They earned it. Bad decision on the FG.

Jennings looked like he was getting picked on but he was pretty tight in coverage.

I wouldn't have wanted to win this one, considering how bad they got whipped. After the first quarter, they were demolished utterly.

And Peyton made more than one bad throw.

let's not forget that that the following probable starters missed or were very limited in this game: Bob Sanders, Marlin Jackson/Jerraud Powers, Adam Vinateri, Anthony Gonzalez, & Tyrone Hagler. One of the reasons the Saints got back in the second half was lack of pass rush and I don't know how many out routes vs Jennings. The good news is that we should be in good shape next year with free agency and should be able to come back with an extremely deep team. Add some decent OL,and depth at DT and outside receiver position(the only areas Polian has really wiffed on in the draft recently) and we should be the team to beat.

Remember, we finished better than 30 other teams! Go Colts

Wow, i'd forgotten how bad losing tasted.
-The Who are old and that was a head dropper
-The minute we failed to anticipate AND recover that onside attempt, you kind of felt the air go out the tires. For me that was the key play.
-Bad throw by 18 on the INT but still the game should have been iced at that point.
-51yarder vs 4th and 11, i'll be seeing that in my dreams for a couple weeks.
-All in all, fair result. My wife who sat up to watch it with me and doesnt really follow football said this at the end "You can't really feel bad honey, those guys dominated the whole game with the exception of the 1st half -she meant first qtr" You know what... i agree with her.

Oh, and let's not forget that we will probably not have an NFL season in 2011, so we may miss one of Peyton's last seasons. A Superbowl win now would've been perfect.

I agree that 18 made mor than one bad throw, but not many. Maybe two others I said "damn, we were lucky."

All in all, they played okay, but I think it really did come down to coaching. The onside kick (and Baskett jumping on it before 10 yards), the lame 50+ FG attempt--that was insane. We DID go on 4th earlier and it paid off, so the play-calling wasn't entirely conservative. Joe had a great game as did the OL more or less.

The OS kick really did us in, IMO.

If someone had told you that we'd double their rushing yards, have similar passing yards, and limit the big plays, wouldn't you have taken it? I would have. Our tackling was not crisp at all. Brees had his way in the 6-15 yard range--why? So much seemed uncontested.

Freeney's one-handed sack was a thing of beauty we can cherish forever, I guess. It was a four pont play and I told one brother before the game that a healthy Freeney was worth at least four points. Who knew you could actually measure it that clearly, at least one one play?

The pick six... positively Favre-esque. I haven't had the stomach to re-view, but I assumed it was telegraphed. The scream DZ heard in Argentina was probably mine. Then I had to run upstairs and get the kids to bed, which was probably a good thing--no time to stew.

Where are all the 16-0 folks now... would going 16-0 have helped there? Can't see how. We'd just be another punchline like the 18-1 Pats.

In the end, the Saints made superior adjustments. I heard the annoncers talking about, but cannot verify, the multiple game plan thing that I thought might be the only way to beat Manning.

Ahgh, I am so disappointed. We had this, we really did. The super-conservative play calling (3 runs and a punt) just before half allowing them to kick the FG was a killer. As was attempting two passes into the EZ at the end, and then a run that got stuffed for 3-4 yds on 3rd. Why does it seem that we always get that sequence wrong?

I knew hank baskett couldn't catch, but to see him try to catch the OS kick with his face ... that was just ridiculous.

The Colts have been just abysmal all year in recovering onsides kick attempts. Horrible, so it's no surprise that they were a disaster tonight.

The play changed the game imo.

This one cut deeply like when we lost to the Chargers both times. The colts left too many points on the board and did not finish drives. The colts could've had the Saints on the ropes by the half and just let it slip through. In true 2009 Saints fashion (missed kick and all) the Saints hung in there and made the plays they needed to for a victory. Just a terrible loss by any measure...Just as infuriating as the Chargers losses. The better team did not win tonight and we may get back next year but I say that every year. We'll just see.

btw, DZ's right. This is a loss I could live with. Coming into this game I was filled with trepdiation because deepdown I think we all realized the Saints were not the ravens or the gangrene. We knew they could hang with us.
Freeney was not as effective as he'd have been healthy but he did all one could've asked of him. We need some bonafide back-up passrushers.
This offense will be scary next year injuries-permitting.

was the conservative play calling after the 4th adn Goal stop. We have the best QB, a guy who never gets sacked, why pack it in. It let the Saints off the hook for not kicking a FG.

One of those games. Just like the 2007 Chargers loss, where we had so many opportunities.

I'm probably going to avoid football. Thank God I have the world cup to look forward too, because right now, September feels like a long, long ways away.

At least we did not lose 27-24 on a last second FG like I expected us too after the Saints TD.

Gonzo, BobZilla and Marlin, please come back and come back strong. Please.

i have seen many people say that baskett messed up by jumping on the onside kick before 10 yards. yes, he should've gathered it in, but the ball clearly traveled more than 10 yards (kick off from 30, touched at 42) before he went for it.

Yeah, the kick had cleared 10 yards. His mistake was trying to use his helmet to field the ball.

Then again, his hands are really bad. Maybe the facemask was his best chance...

dang it,

Nothing wrong with Baskett going for it, just catch the dang(forgive that ;P)ball! I'd be more understanding if that were a lineman or something, you're a dang WR, catch the bloody ball.

dmstorm22,

I dont think we left that many points out there. Aside from Garcon's dropped pass, we got precisely what we deserved. When you look at that performance in retrospect, you know it wasnt one of those 30+pt days. 17-24pts sounds right around what that offense deserved today and many(DZ take a bow) had said pre-game that the Colts would need 30+ to stand a chance. More worrying for me was the passive defense which failed to create any turnovers. Coyer looked like he wanted to strangle someone at one point.

I wanted to strangle someone on the defense too.

Credit to the Saints for getting the win.

Hopefully the Colts can return to the Big Game more times in the future and win those.

Not really in the mood now, if ever, to nitpick every detail about this game. (Ex. on the 3rd drive, the 2nd & 1 audible by Peyton for Addai to run right, when the weakness of the Saints' run defense in up the middle and the strength of the Colts' running game is up the middle. Addai loses 4 yards and then Garcon drops the 3rd and 5 pass. But a game of what ifs is utterly futile.)

I know we have unreal expectations because of how great Peyton is and he's perfect at times, but in terms of the postseason, it does kind of feel he came up small at the end in the 05 Steelers game, the 07 Chargers game, the 08 Chargers game, and now this game (Although I was worried the Colts would tie it only for the Saints to just march down for a winning FG with minimal time left to spare). Seems like he makes some weird decisions in those cases, and I guess you could include the 03 Patriots game too.

But given how great he's played in the crunch at other times, I don't think it's not something you can really stick to him (but it is there I guess). Again, unreal expectations probably. I wouldn't trade Peyton Manning for any other quarterback in the league, I'll certainly tell you that.

That's not to overlook credit to Drew Brees for playing a great game and being one of the major factors (if not the major factor) for his team's Super Bowl victory. Brees is a great QB and this championship is well deserved to him and his teammates.

Whatever you may think of the Colts defense's performance tonight.

I mean when I say we left points out there I feel like we really needed that 3rd and 2 that mike hart couldn't convert. I feel like Peyton should've treated that Stover kick drive like 4 down territory instead of going for the 12 yards we needed on the 3rd (we knew stover couldnt hit that). Garcon dropped a first down pass on third down that he mightve even scored a td on. The Colts d had a detrimental late hit on one of the early drives that helped the Saints in the red zone. Maybe others accept that as just part of the game but to me these were critical mistakes that you can't make against the Saints offense.

As for the d, they did an average job. There were some highs and lows. The truth is they are only as good as Freeney. When Freeney couldn't get pressure Brees lit us up (just like rivers/volek in 07). We live and die by how well Freeney gets pressure on d. Just look at how Brady killed us for most of the game when some random backup contained Freeney in single coverage earlier this season.

I hate to blame our offense for missing opportunites. However, given the structure of our team it is only fair to put this one on our offense. The offense did ok but they didn't finish at critical parts of the game.

BTW, this is all without mentioning Peyton's pick. That should give you an idea of how we really played on offense.

alright, thanks for confirming that the ball went more than 10 yards. i've had a few friends tell me i'm wrong, and i was starting to think i was going crazy!

this one hurts, just because it felt like they left so many points on the field. and it sucks to think that "we have next year" is the comfort for the fans again. don't get me wrong, we're very fortunate, and it was freakin' awesome, to have won SB41, but many more "we have next year" and it won't be #18 at QB, and i got a feeling the chances may go way down once that happens.

and thanks 18to88.com, for the great posts and analysis throughout the season. always a fun website to look at whenever i need some good colts coverage. F Kravitz.

To the Saints and Sean Payton. A deserved win for courageous performance up and down the team and coaching staff.

Pierre.... I'm sorry, but I'm going to hold that against you for a while, probably unfairly.

The D did not do an average job. The Saints scored 5 of the last 6 times they touched the ball. The only time they didn't was when they drove down to the 1 and failed on fourth down.

The D allowed consecutive drives of:
11
13
5(end of half)
6 (TD)
8
9 plays

5 of those six ended in points.

Not good.

I mean the D did an average job given what our d is all about. It's very top heavy. We can't beat a good offensive team without Freeney playing well. This has been a constant for the last 8 years or so. The results are not all that shocking. All I was hoping for was field goals because after the first quarter we could not pressure the qb. We can win regular season games but not a super bowl against an offensive team. We probably need to adjust that mindset but I assume this is the best we can do given the salary cap and all...No Freeney no win. Sure enough, we didn't get enough Freeney. Therefore, the offense has to be efficient and they weren't.

Although maybe Reggie trumps both? Not sure how good a game he had.

Speaking of Collie, WR screens to him? That's not his game, that is for Garcon and Reggie.

Weird, and obviously disappointing, game by the Colts.

Wayne had just 5 for 46, dropped a TD pass, and was the target on the pick.

It was a poor night for him.

very true DZ ... it doesn't hurt it that much to admit that the Colts were out-coached by Sean Payton

Guys, it was a game against two pretty evenly matched teams. Without a full strength Freeney, they probably had the advantage. Though, Freeney's 1st half was one of the guttiest, most impressive things I've ever seen from a football player. But, after that, the ankle just let him down.

Anyway, it was two real good teams, and we had one huge play not go our way. Baskett had the onside kick bounce off his facemask. Even then, we were probably even odds to recover it. Hell, maybe at one point we had it. But, at the end of the world's longest scrum, they came up with the ball. And that was enough to tilt the game in their favor.

At least its the Saints. At least its a team that outplayed us (not like SD last year). At least its a team and a city that deserves happiness.

We'll always have the 2006 Title Game and Super Bowl XLI. There are alot of fans out there that haven't won titles this decade. We won four years ago. At the end of the day, we have a team that will be very competitive for years to come, and a QB that still has many years left (remember, Elway won SBs at 37 and 3.

It happens. Congratulations New Orleans, you deserved it. Who Dat? In 2009, No Dat.

most disappointed with the call by the officials on the onside kick. I think it was pretty clear that the Colts recovered, unless the rules of football have changed and you can gain possession by sitting on a ball.

I know, I know, this is lame brining it up, but I think it's clear that was the tipping point in the game. And I also think it was clear the call was wrong.

The Colts missed this opportunity and there's nothing worse than wasted potential. I absolutely loved that we won in 2006 but to see our run this decade and only one ring is a bit disappointing. You only get so many chances to make the playoffs and I feel we have squandered many opportunites when we did have a great team. Hats off to the Saints for the win but deep down every Colts fan has to know this was our game. The bottom line was our football team lost because of our own shortcomings. That is tough to stomach. This feels just like the 18-1 pats season minus the cheating.

Obviously, losing Freeney and Powers hurt tremendously, and Hayden wasn't yet at full speed, either.

But, NONE of those things factored more heavily than simply failing to tackle properly. I lost count of the number of broken tackles at or behind the line of scrimmage. Routinely, plays that should have gone for no (or negative) gain resulted in gains of 5-10 yards for the Saints.

THAT was the Colts' downfall on defense.

Other factors (in order of importance):

1) That stupid soft zone defense against a QB with the skills and receivers to hit the underneath passes all the way down the field.

2) The inability of our defensive backs to come down with even ONE of the many balls the Saints' receivers put up in the air (and Bethea's missed INT).

3) Not one single offensive holding penalty call drawn by the Saints.

There were some missed tackles, but I felt that most of them were the result of the Saints just being fast. When a guy is by you, it looks like a missed tackle, but really has more to do with the speed of the player.

Manning couldn't do it in the clutch. Bottom line. Down by 7, with 5 mins remaining, ball in his hands. The legends get it done.

There were some missed tackles, but I felt that most of them were the result of the Saints just being fast. When a guy is by you, it looks like a missed tackle, but really has more to do with the speed of the player.

No, there were *numerous* times that a DB had a clean, open-field wrap-up, and the Saints RB/WR just broke out of it.

It reminded me all too much of the way the defense played in the three-losses-in-four-games stretch of the 2006 season, when I was fully expecting the fundamental-tackling performance of the defense in the playoffs that year.

Manning couldn't do it in the clutch. Bottom line. Down by 7, with 5 mins remaining, ball in his hands. The legends get it done.

Another idiotic comment.

Manning drove the team the length of the field - twice. It's 11-on-11, not Manning-on-11.

It's not Manning's fault that Wayne sat on his route and let Porter jump it. It's not Manning's fault that Wayne let a TD pass slip right through his hands.

And most importantly, it's not Mannings fault that:

1) Caldwell sent in Mike Hart as the RB in the non-two-minute-drill, non-drive to end the first half

2) Hank Baskett tried to recover an onside kick with his facemask

3) Caldwell attempted a 51-yard FG with a kicker who has only a 45-yard leg

4) The defense couldn't get NO off the field without surrendering points on 5 of their last 6 possessions.

5) Pierre Garcon dropped a wide-open slant that either would have gone for a TD, or set the Colts up for another score while leading 10-3.

So, take your Manning-choke crap, and find a short pier on which to take a nice, long walk.

I think what people are missing is that no matter what Manning did on that drive, the game was over. The Saints were getting the ball last and they would have won.

Manning's gotten it done scores of times. All the other legends also failed in the same position scores of times.

There's a fine line between being a supporter and an apologist. Constantly saying "it's not Mannings fault" is being an apologist. Assuming that the Saints would have score afterwards with a final possession, is being an apologist. I'm not saying Manning choked, I'm pointing out the difference between being a "great" QB, and one of legend. 9-9 in playoffs doesn't cut it. Every rule change in the past 10 years has made to make it easier for the QB to pass the ball, that's why it's a QB driven league. Montana didn't have the luxury of these rule changes. 4th quarter of the Superbowl is where legends are made. That's clutch. That's pressure.

Again (as patiently as possible the day after a Super Bowl loss), it is 11-on-11, not Manning-on-11.

Manning did everything in his power.

It wasn't enough.

Any other quarterback would have done even less.

End of story.

The only rule "changes" occurred back in 1979, after the Steelers dynasty, days when people were completing 50-55% of their passes, and CBs could mugg receivers all the way downfield, and lineman couldn't extend in their blocking. ALl of that changed, and all of that was there in Marino and Montana's time. It is only slightly easier now. There is a huge difference between the rules now and when Staubach and Unitas were playing, but not between now and Montana.

Do you know how many teams have had a drive under 5 minutes to win a Super Bowl (or tie a Super Bowl) when down by more than 3?

One: Eli Manning in Super Bowl XLII.

All of Brady's drives were with the scored tied (or down 3 in Super Bowl XLII). Montana was down three in Super Bowl XXIII. It is incredibly hard to pull off what you were asking of Manning, and it wasn't his fault on the pick as much as it was Wayne slowing his route and a GREAT play by Porter.

Again (as patiently as possible the day after a Super Bowl loss), 2nd and 5, right? NO 31, right? 3:30 left, right? Down by 7, right? Peyton Manning, best QB ever, right? Right? All those other things you point out, are correct, the game could have been a blow out at that stage, but it wasn't. The ball (and game) was in Mannings hands.

You've blamed everyone, in every situation, but Manning. He didn't make "one bad throw" he made THE bad throw. No pocket pressure, two open receivers and he chooses the riskier of his options available.

Most Quarterbacks would have done less, elite QB's would have done more.

End of Story

1. I don't blame Manning because it wasn't his fault. Again, the Colts win % odds at the time of the pick were 22%. Think about that. The game was already tilted way in favor of the Saints at that point. I linked to the article already today. That pick sealed what was already a done deal. Had he not thrown that pick, and marched the Colts for a score, the Saints still win the game 27-24 with a field goal. I'm sorry, but when you give up 5 scores in 6 drives on defense, you aren't going to win the game. Another score would have looked nice, but it would not have helped Indy win that game. I have zero confidence that the Saints could have been stopped. The numbers say the missed field goal was the moment the game tilted. Pay attention to what really happened. It helps.

2. Again, the only rule changes have been the roughing the passer calls. The illegal contact rules went in place in 1977. Joe Montana had them his whole career. Learn something about football history before you speak.

3. Tom Brady is clutch? He won 7 playoff games with a worse rating than Manning had last night. That's why it's nonsense to talk about wins and losses by QBs. QBs don't win or lose games. Teams do. That quote was nonsense. He sure didn't look clutch

4. It was 3rd and 5, not 2nd and 5.

5. 9-9 in the playoffs is mediocre? John Elway was 7-8 before he won his last 7 games. Your standards make guys like Bradshaw and Aikman legends. Give me a break. Only 7 guys have won more postseason games than Manning. The difference between Manning and lesser QBs, is that the other guys don't MAKE the playoffs without a great team. Manning puts his teams in there every year, even when they suck (2000, 2002, 200. Hard to win games with sh**ty teams.

Last night's game had nothing to do with Manning. If it was his fault, I'd happily kill him for it.

Anyone blaming manning just wasn't paying attention.

I freaking hate this argument.

Cut off point 3:

Brady sure didn't look clutch when he was winning fewer games than Matt Cassel this year and getting beat by an awful Ravens team.

Sorry, now I realize JC's post was in a different thread. Ignore the Brady stuff, it was aimed at him...

the problem with people is that they expect Manning to carry out a game winning drive every time the Colts are down in the 4th quarter

a true Peyton Manning fan will realize that Peyton is a human being ... an ESPN reader will be made to believe that Manning is a robot who is not prone to mistake while making his reads, etc.

how can it be Manning's fault if Wayne decides to sit on his route or Baskett tries to catch a ball with his helmet or Garcon drops a sure shot catch

I believe each of the Superbowls the past decade had some sort of turnover by the losing team - how many turnovers did the Saints have last night ? ZILCH!

1) It's not that you "don't blame Manning", you didn't assign ANY blame to Manning. You let him off the hook completely, as have other apologists (Dungy for example). It's Garcon's fault for dropping a pass in the 1st or 2nd Quarter, but not Peyton's for throwing a pick 6 in the 4th?

2) Rule changes were for illegal contact in 2004 - before hand you could maintain contact past 5 yards if you initiated (and kept) it before 5 yards. Now, you can't touch a receiver past 5. Remember the AFC playoff where the Patriots man handled Mannings receivers all day long?

3) I see your cutoff

4) OK, 2 plays needed to get 5 yards. Conceded. Nice pocket, 2 open receivers. Right?

5) 9-9 is not elite - I never said mediocre. I don't consider Elway elite, do you? He was a stat monster. Great player, never heard him mentioned in the 'elite' conversation.

Hey, I'm not arguing there were many things that happened last night - the game was a lot closer than the final score indicated.

But to take this "it wasn't Mannings fault" stance, and absolve him of any blame? Thats ridiculous. If Stover made that FG, and the saints were denied their 2nd FG, you're right, its a FG to win it, right there and then, everyone, all of us, would be calling Peyton the greatest ever.

That door swings both ways - when you take your team out of contention with the passes you make, then you get the criticism.

1. I do blame Manning for the pick six. It didn't cost Indy the game though. The game was over at that point in my mind.

2. Illegal contact was put on the books in 1978. Some officials over the years had stopped calling it as it was written. The NFL made it a "point of emphasis" with the officials to make sure everyone called it the same way. That was NOT a rule change.

3. You don't consider Elway elite? wow. Who is then? Bradshaw? Aikman? Please.

4. Manning's share of the blame is small. So many things went wrong before that pass, that to focus on it is silly. It was a bad pass, but the coaching and HUGE Garcon drop had already cost them the game. Put the pick six in the first quarter and the Garcon drop with 3 minutes to go, and I'd be KILLING Manning.

You made a fool of yourself with this comment:

Rule changes were for illegal contact in 2004 - before hand you could maintain contact past 5 yards if you initiated (and kept) it before 5 yards. Now, you can't touch a receiver past 5. Remember the AFC playoff where the Patriots man handled Mannings receivers all day long?

If you don't even know enough about the game to get this point right, why should I listen to you about any of your other points?

There were no rule changes in or after the 2004 season regarding illegal contact. The league simply decided to make a "point of emphasis" to enforce the extant rule, because it clearly wasn't being enforced.

Point 1 and 4 are the crux of the argument - you had a pessimistic view of the game a. Colts wouldn't score or b. The Saints would have come back and scored anyway

You've been careful to preface this opinion with the words "in my mind".

Well, this game wasn't played in your mind, Manning did have the ball in N.O. territory, he was driving, he did make a bad decision and it did go for a touchdown the other way.

But in your opinion you have everyone else blamed for making this a losing effort before the 57 minute mark? That's just totally disingenuous, and serves you no credit.

I'll give you the last word on the matter. Have away at it.

My pessimistic view of the game is based on solid statistical data

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/weekly.php?week=22&gameid2=54814

I didn't make it up. Look at the data. The Colts were basically screwed before the pass. I'm not even sure that chart took into account the fact that the Saints had scored on 5/6 possessions, including EVERY time they had the ball in the 2nd half or that Indy's best defender was hurt.

The Colts were not going to win that game at that point. It wasn't a coin flip game that was decided on the pick. It was a heavily tilted contest that would have required a minor miracle.

The numbers, not my opinion, say the pick just sealed the inevitable.

Bad play? Yes.

Cost them the game?

No way. The game was already lost.

Brady's pick-six against Denver in the 2005 Playoffs. That cost a team a game. The immortal Kurt Warner, he of the 9-4 playoff record, has twice thrown more damning pick-sixes in Super Bowls.

Let's deconstruct that 9-9 record. His teams earned byes four times (1999, 2005, 2007, 2009) so all those times he had one less opportunity to win games. In 2002 and 2008 he was QBing teams that without him, and a Tom Brady instead, they don't sniff the playoffs. He is also 9-6 since 2003 in the playoffs. Only Brady has more playoff wins in that time period (11). The reason guys like Ben, Warner and Brady don;t have worse records is that their teams don't MAKE the playoffs as often. Brady has missed the playoffs in 2002, a season in which if Manning was the QB, I'm sure they don't miss it. Ben has missed it twice (2006 adn 2009). Warner had a five year period when he was league average. You can't lose playoff games if you don't make it. It's almost like Manning would have been better off missing the playoffs in 2002 and 2008 than going in and going one and done.

BTW, in each of his last three playoff losses, Manning has averaged 350 yards, with 6 tds and 3 ints. It's not his fault.

Again, Brady is brought up again, and not by me - this is beginning to smack of an inferiority complex! I'm not even sure what the argument is - something about less playoff games? When you go one-and-done, you play less playoff games, is that what you're saying? Brady has done in 8 seasons what Manning hasn't in 12? Wait, what's the argument? Why are you talking up Brady?

I don't want to Blame Manning for everything - just his share. The man isn't blameless we can't just throw out "its not his fault". Is it the team? Is the team just not built for the playoffs? This is a magnificent team, and I'll tell you what, it's a crying shame that certain aspects of the team, like the O-line don't get the credit they deserve. Jeff Saturday is, in my mind, the best center in the league. He's been the most consistent over the past decade, and undrafted!

This is ridiculous. I should know better than to argue with zealots.

There's another thread on another post, and it's getting the arguments clouded. The other argument is with a Brady loving Pats fan.

The Colts O line is awful. Saturday is great, but trust me, Indy has the most overrated O line in football. They don't give up many sacks, because Manning gets rid of the ball too fast, but most of the advanced metrics (and the conventional ones) show that they are horrid run blockers. Saturday is good individually, but he struggles against bigger NTs, such Jamal Williams of the Chargers. He can't block him at all, and that killed the Colts in both playoff games against the Chargers.

As for the post season, the Colts weren't very good prior to 2003 (regardless of the records) lost to a better team in 2003 and 2004. 2005 was an upset following Dungy's son's death. 2006 they won it all. 2007 Freeney was out, Mathis was hurt, and we saw Sunday night what happens in that event. 2008 team sucked and was a total mirage all season (which we said at the time). 2009 they went to Super Bowl.

The quest for a meta narrative here is useless. It's been a mix of losing to better teams, a little bad luck, and one legit choke job (also caused by the offensive line) in 2005.

Again, we don't blame Manning because it wasn't his fault. I've shown you numbers to that effect, but you don't want to pay attention to them (or don't understand them). I don't know what else to tell you. Blaming the QB for a team losing a game is simplistic and silly. It's the kind of unsophisticated understanding of football I expect from Foxsports and Deion Sanders. It's not what we do here.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the 'win loss record' of quarterbacks is the most pointless stat in the world. Franchises and coaches can be judged by wins and losses. Quarterbacks are just one facet of a more complex equation.

In a nutshell, we don't blame Manning because we actually pay attention to the game.

Your defense of Manning is purely statistical and then you say "In a nutshell, we don't blame Manning because we actually pay attention to the game". Un-f***ing-believable.

Stats are for losers. Everyone has gotten blamed except Manning. Man up and give the guy a smack. Show some objectivity.

Stats are for people who are good at math.

Simple answers and lazy analysis for people who aren't smart enough to understand anything else.

Classy, DZ, to the end...

I admit that it lacked the style and class of "stats are for losers", but I did my best.

Oh no, don't put yourself down like that dude - you're much better than that! Like how, when I wasn't accepting your concept of stats as the be-all/end-all, you went straight for the jugular with some priceless nuggets like:

"...we actually pay attention to the game" (i.e., I don't)

...or, how about your opening salvo: "Another idiotic comment. " A classic, to be sure!

...or the condescending : "Again (as patiently as possible the day after a Super Bowl loss)", like explaining your point of view AGAIN would show me the light. Hallelujah.

I should have credited my comment to the coach that said it, my bad: http://www.burntorangenation.c...-stats-are

But hey, your condescension is the norm on this blog when your assertions get challenged. You don't agree to disagree, you never change your mind, you just go after the person commenting, calling them "idiotic". And hey, you're the Admin, so I guess you can do what you want to Right?

No, I sit an argue forever as long as the other guy has some statistics or new arguments.

When he just ignores the stats I show, and continues making the same point that has already been discredited, then I resort to running him off with name calling.

Clearly, if you think Manning was to blame for that game (or any Colts' playoff loss since 2003) you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention.

If your best argument is "9-9 in the playoffs is mediocre and John Elway wasn't an elite quarterback", then you are an idiot.

I know all about the coach who said it (there have been more than one btw), I've heard it before. I consider it anti-intellectual nonsense.

Again, I gave you numbers, you gave opinions. The "another idiotic comment" phrase was posted by another reader. Not me. So was "as patiently as possible".

You aren't even reading the comments or paying attention to the people that wrote them. That makes it hard to take you seriously.

As near as I can tell, you didn't even watch the game. You didn't get the down right on the very play you seem to think made all the difference.

You have no arguments (other than QBs bear the guilt for wins and losses regardless of what really happened in the game), so there's not much left to do but mock you.

I forgot about the part where you didn't understand the passing rules.

Honestly, you haven't made much of a case. You've made a lot of mistakes. But not much of a case...

I thought it would be fair if you could at least assign equal blame to Manning, which you didn't, and refuse to do. It was everyone else fault except Manning. Anyway. Nice chatting with you, best of luck next year, right?

Yeah, sorry. I still disagree and haven't been shown any reason to blame Manning for that loss. He bears some responsibility, but it's so far down the food chain that it's not worth discussing.

As well as he played, Indy should have won. That's the bottom line. Did he play well enough that the Colts should have won? Yes. Did Caldwell coach well enough? No. Did Wayne play well enough? No. Did Garcon? No. Did the defense? Hell no. Did Hank Basket? No

That's enough blame for me. No point in killing one of the few guys who did play well for one mistake after the game was already slipping away.

Again, I gave you numbers, you gave opinions. The "another idiotic comment" phrase was posted by another reader. Not me. So was "as patiently as possible".

Yeah, those were both mine. But I'll take it as a compliment to get confused for being you!

And you know, honestly, Manning didn't play *perfectly* (but then, who does?). You could fault him for not looking-off Wayne on the pick. You could fault him for taking a deep shot to Collie in four-down territory.

At the same time, though, the person more at-fault on the pick was Wayne for sitting on his route (not to mention, Porter just made a great play) - just as the person more at-fault on the long pass was Collie, for playing for a PI call instead of fighting for the ball.

THAT is why Manning isn't to blame. It is not unreasonable for a QB to expect his receivers to run their routes properly and to make plays for the ball.

If Wayne comes back for that ball, there is no pick.

If Collie fights for the ball, either he catches it, or makes a stronger case for drawing the PI call.

And all of that completely negates the fact that Manning should have been handed the ball with either a 7-point (if Caldwell doesn't send in gutless play-calls in the 2-minute-drill) or a 4-point lead to start the second half, but was instead facing a 3-point deficit.

It also negates the fact that Manning put the Colts offense in position to blow the game open, but Garcon dropped a wide-open pass.

It also negates the fact that, after the Manning-Collie miss, Caldwell made the world's dumbest decision to attempt a 51-yard FG, giving the Saints a short field and momentum on the drive that proved to produce the game's winning TD.

That's why any of Manning's short-comings Sunday night were insignificant in the overall analysis of why the Colts lost.

I believe you mentioned earlier that the pick really didn't matter because if we would have scored on that drive you had no reason to believe that we could stop the Saints from scoring right after that for the win. (I'm too lazy to read back through all of the comments to find the exact qoute so correct me if I'm wrong) Which at the time I would have to agree with you, but what if?.....

We had what 5 minutes or something on the clock? What's to say that we don't put together another 5 minute drive that doesn't allow the Saints to have enough time to score? Then it's atleast a tie game at that point, and maybe CC will make up for all of his horrible coaching decisions by going for the 2-pt conversion and the win. We moved that ball on them all night including some great runs by Addai. I see no reason to believe this would not have been possible.

Just wondering what your thoughts are.

At the time of the pick, the Colts were at the 31, with 3:24 left. The Saints had three timeouts and a two minute warning. So let's say the Colts decided to go super slow down and play for the last score.

If each set of downs were to go to third down, they pick up a first at the 26 with 3:24 (assuming he throws to someone other than Wayne). They would have to use the full play clock on every play, not get a first down before third down, and not stop the clock once with an incomplete pass.

I don't think that scenario is likely at all. The Colts were too close to the endzone with too much time to play. The Saints were going to get the ball back, almost no matter what Indy tried.

A touchdown by Manning on that drive would have been nice, because it would have saved us from this pointless discussion, but the end result was likely the Saints ball with at least a minute and a half to play.

Considering that Hayden and Powers were both on the bench at that point, do you really think Lacey and Jennings at corner and a one legged Freeney had any chance of stopping the Saints?

Obviously, it's possible, but not very likely at all. Even if the Colts had managed to stop the Saints on that possession, there still would have been OT to deal with, which is a 50/50 proposition.

If Manning's pick six had come with 5 minutes to play, you'd be 100% right. Unfortunately, it came with three minutes and change. Indy was in no man's land. There was no playing for the last possession given the timeouts and the yardage left.

I see your point. For some reason I was thinking we were still on the other side of the 50, which clearly we weren't since it was a 70-something-yard pick return. I guess I drank too much to remember all the details......

BTW.....I puke in my mouth every time I see Jennings on the field. I hope we won't have to worry about that next year. Now if I can just make it to September....

Did anyone actually watch the replay of that pick? Both deep safeties and the cover linebacker turned towards the right to cover the receivers there. Wayne was one-on-one with Porter. Since when is Manning not supposed to throw to Wayne when that happens? Well, the clear answer now is when the corner on the island reads the play and jumps it, but it was the right read to begin with.

Before anyone tries bringing up the tired and long disproven "choke" idiocies again, stop and think how many QBs would've made that read that fast to begin with. And how many QBs would've gotten their team that far. Manning's no choker, and it's only people with superficial understandings of the game and total ignorance of plays offered as examples that can even make that claim.

Where do you calculate the odds of winning the game, down a touchdown with 5 minutes left, all your timeouts and Peyton Manning as your QB as 22%?

What f**ked up, fictitious equation did you pull that from?

Clearly that algorithm does NOT factor in variables.

And AJ, why do you think people call Manning a choker?

That's not a rhetorical question, and it's not me trying to be inflammatory.

When, or why, did he acquire that label?

That's an honest question. Try to answer it to the best of your ability.

There were 3 minutes left.

And they were playing Drew Brees who hadn't been stopped all game.

The point is that Indy couldn't use all the time to score.

NO was getting the ball back.

They were going to have the ball last.

They were going to win.

The first time I saw that label was before a game against in Oakland, I believe in 2001 or 2. An Oakland player said,

"What's Peyton Manning anyway? How many playoff games has he won? At Tennessee how many bowl games did he win?"

That started it.

The answer to how many bowl games he won?

Three in four years.

It's always been a BS question.

Ok, I can't find play by play data for the 2000 WC game against Miami, but I doubt it matters much.

Since 2003, in the fourth quarter of close games (defined as Indy had the ball down a score or up a score), Manning is 80/128, 997 yards, 5 TD, 3 picks. That's a rating of 89.9, with a 7.8 YPA. Those are better numbers than his overall playoff numbers.

The three picks came against NE (down 14...but they would later score to make it 7, and get the ball back), KC (they were up 8, won anyway), and NO this past Sunday.

The games involved were:
2003: @ KC, @ NE
2005: Pitt
2006: KC, @ Balt, NE, CHI
2007: SD
2008: @ SD
2009: NYJ, NO

I did not count:
1999, 2000 (no game data...I believe only the 2000 game was a one score game in the fourth).

2002: @NYJ Colts trailed by 30
2003: Denver Colts led by a bunch
2004: Denver Colts led by a bunch
2009: Baltimore Colts led 20-3

Fair enough?

That data was for JC for asked for it somewhere or another.

I posted it here.

Brady's numbers (per JC):

87 for 141, 864, 4 TDs, 4 Picks

76.7 rating

6.1 YPA

Clutch my ass.

Again for the game to be counted, the Pats had to trail by one score or less with the ball in the fourth quarter, or lead by one score or less.

One of those Brady picks was in the 2006 Divisional, where Troy Brown stripped Marlon McCree. Don't you know that was the whole plan? Brady was so clutch in throwing that pick. You can't count that one.

By all means, count it!

Count every 4th Quarter between them in the postseason.

Besides we had already won 3 SB's before that, and the following season he threw 50 Scores.

DZ - he's only thrown 4 TD's in the 4th Quarter of the Posstseason??

Oh that's right, of games YOU select.