AFC Wild Card Games

[cdumler7]

NEHomer, just go back to the pats board where you can all cry about how the patriots are the most banged up team and how it isn't fair the NFL did not hand you the Lombardi in September.

Well now that you mention it, taking Vince Wilfork off one side of the line and Gronkowski off the other does have some merit. If I left, here, you'd all miss me~

And taking Ryan Clady and Von Miller on each side has some merit as well...Not sure what your point is here. All 4 have been All-pros in the NFL so both teams have suffered some serious injuries. Not sure we would miss you one bit.

 

[NEhomer]

if you say so, then yes.

Reads like an answer to me. Sure, teams generally do fare better at home. What I queried, was whether that explained the commonly held belief that Peyton does not do as well in nasty weather. 40 degrees is not nasty.

 

[NEhomer]

Not sure we would miss you one bit.

Hey, you're just saying that 'cause you mean it!

 

[cdumler7]

if you say so, then yes.

Reads like an answer to me. Sure, teams generally do fare better at home. What I queried, was whether that explained the commonly held belief that Peyton does not do as well in nasty weather. 40 degrees is not nasty.

It explains a lot more of his win/loss record. Most of those bad weather games were playoff games so the fact that they were the road team meant that they were expected to lose as a team. That doesn't mean that Peyton played bad in those games just that the team expected to lose met those expectations.

And no it does not explain the commonly held belief that Peyton plays bad in nasty weather. The two areas that they point to when it is cold weather is his record which is 11-12 in such games of under 40 degrees (again he has been the road team all but 2 of those games and in the NFL right now 75% of the NFL teams finish below .500 on the road). They then sometimes point to his quarterback rating in such games that is 83.5. They seem to ignore the fact that over his last 10 though he has had a quarterback rating over a 100 and just can't get past the fact that early on in his career he struggled but hasn't of late.

 

[iknowftbll]

Guys. I'm not hurt or offended by your many insults, I'm simply pointing out that you're using them in place of answering a simple postulate.
.

There haven't been any insults, homer. You act in trollish ways. You display little to no reading comprehension or critical thought. You ignore answers to your questions because you don't like what you hear. You give ignorant and patronizing responses to questions not in an attempt to give an intelligent answer (assuming you are even capable of doing so) but only to say you answered. It's the equivalent to an uneducated guess on a test simply to not leave a blank. So no, it is not an insult when I say I think you lack intelligence. You certainly don't display any here on this forum, so why should I assume anything different? And again I stress I am simply voicing an opinion. That it is unfavorable of you is not meant as an insult but a reaction to the nonsense you spew on a regular basis. You are welcome to voice your opinion of me. Be warned, unlike you I have thick skin and do not get into the practice of caring what anonymous posters think about me, especially ones I've deemed are not that bright.

 

[NEhomer]

Ftbll, quell your chest pounding and academic self concept and address this:

Saying the weather is irrelevant because both teams play in it is not the same as saying that it doesn't matter because it would not affect Peyton's play.

Then tell me who can't comprehend.

 

[cdumler7]

Ftbll, quell your chest pounding and academic self concept and address this:

Saying the weather is irrelevant because both teams play in it is not the same as saying that it doesn't matter because it would not affect Peyton's play.

Then tell me who can't comprehend.

you are taking one little snippet of this whole conversation and trying to use it as a way to show that iknowftbll can't comprehend. He has already pointed towards the article that I put on here trying desperately for you to respond to it with more than "well how many of those were actually nasty weather with wind and snow?" He has said that bad weather does not affect Peyton as much as the main stream media (ESPN) tries to make it out to be. So then you add that with his thought that both teams have to play in it then the whole picture begins to develop that he doesn't think weather would be a major deciding factor in the game. Whoa how crazy is that if you actually read the whole thing you can actually understand.

 

[NEhomer]

has already pointed towards the article that I put on here trying desperately for you to respond to it with more than "well how many of those were actually nasty weather with wind and snow.

This article you speak of is from milehighreport.com and it goes by 40degrees. If you do a google search on PM and cold weather you get a number of articles with a variety of slants. Some doing their best to negate the numbers if they're pro Broncos you know, like milehighreport.com with a Boncos logo at the top of the page and others using less forgiving factors. I'm not gonna bother linking any of them because what I've asked for is your personal opinions.

 

[iknowftbll]

Ftbll, quell your chest pounding and academic self concept and address this:

Saying the weather is irrelevant because both teams play in it is not the same as saying that it doesn't matter because it would not affect Peyton's play.

Then tell me who can't comprehend.

Further proof of your dearth of intelligence. Telling you I have an opinion and explaining why I have an opinion is hardly "chest pounding and self concept." I don't claim to be some great and enlightened person, I just know idiocy when I see it. But I'll stop there since it seems to bother you so much.

On to your question. I said it's irrelevant and one of the reasons I said so was Manning can leas his team to a win in any conditions. CD said virtually the same thing and even acknowledged a few posts back that he was conveying similar thoughts as I was. Sorry, man, the answer was right in front of you and you missed it.

 

[HOF-ELWAY-7]

The thread that just won't die. Maybe Brady is a better bad weather QB. Who cares! It doesn't mean Manning can't win in the cold, he has. The fact is if R. Moore makes a play on the ball against the Ravens I'm not sure we're having this conversation. The QB gets all the credit and all the blame whether it's right or not. BTW Manning went into that same NE wind throwing awesome passes to tie the game. In that same game Denver had two muffed punts resulting in 10 points including one that set up the game winning FG but I'm sure that's also a indicator of Manning's bad cold weather play.

I don't think I'm alone in this but personally I would love to see the Pats in the AFC Championship game.

BTW the VERY early weather forecast in Denver next week is mid 50's with no wind. Not that it will matter too much...

 

[NEhomer]

Saying that the weather is irrelevant because Manning can win in bad conditions is not the same as saying that the weather is irrelevant because it does not affect PM's play.

Try again.

 

[NEhomer]

HOF-ELWAY-7

Excellent post.

 

[iknowftbll]

Saying that the weather is irrelevant because Manning can win in bad conditions is not the same as saying that the weather is irrelevant because it does not affect PM's play.

Try again.

It's a subtle difference and ignores the overall state of mind given in those answers. We both feel the weather is irrelevant. If there was any doubt, CD even affirmed this himself. It's another swing and miss for you.

 

[cdumler7]

The article I posted from Mile High report is all based in statistics and just showing his game log of every game under 40 degrees. You can't manipulate that. Facts are facts. The fact that he has had over a hundred quarterback rating in the last 10 games played in such conditions is not something somebody just made up or caused the stats to lean that way.


Now I will admit some of the other in the article tries to show why Peyton's win-loss record in such games isn't the greatest and I guess you could consider that subjective but again they actually used stats to back up why they think that way. All I have seen ESPN do is flash Peyton's record against Brady and Peyton's record in cold weather. Again record is a team stat not an individual stat. Yes the quarterback has the chance to influence that stat more than any other player on the field but if that is all they have then well it is ignorant at best and that is putting it nicely.

 

[cdumler7]

Saying that the weather is irrelevant because Manning can win in bad conditions is not the same as saying that the weather is irrelevant because it does not affect PM's play.

Try again.

Also Peyton having over a 100 quarterback rating in cold weather over the last 10 games is above his career average so if anything over the last 10 games he has actually played better in such games compared to just regular weather games for his career. So it really is irrelevant because if anything it affects his play for better.

 

[WalkerBoh]

It's a subtle difference and ignores the overall state of mind given in those answers. We both feel the weather is irrelevant. If there was any doubt, CD even affirmed this himself. It's another swing and miss for you.

Actually, the statistics show that weather HAS BEEN relevant. Historically, Manning has shown a LARGER dropoff in performance compared to Brady whan the weather turns bad. That's because in good conditions, Manning's stats are far better than Brady's overall.

Part of this is due to Manning being a dome player. It's well documented that dome teams typically don't play as well when the weather turns bad. Teams like Atlanta, Minnesota, Houston (Oilers included) Detroit, and Seattle were usually at a disadvantage when they played away games in bad weather. Sure, there were a few outliers here and there, but overall, bad weather has been detrimental to dome teams. And the stats show that this was true for Manning and Indy too. However, now that Manning is playing in Denver, out in the elements, he's improving in this area. Most people get hung up on the past to realize that Manning is learning to deal with weather better. It also helps that some of those would potentially be home games.

Now to say weather is irrelevant since both teams have to play in it anyway is incredibly simplistic, and ignores the fact that some NFL teams are better at adapting than others. For example, historically pass-happy offenses have not fared as well in bad weather as offenses who have more balance, or can run well. Much of this is due to the fact passing becomes riskier in bad weather conditions than in good, while running isn't affected as much. Take a look at the recent Philly snow game. Philly had the better run game, and it served them very well against the Lions. Their run game became a greater advantage in the snow.

I can see NE's point that he would rather see a bad weather day in Denver if NE were to go to the AFCCG against the Broncos. The historical stats back him up completely. However, one thing he's not accounting for is the fact it's also a home game for Manning and Denver. That would serve to neutralize at least some of the perceived advantage.

 

[cdumler7]

Actually, the statistics show that weather HAS BEEN relevant. Historically, Manning has shown a LARGER dropoff in performance compared to Brady whan the weather turns bad. That's because in good conditions, Manning's stats are far better than Brady's overall.

Part of this is due to Manning being a dome player. It's well documented that dome teams typically don't play as well when the weather turns bad. Teams like Atlanta, Minnesota, Houston (Oilers included) Detroit, and Seattle were usually at a disadvantage when they played away games in bad weather. Sure, there were a few outliers here and there, but overall, bad weather has been detrimental to dome teams. And the stats show that this was true for Manning and Indy too. However, now that Manning is playing in Denver, out in the elements, he's improving in this area. Most people get hung up on the past to realize that Manning is learning to deal with weather better. It also helps that some of those would potentially be home games.

Now to say weather is irrelevant since both teams have to play in it anyway is incredibly simplistic, and ignores the fact that some NFL teams are better at adapting than others. For example, historically pass-happy offenses have not fared as well in bad weather as offenses who have more balance, or can run well. Much of this is due to the fact passing becomes riskier in bad weather conditions than in good, while running isn't affected as much. Take a look at the recent Philly snow game. Philly had the better run game, and it served them very well against the Lions. Their run game became a greater advantage in the snow.

I can see NE's point that he would rather see a bad weather day in Denver if NE were to go to the AFCCG against the Broncos. The historical stats back him up completely. However, one thing he's not accounting for is the fact it's also a home game for Manning and Denver. That would serve to neutralize at least some of the perceived advantage.

If you are going to claim that Iknowftbll's view was simplistic then shouldn't you look at your own as well? The first being that because Peyton was a dome quarterback that means he was on the road for the first major part of his career if he was playing in elements. Quarterbacks (all quarterbacks) don't usually play better on the road compared to at home whether there is weather involved or not so that accounts for some of Peyton's drop off in stats on the road whether it is in the elements or not. For example no matter the weather this year Drew Brees has a drop off of 40 points in quarterback rating on the road compared to at home. That doesn't factor in any kind of weather conditions just home-away.

The second part that I think your statement doesn't take into consideration as much as it should because he was even doing this when he was with the Colts is he got better in his career in cold weather games. Such as since 2006 Peyton has had a quarterback rating of 93 or higher in 7 of his 11 games in bad weather. I think for me I would take what Peyton has done over the last 8 years of his career a little more seriously compared to the first part of his career where he only had a quarterback rating that high once out of 12 games. So his stats are hurt big time that for the first 8 years of his career he stunk it up in cold weather.

Again this whole Peyton playing in cold weather thing isn't so black and white as some want to try and make it.

 

[NEhomer]

B.I.N.G.O. Walker. Agreed on all counts, however, I'm not failing to account for the final factors you mention. Dropping a turd in Miami caused that. If the game does happen, Broncs will likely be significant faves.

 

[iknowftbll]

Walker, your last paragraph is the central idea I've tried to communicate. On this thread and a few others. I've read plenty of articles and seen enough analysis on the Brady-Manning numbers in the cold but the one thing that always skews the data is the fact that most of the data points for Manning are away games. For a more unbiased comparison a breakout of only cold weather away games for Brady would likely lead to a better comparison.

Then again, I'm not a big stats guy when it comes down to it. All that matters to me is the execution of the task at hand. If the AFCCG came down to the Pats and Broncos and I saw the weather called for cold and wind and snow it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. If the team I root for needs the weather to be just so in order to perform then they have some serious flaws.

FWIW that hypothetical game we keep talking about would be pretty interesting because both teams can get it done on the ground, and neither have a dominant defense. I wouldn't feel the Broncos chances in such a game were diminished any more than I would believe good weather favored them.

 

[WalkerBoh]

Walker, your last paragraph is the central idea I've tried to communicate. On this thread and a few others. I've read plenty of articles and seen enough analysis on the Brady-Manning numbers in the cold but the one thing that always skews the data is the fact that most of the data points for Manning are away games. For a more unbiased comparison a breakout of only cold weather away games for Brady would likely lead to a better comparison.

Then again, I'm not a big stats guy when it comes down to it. All that matters to me is the execution of the task at hand. If the AFCCG came down to the Pats and Broncos and I saw the weather called for cold and wind and snow it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. If the team I root for needs the weather to be just so in order to perform then they have some serious flaws.

FWIW that hypothetical game we keep talking about would be pretty interesting because both teams can get it done on the ground, and neither have a dominant defense. I wouldn't feel the Broncos chances in such a game were diminished any more than I would believe good weather favored them.

THIS! Championship teams get the job done regardless of weather conditions. Hopefully this playoff season Denver will be that kind of team!