
And I agree, to the extent that it'd be really hard to watch him enter the HOF as a Bronco. Especially if he were to win, say, two rings there like Elway did, with a really strong roster around him as his own contributions diminish. Of course, that'd be poetic like crazy, but to have him surpass his Indy legacy in that way would be somehow worse than if he just blows the doors off the place for the next few years and is somehow even better than he ever was as a Colt.
But I also disagree somewhat, in that I think another SB win at the end of his career locks up Peyton's status as the GOAT for all but the most stubborn haters (B.S., et al.) Thirty years from now, would you rather have him remembered as the greatest Colts QB ever, or simply the greatest QB ever?
1 Like
@pierrezombie Yeah, at the end of the day, if some benevolent cosmic force asked me if I'd rather Peyton won 1 or multiple rings in Denver (assuming the Colts couldn't win those years), I'd go with multiple, but it'd definitely be bittersweet. I guess I keep rationalizing that with one ring, I can have my cake and eat it too. He'd be up there with Unitas, Brady, and Montana as a force that has to be acknowledged in any GOAT discussion; no matter what he has a STRONG argument, while still being remembered first and foremost as a Colt. Two more would put him in Montana territory, though his legacy is just so strong (look at those numbers in his SB runs) that Peyton would have to play lights out in all those games he'd hypothetically win AND break all of Favre's records to remove all doubt. But he'd also be at least 50% remembered as a Bronco, whether it should be that way or not. Still gotta root for that outcome, but like I said, bittersweet.
1 Like
@Fondue So going back to the odds question, let's just go ahead and root for him to win it all (any time the Colts aren't in contention), and in the almost impossible case that he really wins 2+ more, we'll deal with the bittersweetness when it happens. Yeah?
Assuming they can consistently get the offense humming like it did in the second halves of Pittsburgh and Houston, and with this defense, what do you think Denver's odds are at a Super Bowl in the next 2-3 years?
Man, it's so hard to even guess. I'm going to say Manning's Broncos win one Super Bowl, but how much of that is based on reason and how much on pure hope is impossible for me to untangle.
Let's say this year is out -- Manning is still recovering and they need time to gel on offense, so it runs more like the Indy system and can exploit the no huddle to full effect. (Also, Tebow left them a parting gift of a brutal schedule.)
Let's say Manning plays three seasons before retiring, including this one. I think they could easily win the AFC West each of those years, and have a good chance to get a first round bye in years 2 and 3. Several of the traditional AFC powerhouses are struggling and perhaps fading.
After that… we almost have to toss it up to Nate Dunlevy's theory that the playoffs are essentially random. Does a playoff bye one year and, say, a #4 seed another year turn into a SB win? Impossible to say.
After living through Vanderjagdt's wide right, Nick Harper getting stabbed in the knee, and the combination of Freeney's ankle and Hank Fucking Baskett, anything's possible, right? I mean, run the Colts' Manning era through a simulator and we probably come away with 3-4 Lombardi's instead of just one…
@pierrezombie Jeez, I know. That's the damnedest thing. People are either too stupid or too uncomfortable with deviating from the traditional narrative to admit the sheer randomness of it all. Call it football existentialism, but I just can't accept the notion that the amount of rings one has is directly proportional to QB performance. People keep swallowing this bullsh!t about taking Eli over Peyton because "he gives them a better chance", it's ludicrous. Hopefully karma can send Peyton out with another 'ship and all this nonsense can finally end.
@Fondue Preach it, brother Fondue! The choir loves a good sermon, even if they already know it by heart. I'm happy to shoot the shit about the Old Era Colts any time.
1 Like
@pierrezombie @Fondue I'd say that it's certainly more likely that a team with a great quarterback is more likely to win a Super Bowl, but the buck stops there. As you've implied before, SO much happens due to chance. We switch Vanderjagt's Steelers game and Vinatieri's 01 postseason and Brady vs. Manning probably isn't so lopsided in the eyes of the press and casual fans, and that result would not have involved either QB playing any differently. In fact, with so many one possession games that went Brady's way during his SB runs, one wrong play by ANY bit role player could have just as easily landed him with zero rings, and lord knows he didn't exactly light the world on fire in most of those games he won (04 postseason excluded). I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but sheesh, gotta vent somewhere, ya know?
@Fondue I think it's fair to say that rings and QB quality are linked, but not tightly or exclusively.
There's no way Eli is "better" than Peyton -- all things considered -- or that Bradshaw was better than Marino. But on the other hand, guys like Montana and {gah!} Brady were/are pretty damn great.
