Manning's a Bronco?...

[Gadawg73]

Media hypes up the games in this era as "Brady versus Eli" BS and the naive fans eat it up.
53 players play football and it takes most of them over a season to win a Super Bowl or even have a good season.
Especially post cap.
If you look back over time the teams that have the best defenses consistently win and their QBs consistently have more longevity than better QBs on teams with a bad defense. The Steelers made their run on defense and their defense carried them for a decade. The best friend an offense can have is a good defense and the best friend a defense has IS A RUNNING GAME. The running game, not the QB, is what keeps the offense on the field.
Moving the chains with the running game wears down a D and all the QB does in that game is hand the damn ball off.
Hard to lose when you do not give up many points.

 

[Gadawg73]

And that player over the last 15 years has been Peyton Manning. Colts were 141-67 with him and had THE WORST RECORD IN NFL without him.
No other QB on any other team in this time frame comes anywhere CLOSE TO THAT.

I have some vague recollection of some guy who led his team to 5 Superbowls, winning 3 and racking up an unbelievable win/loss record including the only 16 game undefeated regular season in league history and a host of other records.

Whatever happened to that guy? Is he still around?

So, to your point of indispensibility, I would have to say the answer to the question "is a player great simply because he is indispensible" is "no".

Hoss filled in just fine for Phil Simms in '90. Steve Young filled in fine for Joe Montana in '91 and Steve Bono filled in fine for Young when he got knocked out. The Niners missed the playoffs that year, but if you followed their season then you'll know that it wasn't for lack of quarterback performance.

I remember back in '01 when the Future Hall of Famer Drew Bledsoe got knocked out of the game and his backup stepped in and did an okay job. Can't remember the guy's name but he had a knack for making big plays.

He was nowhere good as Peyton Manning, of course, because no other QB can come CLOSE TO HIM.

The difference is Brady and Manning is that Brady plays under the Belichick system and it makes QB's look very good, see Cassell, that said,Brady has a lot of talent. Coaches work around Manning's abilities, they don't fit Manning into their system.

Very good point. System QBs have to very disciplined and smart first. Interesting that it was always the defenses that had systems and the players had to come out of college and fit the system which was always FAR different than college. Same today but with musical chairs in The Not For Long League, especially for coaches, players have a helluva time fitting into a system when their team has a revolving door of OCs and head coaches. Hell, blocking schemes can affect a running and passing game so even a new OLC can screw things up.
But give me a modified 50 and let me play pinch off the edge and no matter what system there was 73 was coming!

 

[samjones]

Media hypes up the games in this era as "Brady versus Eli" BS and the naive fans eat it up.
53 players play football and it takes most of them over a season to win a Super Bowl or even have a good season.
Especially post cap.
If you look back over time the teams that have the best defenses consistently win and their QBs consistently have more longevity than better QBs on teams with a bad defense. The Steelers made their run on defense and their defense carried them for a decade. The best friend an offense can have is a good defense and the best friend a defense has IS A RUNNING GAME. The running game, not the QB, is what keeps the offense on the field.
Moving the chains with the running game wears down a D and all the QB does in that game is hand the damn ball off.
Hard to lose when you do not give up many points.

There have been a couple of teams win Superbowls on the backs of the defense. But time and time again you see marquis quarterbacks winning the big game. It's very easy to remember the name of the game-winning QB for most Superbowls because their household names. Trying to remember the name of the middle line backer might be more of a challenge for most.

The media didn't have to hype last year's E. Manning v. Brady matchup for me to realize that this was truly the story of that Sunday. It's patently absurd and bit stupid to think that 2 players have to directly oppose each other face to face to make a game be about them. Baseball has pitching duels all the time. Basketball had Bird/Magic despite the fact that the players played different positions and rarely got close to each other.

P. Manning's playoff performance problems go well beyond his Superbowls. He simply has disappointed in January year after year. He went his first 5 years without winning a playoff game and after that there have been huge disappointments more often than not. Okay - so I'll give him 2006 even though the heavy rain left me wondering who the better team was, but giving up the chance for the 2009 perfect season was inexcusable and every other year has either been a loss to Brady or a loss in the first round.

It just isn't an impressive post-season career.

It's not going to get better at Denver, because the team has structural problems. 2011 was not a good year for them. They had a losing record. They have one of the league's worst defenses. Almost all of their wins were against losing teams and were by less than a 7 points. And for all that it took Tebow's personal heroics to get them that far. Peyton would take 3 or 4 years to make this a good team and he doesn't have 3 or 4 years.

This experience is going to remind us of Montana/Chiefs. Except Montana was still good when he went to the Chiefs and the Chiefs had a good team. Still they disappointed in the playoffs. If I were Peyton I'd buy a ski chalet at Winter Park and get ready to enjoy a nice relaxed January sitting in front of the fire.

 

[Montrovant]

There have been a couple of teams win Superbowls on the backs of the defense. But time and time again you see marquis quarterbacks winning the big game. It's very easy to remember the name of the game-winning QB for most Superbowls because their household names. Trying to remember the name of the middle line backer might be more of a challenge for most.

The media didn't have to hype last year's E. Manning v. Brady matchup for me to realize that this was truly the story of that Sunday. It's patently absurd and bit stupid to think that 2 players have to directly oppose each other face to face to make a game be about them. Baseball has pitching duels all the time. Basketball had Bird/Magic despite the fact that the players played different positions and rarely got close to each other.

P. Manning's playoff performance problems go well beyond his Superbowls. He simply has disappointed in January year after year. He went his first 5 years without winning a playoff game and after that there have been huge disappointments more often than not. Okay - so I'll give him 2006 even though the heavy rain left me wondering who the better team was, but giving up the chance for the 2009 perfect season was inexcusable and every other year has either been a loss to Brady or a loss in the first round.

It just isn't an impressive post-season career.

It's not going to get better at Denver, because the team has structural problems. 2011 was not a good year for them. They had a losing record. They have one of the league's worst defenses. Almost all of their wins were against losing teams and were by less than a 7 points. And for all that it took Tebow's personal heroics to get them that far. Peyton would take 3 or 4 years to make this a good team and he doesn't have 3 or 4 years.

This experience is going to remind us of Montana/Chiefs. Except Montana was still good when he went to the Chiefs and the Chiefs had a good team. Still they disappointed in the playoffs. If I were Peyton I'd buy a ski chalet at Winter Park and get ready to enjoy a nice relaxed January sitting in front of the fire.

You are right that marquis quarterbacks win a lot of Super Bowls. Of course, there is the question of whether they would be marquis quarterbacks if they hadn't won those Super Bowls.....

I didn't look at this last SB as between Brady and Manning. In my mind it was more Brady vs the Giants, or just Pats vs Giants; would the Pats be able to get their 4th ring against the team that beat them last time to stop the perfect season? I don't think anyone is questioning whether Eli Manning is a better QB than Brady, so the Eli vs Tom thing doesn't really work IMO.

While Manning's playoff record isn't quite as bad as you make it out to be (9-10) he has long been considered a disappointing playoff QB. I will not argue that.

I think you misjudge Denver a bit. Their defense is the only reason that Tebow had an opportunity to come back in a number of games last year. They may not have been playing top-notch offenses, but the defense wasn't terrible. As for Tebow....I think he is little more than media hype. He was NOT a particularly good QB last year. He's a Kordell Stewart kind of player; he can make some big plays for you, but you don't want him behind center for the entire game. Manning is a FAR better QB than Tebow. So, it's possible the Denver offense will improve right away. They may not, they might need time to acclimate themselves to Manning's style and talents. We'll see with that.

If you want to compare this to Montana and the Chiefs, I think the Broncos would be thrilled. Montana took the Chiefs to their first ever AFC Championship game. I'm not sure how you can think that success was a disappointment.

 

[samjones]

You are right that marquis quarterbacks win a lot of Super Bowls. Of course, there is the question of whether they would be marquis quarterbacks if they hadn't won those Super Bowls.....

There are alot of marquis quarterbacks who never won a Superbowl or even made it to the big game. Eagles and Vikings, mostly, but there are a smattering from other teams. Awhile back in this thread somebody had the cajones ot utter the words "Warren Moon".

There's only one regular guy who has a Superbowl pedigree and in some ways I think Kurt's story is the most incredible QB story of all.

If you want to compare this to Montana and the Chiefs, I think the Broncos would be thrilled. Montana took the Chiefs to their first ever AFC Championship game. I'm not sure how you can think that success was a disappointment.

Technically true, but certainly misleading. The Chiefs did win the AFL and went to 2 Superbowls regardless of what they were called at the time and won one of them. Terminology aside, the Chiefs' glory days were not with Montana.

You are not really correct that Kansas CIty was happy with Montana's performance. They were hoping for more. They were accustomed to playoff berths under Schottenheimer and they were hoping to get more out of Montana (and out of Bono too, for that matter) than they had gotten out of DeBerg. It wasn't meant to be.

Joe Montana was particularly unhappy with Joe Montana's performance and as a commentator frequently on television around that time he would consistently speak reqret about how he "couldn't get the job done in Kansas City".

See - I write about the football I watched, not the football I read about on Wikipedia and I remember these things. To say that Joe Montana would have considered losing a conference championship to be a "success" is to badly, badly misunderstand what kind of competitor Joe Montana was.

But otherwise I agree with you. Peyton will probably be thrilled to go out and lose a conference championship to Brady or Big Ben or Flacco or whoever...... (Maybe Andy Luck, heh heh.)

My money's on John Harbaugh and Joe Flacco. I don't know what it is but I just like the way them Ravens play under him.

(FTR: I'm a Niners fan first, a Chiefs fan second. The Lions have a soft spot in my heart ever since they had their perfect season.)

 

[Gadawg73]

Media hypes up the games in this era as "Brady versus Eli" BS and the naive fans eat it up.
53 players play football and it takes most of them over a season to win a Super Bowl or even have a good season.
Especially post cap.
If you look back over time the teams that have the best defenses consistently win and their QBs consistently have more longevity than better QBs on teams with a bad defense. The Steelers made their run on defense and their defense carried them for a decade. The best friend an offense can have is a good defense and the best friend a defense has IS A RUNNING GAME. The running game, not the QB, is what keeps the offense on the field.
Moving the chains with the running game wears down a D and all the QB does in that game is hand the damn ball off.
Hard to lose when you do not give up many points.

There have been a couple of teams win Superbowls on the backs of the defense. But time and time again you see marquis quarterbacks winning the big game. It's very easy to remember the name of the game-winning QB for most Superbowls because their household names. Trying to remember the name of the middle line backer might be more of a challenge for most.

The media didn't have to hype last year's E. Manning v. Brady matchup for me to realize that this was truly the story of that Sunday. It's patently absurd and bit stupid to think that 2 players have to directly oppose each other face to face to make a game be about them. Baseball has pitching duels all the time. Basketball had Bird/Magic despite the fact that the players played different positions and rarely got close to each other.

P. Manning's playoff performance problems go well beyond his Superbowls. He simply has disappointed in January year after year. He went his first 5 years without winning a playoff game and after that there have been huge disappointments more often than not. Okay - so I'll give him 2006 even though the heavy rain left me wondering who the better team was, but giving up the chance for the 2009 perfect season was inexcusable and every other year has either been a loss to Brady or a loss in the first round.

It just isn't an impressive post-season career.

It's not going to get better at Denver, because the team has structural problems. 2011 was not a good year for them. They had a losing record. They have one of the league's worst defenses. Almost all of their wins were against losing teams and were by less than a 7 points. And for all that it took Tebow's personal heroics to get them that far. Peyton would take 3 or 4 years to make this a good team and he doesn't have 3 or 4 years.

This experience is going to remind us of Montana/Chiefs. Except Montana was still good when he went to the Chiefs and the Chiefs had a good team. Still they disappointed in the playoffs. If I were Peyton I'd buy a ski chalet at Winter Park and get ready to enjoy a nice relaxed January sitting in front of the fire.

Denver has Fox who is one of the best defensive coaches in the NFL, statistically on 3rd down last year and other areas listed earlier they did very well.
Why do you think they went with Tebow and kept punting and punting and punting last year? They had MORE confidence in their D than their offense.
I agree with a lot of your post as to Denver's team.
You make my point for me Sam. QBs most of the time do not make the team.
In previous posts you are telling us just the opposite.
Peyton Manning is not a "most of the time" QB.
Denver needs another back as Willis is a little old in the tooth there. Their OL is sound and Fox is a wizard at building his D.
But I agree they are a long shot to even win one playoff game next year but I predict a 9-7 or 10-6 team.
But my postings are not about the Demver Broncos, they are about Manning.
However, I fully admit that there are going to be some wide gap DEs next year salivating at the shot at taking their best shot at an aging, slow and unscrambling Peyton Manning.
That is for damn sure. That is my neck of the woods!

 

[Montrovant]

You are right that marquis quarterbacks win a lot of Super Bowls. Of course, there is the question of whether they would be marquis quarterbacks if they hadn't won those Super Bowls.....

There are alot of marquis quarterbacks who never won a Superbowl or even made it to the big game. Eagles and Vikings, mostly, but there are a smattering from other teams. Awhile back in this thread somebody had the cajones ot utter the words "Warren Moon".

There's only one regular guy who has a Superbowl pedigree and in some ways I think Kurt's story is the most incredible QB story of all.

If you want to compare this to Montana and the Chiefs, I think the Broncos would be thrilled. Montana took the Chiefs to their first ever AFC Championship game. I'm not sure how you can think that success was a disappointment.

Technically true, but certainly misleading. The Chiefs did win the AFL and went to 2 Superbowls regardless of what they were called at the time and won one of them. Terminology aside, the Chiefs' glory days were not with Montana.

You are not really correct that Kansas CIty was happy with Montana's performance. They were hoping for more. They were accustomed to playoff berths under Schottenheimer and they were hoping to get more out of Montana (and out of Bono too, for that matter) than they had gotten out of DeBerg. It wasn't meant to be.

Joe Montana was particularly unhappy with Joe Montana's performance and as a commentator frequently on television around that time he would consistently speak reqret about how he "couldn't get the job done in Kansas City".

See - I write about the football I watched, not the football I read about on Wikipedia and I remember these things. To say that Joe Montana would have considered losing a conference championship to be a "success" is to badly, badly misunderstand what kind of competitor Joe Montana was.

But otherwise I agree with you. Peyton will probably be thrilled to go out and lose a conference championship to Brady or Big Ben or Flacco or whoever...... (Maybe Andy Luck, heh heh.)

My money's on John Harbaugh and Joe Flacco. I don't know what it is but I just like the way them Ravens play under him.

(FTR: I'm a Niners fan first, a Chiefs fan second. The Lions have a soft spot in my heart ever since they had their perfect season.)

The point is not whether Montana considers his short stint on KC to be disappointing, but whether the team (and the fans) considered it to be so. Yes, the Chiefs won a couple of early Super Bowls, and those can be considered more successful seasons. However, since the merger, they had not made it to the AFC Championship game until Montana joined the team. While every team obviously wants a Super Bowl win, if you pick up a free agent QB and he leads your team further into the playoffs than it has ever been, in his first year with the team no less, I'm not sure how that can be considered a disappointment.

I have no idea what Manning will or won't be happy with on the Broncos. If they make it to the AFC Championship game this season, I think the management would be pleased. Again, they want to win the SB of course, but I imagine they are realistic to know that last year's team wasn't just a QB away from being a SB contender.

I watched Montana on the Chiefs. I thought he did a good job, considering his age and the talent around him, a very good job. The only way I would consider his couple of seasons a disappointment is in the same way EVERY team that doesn't win the SB can consider their season a disappointment.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are right that marquis quarterbacks win a lot of Super Bowls. Of course, there is the question of whether they would be marquis quarterbacks if they hadn't won those Super Bowls.....

There are alot of marquis quarterbacks who never won a Superbowl or even made it to the big game. Eagles and Vikings, mostly, but there are a smattering from other teams. Awhile back in this thread somebody had the cajones ot utter the words "Warren Moon".

There's only one regular guy who has a Superbowl pedigree and in some ways I think Kurt's story is the most incredible QB story of all.

If you want to compare this to Montana and the Chiefs, I think the Broncos would be thrilled. Montana took the Chiefs to their first ever AFC Championship game. I'm not sure how you can think that success was a disappointment.

Technically true, but certainly misleading. The Chiefs did win the AFL and went to 2 Superbowls regardless of what they were called at the time and won one of them. Terminology aside, the Chiefs' glory days were not with Montana.

You are not really correct that Kansas CIty was happy with Montana's performance. They were hoping for more. They were accustomed to playoff berths under Schottenheimer and they were hoping to get more out of Montana (and out of Bono too, for that matter) than they had gotten out of DeBerg. It wasn't meant to be.

Joe Montana was particularly unhappy with Joe Montana's performance and as a commentator frequently on television around that time he would consistently speak reqret about how he "couldn't get the job done in Kansas City".

See - I write about the football I watched, not the football I read about on Wikipedia and I remember these things. To say that Joe Montana would have considered losing a conference championship to be a "success" is to badly, badly misunderstand what kind of competitor Joe Montana was.

But otherwise I agree with you. Peyton will probably be thrilled to go out and lose a conference championship to Brady or Big Ben or Flacco or whoever...... (Maybe Andy Luck, heh heh.)

My money's on John Harbaugh and Joe Flacco. I don't know what it is but I just like the way them Ravens play under him.

(FTR: I'm a Niners fan first, a Chiefs fan second. The Lions have a soft spot in my heart ever since they had their perfect season.)

The point is not whether Montana considers his short stint on KC to be disappointing, but whether the team (and the fans) considered it to be so. Yes, the Chiefs won a couple of early Super Bowls, and those can be considered more successful seasons. However, since the merger, they had not made it to the AFC Championship game until Montana joined the team. While every team obviously wants a Super Bowl win, if you pick up a free agent QB and he leads your team further into the playoffs than it has ever been, in his first year with the team no less, I'm not sure how that can be considered a disappointment.

I have no idea what Manning will or won't be happy with on the Broncos. If they make it to the AFC Championship game this season, I think the management would be pleased. Again, they want to win the SB of course, but I imagine they are realistic to know that last year's team wasn't just a QB away from being a SB contender.

I watched Montana on the Chiefs. I thought he did a good job, considering his age and the talent around him, a very good job. The only way I would consider his couple of seasons a disappointment is in the same way EVERY team that doesn't win the SB can consider their season a disappointment.

Exactly, hell Archie won MVP and his team not only did not make the playoffs, they had a losing record.

 

[samjones]

Exactly, hell Archie won MVP

You've said this twice now and I don't know why but he didn't. I'm not interested in having a qualitative argument with you about the merits of Archie Manning. I would only ask that you review this one fact before you repeat it again.

 

[samjones]

The point is not whether Montana considers his short stint on KC to be disappointing, but whether the team (and the fans) considered it to be so.

I moved out of the KC area in '90, so I'm not the perfect person to ask, but I still felt pretty connected to it through friends and trips home in '93 and I don't recall people being really all that happy about it.

See, these days the Superbowl probably features the 2 best teams in football. For a long time it was only the after-party for the NFC Championship winner and never was that more true than in '93 when the Niners and the Cowboys were playing their annual game known to all as "The Real Superbowl".... for Joe to be playing for the Chiefs that year was unpalatable to all. Perhaps the Chiefs delighted in the sloppy seconds offered by the Niners because it was the first sloppy seconds of a line of sloppy seconds starting with a guy named "Montana" but including men going by the handles "Bono" and "Elvis". Couldn't have made a worse gay porn movie. Perhaps I saw a gay porn movie in the 90's. I honestly can't remember. Perhaps I watched the chiefs in the '90s. So long ago, to tell you the truth I forgot.

 

[Montrovant]

The point is not whether Montana considers his short stint on KC to be disappointing, but whether the team (and the fans) considered it to be so.

I moved out of the KC area in '90, so I'm not the perfect person to ask, but I still felt pretty connected to it through friends and trips home in '93 and I don't recall people being really all that happy about it.

See, these days the Superbowl probably features the 2 best teams in football. For a long time it was only the after-party for the NFC Championship winner and never was that more true than in '93 when the Niners and the Cowboys were playing their annual game known to all as "The Real Superbowl".... for Joe to be playing for the Chiefs that year was unpalatable to all. Perhaps the Chiefs delighted in the sloppy seconds offered by the Niners because it was the first sloppy seconds of a line of sloppy seconds starting with a guy named "Montana" but including men going by the handles "Bono" and "Elvis". Couldn't have made a worse gay porn movie. Perhaps I saw a gay porn movie in the 90's. I honestly can't remember. Perhaps I watched the chiefs in the '90s. So long ago, to tell you the truth I forgot.

Got to give you credit for that, very funny.

I remember well the NFL dominance....the Bills losing 4 in a row is perhaps the best example of it.

Did the Chiefs 'break the bank' to acquire Montana? As I remember it it didn't cost them all that much. That's part of why I wouldn't think his success was disappointing. To contrast, if the Skins draft RGIII as expected, and he doesn't turn into a superstar, I think that would be a huge disappointment, because of how much they gave up to get him. With Montana, it seemed less of an all or nothing proposition; they took a chance getting him, but if he failed they could move on fairly quickly. And really, I just think anyone who expected Montana to win a SB with the Chiefs was being foolish (the same with Manning in Denver). He made them a better team, but in the short season and 1-and-done format of the NFL, even the best teams may not win it all.

I don't really have a problem with your opinions about the subject, even if I disagree with them, I have just had some issues following the thoughts that led you to them. I have a friend who refuses to consider Jim Brown one of the top all time RBs because 'he's a wife-beater', so this is far from the silliest football debate I've had.

Can we agree that Manning is better than Tebow, at least?

 

[Gadawg73]

Exactly, hell Archie won MVP

You've said this twice now and I don't know why but he didn't. I'm not interested in having a qualitative argument with you about the merits of Archie Manning. I would only ask that you review this one fact before you repeat it again.

For the third time, Manning was NFL MVP in 1978 by The Sporting News which was THE FIRST entity to make such awards in 1954.

I would ask that you do just a little research.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly, hell Archie won MVP

You've said this twice now and I don't know why but he didn't. I'm not interested in having a qualitative argument with you about the merits of Archie Manning. I would only ask that you review this one fact before you repeat it again.

For the third time, Manning was NFL MVP in 1978 by The Sporting News which was THE FIRST entity to make such awards in 1954.

I would ask that you do just a little research.

Somewhat deceptive

He was NFC MVP by the Sporting News

He was not what is today recognized as MVP by Associated Press. That went to Terry Bradshaw

National Football League Most Valuable Player Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Today, when the award is referred to without mentioning the awarding entity, that of the Associated Press is generally meant

 

[Gadawg73]

You've said this twice now and I don't know why but he didn't. I'm not interested in having a qualitative argument with you about the merits of Archie Manning. I would only ask that you review this one fact before you repeat it again.

For the third time, Manning was NFL MVP in 1978 by The Sporting News which was THE FIRST entity to make such awards in 1954.

I would ask that you do just a little research.

Somewhat deceptive

He was NFC MVP by the Sporting News

He was not what is today recognized as MVP by Associated Press. That went to Terry Bradshaw

National Football League Most Valuable Player Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Today, when the award is referred to without mentioning the awarding entity, that of the Associated Press is generally meant

Deceptive my ass. They always gave one to each conference as that was the custom that decade.
AP came along AFTER the Sporting News. Amongst the players the Sporting News is a better indicator than AP. AP is an eastern biased rag. They donate a shit load of $$$ to the NFL each year for their name recognition. Take a look at their MVP and it is dominated by eastern teams year in and year out. Same with the tie in with ESPN, EASTERN sports network.

22 of their first 29 MVPs were from north east teams. Most were deserving, that year Archie was just unreal on a weak team.
For a better reflection of the NFL MVP refer to The Sporting News, an unbiased and objective source in the sporting world.

Manning had 3620 total yards that year out of the team 4900 total yards.
On a worse than shit team.
Best indicator of what a joke the AP is the 1982 award to a damn kicker the NFL MVP.
That is when the players knew for damn sure AP IS JOKE.
Unbelievable.

 

[rightwinger]

For the third time, Manning was NFL MVP in 1978 by The Sporting News which was THE FIRST entity to make such awards in 1954.

I would ask that you do just a little research.

Somewhat deceptive

He was NFC MVP by the Sporting News

He was not what is today recognized as MVP by Associated Press. That went to Terry Bradshaw

National Football League Most Valuable Player Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Today, when the award is referred to without mentioning the awarding entity, that of the Associated Press is generally meant

Deceptive my ass. They always gave one to each conference as that was the custom that decade.
AP came along AFTER the Sporting News. Amongst the players the Sporting News is a better indicator than AP. AP is an eastern biased rag. They donate a shit load of $$$ to the NFL each year for their name recognition. Take a look at their MVP and it is dominated by eastern teams year in and year out. Same with the tie in with ESPN, EASTERN sports network.

22 of their first 29 MVPs were from north east teams. Most were deserving, that year Archie was just unreal on a weak team.
For a better reflection of the NFL MVP refer to The Sporting News, an unbiased and objective source in the sporting world.

Manning had 3620 total yards that year out of the team 4900 total yards.
On a worse than shit team.
Best indicator of what a joke the AP is the 1982 award to a damn kicker the NFL MVP.
That is when the players knew for damn sure AP IS JOKE.
Unbelievable.

You might not like it, but the AP awards the MVP. If you meant Sporting News MVP, you should have said so. Sporting News has lost it's luster. I looked through the AP MVP list and I don't see an east coast bias. I don't see many Giants, Jets, Eagles or Redskins at all

In 1982, The Sporting News gave Kicker Mark Mosely their MVP also

In 1978, Earl Campbell had a better year than Archie Manning and would have been sole Sporting News MVP

 

[Gadawg73]

Somewhat deceptive

He was NFC MVP by the Sporting News

He was not what is today recognized as MVP by Associated Press. That went to Terry Bradshaw

National Football League Most Valuable Player Award - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Today, when the award is referred to without mentioning the awarding entity, that of the Associated Press is generally meant

Deceptive my ass. They always gave one to each conference as that was the custom that decade.
AP came along AFTER the Sporting News. Amongst the players the Sporting News is a better indicator than AP. AP is an eastern biased rag. They donate a shit load of $$$ to the NFL each year for their name recognition. Take a look at their MVP and it is dominated by eastern teams year in and year out. Same with the tie in with ESPN, EASTERN sports network.

22 of their first 29 MVPs were from north east teams. Most were deserving, that year Archie was just unreal on a weak team.
For a better reflection of the NFL MVP refer to The Sporting News, an unbiased and objective source in the sporting world.

Manning had 3620 total yards that year out of the team 4900 total yards.
On a worse than shit team.
Best indicator of what a joke the AP is the 1982 award to a damn kicker the NFL MVP.
That is when the players knew for damn sure AP IS JOKE.
Unbelievable.

You might not like it, but the AP awards the MVP. If you meant Sporting News MVP, you should have said so. Sporting News has lost it's luster. I looked through the AP MVP list and I don't see an east coast bias. I don't see many Giants, Jets, Eagles or Redskins at all

In 1978, Earl Campbell had a better year than Archie Manning and would have been sole Sporting News MVP

Many media entites award the MVP.
AP paid for their right to it as all the others and the players know that AP is pay to play.
AP is the lamest of the lame rightwinger. Luv ya my man but reality is reality.
In the strike shortened '82 season AP gives the MVP to Mark Moseley, a damn kicker.
And what does Moseley do? He misses 3 extra points that year! Hell, some kickers have extra point streaks of over 100 attempts without a miss.
Everyone knows that a Redskin player was going to get it that year for payback to the Skins organization for their role in ending the strike.
AP is politics first and foremost and always will be.
There had to be 100 players more valuable than him that year, maybe 200 don't you think winger?
Better year is not the standard of MVP. Most valuable player means most valuable player.
Players play on a team. That is and has always been the standard.

 

[rightwinger]

Deceptive my ass. They always gave one to each conference as that was the custom that decade.
AP came along AFTER the Sporting News. Amongst the players the Sporting News is a better indicator than AP. AP is an eastern biased rag. They donate a shit load of $$$ to the NFL each year for their name recognition. Take a look at their MVP and it is dominated by eastern teams year in and year out. Same with the tie in with ESPN, EASTERN sports network.

22 of their first 29 MVPs were from north east teams. Most were deserving, that year Archie was just unreal on a weak team.
For a better reflection of the NFL MVP refer to The Sporting News, an unbiased and objective source in the sporting world.

Manning had 3620 total yards that year out of the team 4900 total yards.
On a worse than shit team.
Best indicator of what a joke the AP is the 1982 award to a damn kicker the NFL MVP.
That is when the players knew for damn sure AP IS JOKE.
Unbelievable.

You might not like it, but the AP awards the MVP. If you meant Sporting News MVP, you should have said so. Sporting News has lost it's luster. I looked through the AP MVP list and I don't see an east coast bias. I don't see many Giants, Jets, Eagles or Redskins at all

In 1978, Earl Campbell had a better year than Archie Manning and would have been sole Sporting News MVP

Many media entites award the MVP.
AP paid for their right to it as all the others and the players know that AP is pay to play.
AP is the lamest of the lame rightwinger. Luv ya my man but reality is reality.
In the strike shortened '82 season AP gives the MVP to Mark Moseley, a damn kicker.
And what does Moseley do? He misses 3 extra points that year! Hell, some kickers have extra point streaks of over 100 attempts without a miss.
Everyone knows that a Redskin player was going to get it that year for payback to the Skins organization for their role in ending the strike.
AP is politics first and foremost and always will be.
There had to be 100 players more valuable than him that year, maybe 200 don't you think winger?
Better year is not the standard of MVP. Most valuable player means most valuable player.
Players play on a team. That is and has always been the standard.

Before you go further, you need to acknowledge that The Sporting News gave Mark Mosely the MVP in 1982 also

 

[Gadawg73]

You might not like it, but the AP awards the MVP. If you meant Sporting News MVP, you should have said so. Sporting News has lost it's luster. I looked through the AP MVP list and I don't see an east coast bias. I don't see many Giants, Jets, Eagles or Redskins at all

In 1978, Earl Campbell had a better year than Archie Manning and would have been sole Sporting News MVP

Many media entites award the MVP.
AP paid for their right to it as all the others and the players know that AP is pay to play.
AP is the lamest of the lame rightwinger. Luv ya my man but reality is reality.
In the strike shortened '82 season AP gives the MVP to Mark Moseley, a damn kicker.
And what does Moseley do? He misses 3 extra points that year! Hell, some kickers have extra point streaks of over 100 attempts without a miss.
Everyone knows that a Redskin player was going to get it that year for payback to the Skins organization for their role in ending the strike.
AP is politics first and foremost and always will be.
There had to be 100 players more valuable than him that year, maybe 200 don't you think winger?
Better year is not the standard of MVP. Most valuable player means most valuable player.
Players play on a team. That is and has always been the standard.

Before you go further, you need to acknowledge that The Sporting News gave Mark Mosely the MVP in 1982 also

I knew SOMEONE would do some research and note that and figured it would be you.

The Sporting News gives out 3 awards each year, MVP, coach of the year and an All Pro team..
In 1982 because of the strike the Sporting News REFUSED to name and did not name any of those 3 or any NFL awards. Tradition has it that the All Pro team is named first and then the player and the coach.

In an edition of The Sporting News after the season and I am looking for it they wrote an article about how weird it was for Moseley to be named MVP in a 9 game season much less any season.
So later, after this article and I believe after a month later and after the AP awards and when SN normally gave their awards, SN DID name Moseley as MVP and Joe Gibbs as coach of the year alongside another article stating because of the absurdity of those awards they WOULD NOT name an ALL PRO team that year because of that and the strike shortened season. Their own form of parody.

Interesting and I bet if I can not find that article I can find a copy on e-bay and get it.
But it does exist and SN was known be the anti establishment, anti big $$ east coast dominance in media.

 

[rightwinger]

As a Giants fan, Mark Mosely killed us. Game on the line, inside 50 yards....game over

He is also one of the last straight on kickers I remember

 

[samjones]

In an edition of The Sporting News after the season and I am looking for it they wrote an article about how weird it was for Moseley to be named MVP in a 9 game season much less any season.
So later, after this article and I believe after a month later and after the AP awards and when SN normally gave their awards, SN DID name Moseley as MVP and Joe Gibbs as coach of the year alongside another article stating because of the absurdity of those awards they WOULD NOT name an ALL PRO team that year because of that and the strike shortened season. Their own form of parody.

Interesting and I bet if I can not find that article I can find a copy on e-bay and get it.
But it does exist and SN was known be the anti establishment, anti big $$ east coast dominance in media.

This is all very interesting, but again I will remind you.

Nobody named Archie Manning the NFL MVP of any year. That simply did not happen. You are simply incorrect when you continue to say that.

Furthermore, it is very unlikely that anybody but the sports trivia buffs would really know who Archie Manning is/was if he didn't have 2 sons who are successful NFL quarterbacks.

*EVERYBODY* knows the names of the quarterbacks who went to the Superbowl that year. Even my wife knows those names. So any assertion on your part that Archie Manning was somehow THE quarterback of that year only shows that you know fuckall about 1978. Trust me, I was there. It was about Bradshaw/Staubach.