Comments on: Why I’m Backing the Colts

By: Dreamweapon

Dreamweapon — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:15:36 +0000

Walt Weiss FTW.

By: RotoScoop

RotoScoop — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:31:34 +0000

Honestly, a Saints win wouldn’t surprise. A “blowout” by them, on the other hand, would definitely shock me. Good luck Walt Weiss! Manning is going to ball tomorrow.

By: Walt Weiss

Walt Weiss — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:56:33 +0000

This was a well written article, but it was entirely wrong in its conclusion. Who dat? The Saints are going to win outright in a blow-out. You are on the wrong side of History. Who dat? Peyton Manning will not survive the first quarter. Although the Colts do have a good back-up in that guy from Purdue who is not Drew Brees, the Saints have the guy from Purdue who is Drew Brees. Again, I ask who dat? Besides, who do you think Manning is really rooting for?

By: RotoScoop

RotoScoop — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:40:19 +0000

First off, you are underrating Gasol, who is a top-10 player in the NBA. And Bynum is legit too – his numbers would look much better if Kobe wasn’t on the team taking 22.5 shots per game. Also, Phil Jackson is possibly the best coach in NBA history as well (I tend to disagree with this notion, but the point being they are well coached). But I’m not a Kobe hater – dude is awesome, obviously, and I also agree with your general point in that it’s much easier to make an impact as one player in basketball than it is baseball or football.

But James is a much better example in this case, since he has inferior teammates and has also surpassed Kobe as the best player in the league (and this is no longer even debatable). Actually, Durant is possibly even better at this stage too (which is insane since he’s 21 years old).

But quarterback is BY FAR the toughest position to play in sports, and also one that can have an inordinate impact on a franchise. We are arguing semantics, and I do agree with your general point, but P. Manning is pretty damn valuable.

By: Dreamweapon

Dreamweapon — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:32:01 +0000

Yeah, I already immediately thought of James after posting. If you’re talking about importance, I’d take either of them over any football player, no matter who it was–Manning now, mid-90s Reggie White, 80s Montana, early-60s Jim Brown, doesn’t matter. And as you know, I don’t even like pro basketball, I think it’s largely garbage at this point, I would rather take a nap than watch a regular season NBA game. Perhaps it’s too rudimentary, but to me, generally speaking, way smaller teams equals way bigger opportunity for individual impact, and the players play both ways and are thus on the court for ~90% of game clock instead of ~50% in football. Making the playoffs in basketball means next to nothing to me, sub-.500 teams make it all the time. The fact that his teammates could probably stumble their way to a 40-win record in a league where maybe a dozen players in total actually give a shit about the regular season isn’t very impressive. I don’t see the Colts being Lions-class bad, they had the #8 overall scoring D despite having little incentive to play hard in the second half of many of their games. I’d call them between 6-10 and 9-7 with a league average QB, the entire range of which is no different to me than a #7 or 8 seed and attendant first-round NBA playoff exit. Which, while I don’t know much about Bynum, is precisely what I would expect any team led by mopes and clowns of Gasol’s, Odom’s or Artest’s caliber to earn. I just don’t see how anyone could possibly make a sincere argument that those guys sniff a title without Bryant, so he’s already proven as indispensable to his team as Manning could possibly be–no Kobe, no title, pure and simple. Manning is great and all, probably a better overall player in his sport than Bryant is, but as far as importance to their teams’ success, they’re at best indistinguishable.

By: RotoScoop

RotoScoop — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:33:24 +0000

Dreamweapon – Not even close! Are you kidding me? The Lakers would still have Gasol, Bynum, Odom and Artest – they’d easily make the playoffs. The Colts would probably be something like 2-14 without Manning. A better comparison would be LeBron, since he’s both now (far) superior to Kobe, and his teammates are brutal.

By: RotoScoop

RotoScoop — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:31:13 +0000

Scheub – Like I said, you could be right. But Indy has a pretty good pass defense, and I have far more confidence in Peyton bringing his “A” game than I do Brees.

By: Carli

Carli — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:49:56 +0000

Scheuber- That’s way too high of a score and you’ve got the wrong team winning the game.

By: Dreamweapon

Dreamweapon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:55:17 +0000

Don’t get me wrong, I hate the guy, but aren’t the Lakers without Kobe just as bad as the Colts without Manning?

By: scheub

scheub — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:15:08 +0000

For the majority of that post I thought you were defending the Saints. So you’re basing your Colts covering on Peyton, ignoring his fairly pedestrian stats in his previous post season appearances? I’m not arguing that he isn’t the best ever, I’m just saying I have a little trouble putting that much faith on a team that relies so heavily on one player. Especially when that player has shown that, in the past, he can under perform in pressure situations.

I’ve been on the Saints all season, no reason to stop now: Saints 38-35. Oh and also the NFL Madden simulation for this game predicted the Saints winning (it’s correctly predicted 5 of the last 6), so if that’s not a sure thing, I don’t know what is.