I thought finally beating Tom Brady’s Patriots and winning a Superbowl erased the choke artist tag. After all it was partially Indy’s inability to get past NE that gave him that label. Isn’t this sort of moving the goalposts? Favre gets all kinds of love despite having only 1 Superbowl.
Well, in case you didn’t notice, your link actually does compare him directly to Favre. 
D’oh! Favre still gets way more love. Maybe Manning should have more fun out there.
“…But that makes for a lame headline, so I’ll call him a choker instead.” This is just stupid, although I acknowledge his playoff results have not always been great. One pick in a 31 for 45, 333-yard Super Bowl does not make a choke job.
Colts’ defense flat-out couldn’t stop the Saints after the second quarter? It’s because Peyton Manning choked.
Saints held the ball for virtually the entire second quarter and much of the third? Manning choked.
Sean Payton coached circles around Jim Caldwell, who stupidly ran the ball three times when the Colts were trying to run out the clock and get to the half even though they had enough time to score points and were moving the ball well through the air? And then makes a brilliant call on an onside kick to start the third quarter? That’s definitely Peyton Manning choking.
Colts receivers drop a couple of important passes that were thrown right to them - most notably Garcon in the second quarter? God, what a choker Peyton Manning is.
Yeah, I’m not getting the Peyton backlash either. Would you want Peyton Manning as your quarterback? Yes. Of course you would. Would you trade him for virtually any other quarterback in the NFL and be happy if you received Mr. Manning? Of course you would.
Man, some sports reporters dabble in hyperbole just to get attention. If we did that here, it’d be called “lulz” or “trolling”.
I’ve hated Peyton since college (he beat my school in a bowl game) but criticizing him for this loss is crazy. He had an amazing game. The blame for the loss falls mostly on the coach, and also on the defense. And of course a very, very good Saints team. Manning did everything asked of him - one interception should not have made the difference in the game.
In fairness, that’s not really the relevant question, is it? These articles aren’t dealing with Manning’s stature in the current NFL, which is kind of unquestioned and unquestionable. They’re dealing with his stature in history. The actually relevant question is:
Would you trade across time straight up for Peyton Manning if your quarterback was Steve Young? If it was John Unitas? John Elway? Bart Starr? Probably most importantly, would you trade for Peyton Manning if your QB was already Joe Montana?
Manning has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is way above the level of his peers in the current NFL. He’s a first-ballot Hall of Famer, a great player. He is not in competition with Drew Brees or Phillip Rivers. His competition right now is for a particular place in history, for a spot in the Pantheon. He gets to go there, of course. But it is a question worth arguing whether his only so-so record in playoff games bumps him down one or two slots, behind a guy like Montana.
And I don’t know that I’d argue that Manning had “an amazing game” last weekend. Against a medium-quality defense that surrendered 28 points to a team that turned the ball over five times, he led his offense to 17 points total. We can discuss which portion of the responsibility for that falls on who, but I think to qualify as an “amazing game” you really need to manage more than 17 points.
Nitpicking, but: he IS in competition with Tom Brady, pretty much because of their respective postseason records.
Fair enough. Though I think when the smoke clears, we’ll consider Manning the clear 1 to Brady’s 1A for this generation of quarterbacks.
The fact is that a quarterback is ranked by Super bowls. John Elway was considered a disappointment until he won a couple, while Joe Namath made it to the Hall of Fame primarily because of his one Super Bowl win.*
Manning wins the MVP each year, but has only one ring. Considering he has had a dominant team behind him the past few years, that brings up charges of underachievement.
Football is, of course, a team sport, but it’s the quarterback who gets the credit when a team wins and the blame when it loses. And if a quarterback has a postseason record considerably worse than his regular season record, the word “choke” is going to come up.
*I’m a big Jets fan, but Namath’s career otherwise was hampered by injuries; though he had some great seasons, he missed too many otherwise.
I would put Tom Brady 1st because of the head to head.
Manning has always had issues in big games. He broke through 4 years ago when the Colts won the SB, but his big game legacy makes him the Atlanta Braves of quarterbacks, especially when you look at his overall career:
… In high school, he only lost 5 games. 3 of them, however, were in the playoffs. He never won a state championship as a HS player.
… At Tennessee, he lost to Florida (THE big high-pressure game of the season) 3 times (out of 3 attempts), he got shellaced by Nebraska when they were playing for a potential #1 ranking (If Michigan had lost in a later game, the NE/UT winner was odds-on to be declared #1).
… Despite being favored, he couldn’t even win the Heisman Trophy, losing to cornerback Charles Woodson (the only primarily defensive player to win the HT).
In the NFL he has only won the big game once despite being dominant in the regular season.
So, while “choker” might seem a bit harsh, it is a fact that Peyton Manning in a big game is nowhere near as a sure thing as Tiger leading after 54 or Jordan in the NBA championships or Montana in the SB.
Manning now has the exact same record in Super Bowls as that Farve guy. Did Farve underachieve? (This is an actual question, not rhetorical.)
Are there people who seriously argue that Brett Favre is on any kind of level with Peyton Manning? Of quarterbacks who’ve played in the last ten years or so, I think it’s pretty clearly something like this:
-
Manning
1A. Brady -
Kurt Warner / Brett Favre
Maybe so, but that’s the same kind of reasoning that would have you believe Derek Jeter is clutch and Alex Rodriguez isn’t. (Different sports and all, but I know you don’t buy into that.) What matters is whether the label is deserved, not ‘this is how people assign blame.’ The Colts didn’t lose that game because of Manning. He took them to a very good lead in the first quarter. Some poor play calling, drops, and much better strategy by the Saints gave it back. Not only did Manning not get to throw a pass in the second quarter, but after the first quarter, he didn’t get to throw again until his team was behind. At which time he promptly lead them on a 96-yard scoring drive. Yes, after that point the defense gave up more points and he threw a pick that iced the game. Not seeing the choke job there.
OK, wait. Hang on. I’m really not intensely invested in this argument, because I think much of the criticism Manning gets is wildly overblown and I consider him (as noted above) the best quarterback of his generation and among the best of all time.
That said, to just completely absolve him of responsibility for the loss is going too far in the other direction. Again, Brett Favre managed to hang 28 points on the Saints in spite of throwing two picks and seeing his offense lose three fumbles. Two weeks later, Manning put up only 17. He had three possessions after that 96-yard scoring drive and did not produce any points. He definitely mishandled the last drive of the game, calling an inexplicable running play with the clock ticking, wasting a time out. It is not all his fault that the Colts lost the Super Bowl, but it’s not as though he played a flawless (or even mostly flawless) game and got let down by his defense or his receivers. He had his chances and he didn’t convert them.
Note: I deleted some extra spacing in the quote, but did not alter the text. I think that’s ok under the rules…
Discount this for homerism as you feel appropriate, but right now, I’d say that list should be:
- Brees
1A Manning
1B Brady - Farve
2A Warner
Brees has been underrated since coming to the Saints. He’s as elite as anybody else in the game right now, and he’ll be getting a shiny new ring in a few months.
It’s also pushing it to use play-calling to absolve Manning of responsibility. More than any other QB in the NFL, Manning calls plays at the line based on what he sees in the defense. In the Super Bowl, the Colts running game was gouging the Saints, but they continued to throw the ball, despite the fact that their receiver had the dropsies and Manning was getting pressured. With any other team, you can lay that on the OC, but with the Colts that’s Manning’s call as much as it is Moore’s.
I don’t think there’s a clear definition between Manning, Brady, and Brees right now. Manning and Brady have been doing it longer, but all three of them are on the same level.
I do think there’s a difference in how they handle pressure and frustration. Manning isn’t used to being pressured, and he doesn’t react as well as Brady or Brees does when protection breaks down. He’s fine against blitzes when he has to throw quickly, but he has a hard time in games when he actually gets hit a couple of times. Brady and Brees are tougher than that.
Heh, sorry Oak, I do have to discount that for homerism 
Brees is an outstanding quarterback, but he has some substantial resume padding to do before he gets to be above Manning and Brady. I mean, there’s no question Drew Brees was the best quarterback on the field last Sunday, but over the course of a career?
Favre and Warner, for all their respective shortcomings, are both Hall of Famers. If Brees retired today, he would not be. I’d call him fifth and rising.
(And behind those guys? Roethlisberger and McNabb. And then… uh… maybe Matt Hasselbeck? Eli Manning? Rich Gannon?)
Aaron Rodgers, I think, is the next guy with a shot at this list.