He also didn't force the ball or take meaningful sacks.

Seattle is a bit of an exception. It's rare that you can build a team out of underpaid veterans and stars on rookie contracts.

That said, Manning clearly bombed in the Superbowl. Denver was built financially around a dominating offense and they could not win with Peyton playing this poorly.

Wilson was exceptional as long as people get it out of their heads that 400yard performances are exceptional. He capitalized on opportunities. And his drive management in the second half, the way he nicked away and kept drives going made it impossible for Denver to come back.

I think back to one throw where Tate was open on a deep route. He tucked it under and ran. Tremendous heady play from a guy who knew he was up by 29 and knew some chances weren't worth taking. And the accuracy of his throws... He made every throw count.

Can't believe he had 280 yards passing.

:clap::clap::clap:

That was Actually a bad play for him. They got called on a hold on that play because he held the ball for 5 seconds longer than he should have. He should have either thrown it right away or not wait so long to run it. Of all the examples to use, this wasn't the best one.

The best one would have been the 3rd down throw to Lockette. That was his best pass of the night. Other than that, he was above average.
Posted via Mobile Device

Wilson played great.

I think the idea around Chiefsplanet is that a QB doesn't play a great game unless they throw for 300 yards and 3 TD with 0 INT. It's false.

A QB plays a great game if he is efficient and does his part to keep drives moving, resulting in points. The best measure is really the QB Rating considered coequally with the offense's scoring output.

You might look at Manning's stats last week and say he was better last week than Wilson was this week. Well, passing yards and TDs are dependent on situations and game plan. Seattle took their foot off the gas this week. Wilson made competent decisions executing drives.

That doesn't mean he's a game manager. It means he's the general of that offense and he's leading them effectively.

Judge him by 43 points and no turnovers.

Hey, I thought game managing QB's were taboo around here? :D

This post is the first post you used the word "managed".
Posted via Mobile Device

What I'm saying is that in a veiled "Alex Smith Sucks" debate around here, you have "franchise quarterbacks" and "game managers", and we google stats endlessly which omit all the context of how football is played, which is situational.

I didn't say being a game manager is a bad thing.
Posted via Mobile Device

You wanna be the new splatbass now?

Teams win championships, not quarterbacks. In the rush to create these narratives about postseason clutchness, it seems many forget that.

Did Peyton choke yesterday? For me, no. He just got beat by a far superior team. Peyton Manning covered up for the Broncos' flaws all season until they finally ran into a defense that could handle them.

Agree with these posts. He threw several REALLY good balls into tight windows. He wasn't just throwing safe shit and playing not to lose like what I would consider to be a game manager. He made some really really good plays. And he didn't screw up much. Just because he wasn't asked throw throw it 45 times doesn't mean he's a "game manager".

Good discussion here. I think at the key positions, you have to draft well, and often. I think you can pay a guy like Houston, but you probably can't pay 2 guys like Houston. You need some young guys that can get production for cheap. Same with WR, CB, DL and maybe LT. At those key positions, you have to get cheap production to win.

2nd. Still far from half dozen
Posted via Mobile Device