"Last night's title and MVP for Peyton Manning didn't prove he's a clutch performer. The 2005 and 2006 ALDS's didn't prove A-Rod is an unclutch performer. They're just samples of data, surrounded by noise. Manning's ring does, however, prove one thing: he's capable of coming through in the biggest situations, he does have what it takes. And everyone who said he didn't was wrong."
I just disagree with the part about Manning playing spectacularly in the 2007 playoffs.
Manning "proved he could win the big game" because the Colts defense got good.
2 comments:
Really? Was the Colts' defense good against the Pats? I think I've figured out your blog: See what sportswriters have written and then just disagree with them.
Do you ever agree? Are there any writers you find to be good? Just wondering.
Yes, the Colts defense was good against the Pats. They even stopped Tom Brady in the fourth quarter of a playoff game.
Manning supposedly proved his clutchness in the 2007 playoffs, but he played so-so in the 2007 playoffs. More interceptions than TDs (I think). Maybe 6 or 7 yards per attempt (I'm guessing). Ball control offense. Don't make mistakes in the red zone.
I mostly agree with Larry Mahnken's article, as an example. That is why I said, "The only thing I disagree with is ..."
Post a Comment