Cold Hard Football Facts unveils their new site logo

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 19, 2006 12:16 PM EDT in News

Seriously, what is up with these guys?

It seems they have a serious blood oath against Peyton Manning. For folks that say they are the "emotionless arbiter of all things pigskin," these guys really seem to get pissed when a well-known pundit doesn't take any and every opportunity to bash Manning. Their latest hate fest against arguably the best QB on the planet comes in response to an article by John Clayton at ESPN, who in our eyes is the Yoda of Pro Football Guruness. Apparently, for the Patriots fans posing as objective fact finders at CHFF, Clayton doesn't do enough Manning bashing to satisfy their taste for blood. Clayton suffers from, in their own words, Spinal Manningitis:

Spinal Manningitis, a pigskin parasite that eats the backbone of "pundits," turning them into spineless frauds afraid to criticize the holiest name in football, Peyton Manning, or the almighty Indy offense. It then infects the cranial cavity, rendering once-cogent "pundits" little more than blind, blubbering idiots incapable of digesting data and unable to see the obvious.

The "obvious" in their minds is that Peyton Manning sucks, and their anger is in response to Clayton's assertion that Manning will benefit from the new rule that allows QBs to use their own footballs in games, rather than allowing the home team to handle the footballs. This rule was actually suggested by Patriots QB Tom Brady. Brady went to Manning with the idea (the two are good friends) and they both successfully lobbied the competition committee to install the rule this past Spring.

Now, while we at Stampede Blue admit Clayton's article is a bit oddly worded, it seems clear that Clayton suggests that Manning will really benefit from this new rule. Stampede Blue's assumption is that ALL QBs will benefit from this, including the guy that first suggested it: Tom Brady. The article does not suggest that the reason the Colts are 3-6 in playoffs the last 7 years is because of "wet footballs," which is the conclusion CHFF came to after reading Clayton's piece. I remember reading Clayton's article a while back, shrugging my shoulders, and continuing on with the rest of my life, which includes the following activities: cleaning up cat poop, deciding whether or not to cook or order out, installing new Energy Star ACs in my apartment, etc.

For the trolls at CHFF, Clayton's article was confirmation that the mainstream media does not do enough Peyton Manning bashing when, in their minds, it is so obvious that he sucks.

Spinal Manningitis causes the "pundits" to scramble to find every excuse in the book to explain the repeated postseason failings of a player who - by any statistical measure or fact-filled observance - is simply not a very good postseason player. No matter how terrible Manning and the Indy offense perform in the postseason, a victim of Spinal Manningitis will recruit an army of excuses to protect their State of Denial from an invasion by the Cold, Hard Football Facts.

Funny. For a group that so arrogantly states that they are just dealing with the facts, you'd think it would actually know the facts before making such a bold statement. Sadly, these posers are nothing more than Manning haters, desperately and pathetically spewing their hate. You have to wonder if Manning did something to these guys. Is Peyton blackmailing them with pictures of the CHFF staff with a donkey ala Bachelor Party?

We at Stampede Blue wonder.

As I've stated before, these guys are nothing more than Patriots fans that just hate the Colts but lack the brass balls to just come out and say what they are. Instead, like cowardly hacks, they put up a false facade of objectivity and pander to the anti-Manning establishment that resides in the black hole known to the rest of America as "New England." If Peyton Manning is, "by any statistical measure or fact-filled observance... not a very good postseason player," then it would help CHFF's cause if Manning did indeed have bad numbers in his playoff career. Unfortunately for CHFF, Manning's numbers in the post season are as follows:

Peyton Manning: He's completed 59.5% of his passes for 2,461 yards with 15 TDs and 8 INTs.
Manning's post season QB rating: 88.5

Just so you know, that's a very good post season QB rating, especially for a guy that hasn't played with a defense until the 2005 season. For the sake of comparison, here are some other QB post season stats:

Tom Brady: He's completed 61.3% of his passes for 2,493 yards with 15 TDs and 5 INTs.
Brady's post season QB rating: 89.4

Ben Roethlisberger: He's completed 60.5% of his passes for 1,210 yards with 10 TDs and 8 INTs.
Roethlisberger's post season QB rating: 86.8

As you can see, the cold hard facts don't seem to back up the claims supported by the folks at Cold Hard Football Facts. We at Stampede Blue suggest they remove their Patriot swelled heads from their collective behinds and actually have FACTS to back up their claims before they bash Mr. Manning or the Yoda of Football Guruness again.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have to admit I

to am a bit confused by the constant Manning bashing. Any mentioning of their playoff record is fair regardless of whos fault, that always falls to the QB and they all know this, but to discount what one does in the regular season seems short sighted.

If I am not mistaken Marino is one of the if not greatest passer of all time. I am pretty sure he doesn't have the best record in playoff games. I think he only made the SB once in his brilliant career.

by WCG on Jul 20, 2006 9:52 AM EDT 0 recs

No, Marino was criticized as well

Football greatness, unlike baseball greatness, is measured in championships, not stats. The more rings you have the better you are. I think it is somewhat unfair, but thats how the media perceives pro football players.

by Terry on Jul 20, 2006 10:01 AM EDT 0 recs

Um, no

Sorry Terry. Dan Marino is widely considered one of the best QBs ever to play: better than Bradshaw (4 rings), Plunkett (2 rings, I think), Young (1 ring), McMahon (1 ring), and yes Terry- better than Aikman (3 rings). The only guys he might play second fiddle to are Joe Montana and John Elway, but even those can be argued. Marino never had a defense or a running game throughout much of his career. Elway didn't either, until the last two years of his career when he won 2 SBs. Montana always played for great teams. That doesn't take anything away from Montana, but if Dan Marino had played for SF and Montana for Miami, the numbers would be switched: Marino 4 rings, Montana 0 rings.

Teams win football games, not QBs.

Dan Marino's greatness is really never questioned. Only football dorks and moron idiots that just hate him because he owned them, like Patriots fans. Marino was a first ballot HoFer, and his legacy is complete. Does he regret not having a ring? Sure he does, but that doesn't mean he holds his head low or that his career is tarnished. Marino is one of the best ever. There is no real debate there, especially when you ask football players that played with and against him.

BTW: I hated Dan Marino when he played. Hated his guts. When Jim Harbaugh and the 95 Colts won that big fourth quarter comeback against the Dolphins in Miami, I jumped up and screamed "Eat that Marino!" The reason there was such elation was for so long, Marino OWNED the Colts (and every other AFC East team).

I hated him because he was so damned good, the same reason I hated Elway and Montana. It's the same reason I hate Brady now.

And it's the reason why people bash Manning: because he's the best.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 20, 2006 10:18 AM EDT up 0 recs

Additional

Terry, you mentioned something that caught my attention, saying championships is what the media says makes greatness. I have a general rule of thumb when it comes to the media telling me what "greatness" is:

F**k the media.

Seriously, what does Stuart Scott or any other ESPN idiot know about greatness? The HoF guarantees greatness, no matter what the friggin' maintstream media thinks or says.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 20, 2006 10:30 AM EDT up 0 recs

I'm not saying Marino wasn't great

I consider him to be one of the all time greatest qb's ever. I'm saying he's looked upon in football circles as not being as great as Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, etc because he didn't win any championships. Like I said, its unfair because teams win the games like you said, I'm just talking in terms of perception, thats all.

And if Manning never wins a SB, he'll be looked upon like Marino and Brady will be looked upon like Montana. Thats just the way it is whether you think its fair or not.

by Terry on Jul 20, 2006 1:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why the knocks?

The knock that's justified is that Peyton's approach during the postseason has been different than the regular season. That's led many analysts to say he chokes in the postseason stats or not.

http://www.rotowire.com

by MadTownColtsFan on Jul 20, 2006 11:36 AM EDT 0 recs

IMO

The knocks aren't justified, especially due to the fact that Manning does NOT approach the post-season differently than the regular season. He prepares hard, practices hard, and plays hard in each and every game. Manning NEVER underestimates an opponent and is always up for any challenge.

That coupled with the fact that Manning does indeed perform well in the post-season just shows the knocks for what they are: baseless.

The Pittsburgh game is a classic example. His o-line is horrible. His defense surrenders 14 points in the first quarter. Yet, despite all this, with 7 minutes in the game, Manning gets the team right back in the game. He throws for 300 yards, 1 TD, and HUGE 1 two pnt conversion despite getting sacked 5 times and pressured on every throw throughout the game. It was a gutty effort.

Yet, in the end, he gets blamed for the loss by the general media.

Oh, and welcome to Stampede Blue, MadTown! :)

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 20, 2006 1:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

Peyton Different in Postseason

Glad I found the site. The analysis is top notch. You do a great job finding the smaller news items. But I think you are a little biases in your devotion to Peyton. He's not the choker the media makes him out to be. But he's not the "playing the usual game and unlucky" guy you defend him as either. He treated the Pittsburgh game much differently than regular season games. Three specific examples:

Early in the game Manning checked out of running plays frequently and then chose long passes despite the threat of a blitz. All season long he handled this perfectly by sticking with the run and/or having a quick outlet for the pass. It looked like he just was thinking too much on these plays. The one series they did stick with Edge, they had their best drive of the game. Other times when he had to know a blitz was coming, he had no immediate outlet or game plan. Even if had "protection issues" he should have had a plan.
When the Colts got the ball back with a little over two minutes left, they ended a play with about 2:20 on the clock. Manning knew that if he got a play off it would save his team a first down. He lined up with plenty of time but called so many audibles he didn't get it off on time. It's hard to remember the last time Manning made such a mistake. I'd bet only one or two times in the past three years. Usually, he does just the opposite and makes heads up plays like this knowing the broader picture.
When at the end of the game the Colts needed a field goal and Manning missed a TD bomb to Reggie Wayne, he threw another deep pass on a long third down rather than get some short yardage to secure an easier field goal. The Colts had time outs left to throw in the middle of the field, but Manning seemed to miss the bigger picture. This was very unlike him in regular season games when he's usually very aware of the game situation and will get extra yards for an easier field goal rather than take another low-percentage shot down the field.

http://www.rotowire.com

by MadTownColtsFan on Jul 21, 2006 11:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

Replies

I don't believe I've called him "unlucky." The fact of the matter is Manning has played well enough to win in most of his playoff loses. It's just that the rest of the team, collectively, has not played well enough to win.

And Manning approached the playoff game with the Steelers with the same intensity and prep that he does all games. The difference is Pittsburgh schemed their 3-4 to attack weaknesses in Indy's o-line using the set-up San Diego used in week 15. I blogged about this earlier. Here are some responses to your 3 points:

All season long Manning checked off to the run because teams WEREN'T blitzing, not because they were. The first half of the 2005 season, teams deployed the New England "Manning defense," by dropping everyone into coverage. Tom Moore and Manning responded by running James. When teams blitz, it's typical that you do not check to a run. Otherwise, you are running into a blitz. You check to a pass, anticipating where the single coverage will be. Stands to reason that if a team like Pittsburgh is blitzing, that means isngle coverage on one of the WRs or TE Dallas Clark (which there was all game long). The problem was Manning had no time to find this coverage. It was 3 steps, and a Steelers LBer is already in his face. This was because Pittsburgh was attacking the interior of the colts o-line, which played horribly. And the reason the colts had such success running with Edge that one series was because Pittsburgh came out of the blitzing 3-4, and went into a prevent "drop everyone in coverage" scheme. Manning responded by running the ball: and if Tarik Glenn hadn't jumped off sides, the Colts would have had a TD. Instead, Colts get a FG, and the difference in points would have been the difference between winning and losing.
I actually don't remember this. I was probably in the bathroom puking my guts up in the bathroom out of disgust and just didn't see it. ;)
I believe at in both the Reggie bomb and the third down pass, Pittsburgh was blitzing. This means single coverage on WRs Wayne and Harrison. That's a miss match, and a matchup a QB must exploit no matter the situation. I think Manning did see the big picture. He was his top flight WRs one-on-one and he tried to get the ball to them. I have no problem with that. Running the ball there is out of the question (they're blitzing, remember) and you're not going to get anything dumping the ball off. In any case, Manning knows they're good for a 45-46 yarder FG, which should be automatic for a kicker like Vandy.

Obviously, it wasn't.

I do appreciate the comments and observations, MadTown. I disagree with your assessment though. In the Pittsburgh game, Manning played well enough to win. His defense played well enough to win. The kicker and the o-line didn't, and that is why the Colts lost.

Please continue to disagree with me. :)

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on Jul 21, 2006 12:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

No BigBlue

The Colts defense didn't play well enough to win. They made Big Ben look like the best qb in the league and you know as well as I do, he's not that good. The Colts defense made him look good.

by Terry on Jul 22, 2006 2:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

MadTownColtsFan,

Just for the record, blogs work better when the writer leans heavily towards the homer side. How many people really want to read a Colts site where he trashes his players or never sticks up for them.

by WCG on Jul 24, 2006 12:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

re: Peyton Different in Postseason

This blog is great because it's got great in-depth info and tries to look at things objectively. If I just want homerism, plenty of places to go for that.

A few rebuttals.

For #1. My main point was Manning had no plan unlike the regular season. Surely there were times when he faced similar situations in the regular season and then had a plan. Here he appeared to be clueless.

For #3, we can just disagree, but in similar situations in the regular season he's always done it differently. I'd have to go back to a few games to find the evidence, but it's in the eye of the beholder either way.

My opinion is just that he did a lot of things different in the playoff game than he did in the regular season. His thought process was different.

Now if he did that and won he'd be called "adjusting to the postseason." But since he lost, it's the basis for criticsm. And I tend to think that has some merit.

http://www.rotowire.com

by MadTownColtsFan on Jul 24, 2006 3:50 PM EDT 0 recs