Talk:Peyton Manning

Image

I think this page needs a picture of Manning. Tim 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to find the Sports Illustrated cover of Manning --J. Nguyen 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What's up with the new, and obviously biased, SI cover?

It's been removed. There is no substantial discussion of the actual SI article in question; it is simply being used to depict Peyton Manning without critical review of the image or the article, so it isn't fair use. Even the caption suggested that what was being illustrated was 'Manning's trouble with Florida', and not any particulars of the image or article. (The other, infobox, image was removed because someone uploaded it with 'no rights reserved', and I see nothing on the website it came from that suggests that this is the case.) Skybunny 13:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Undefeated Season

As at 2006-9-24 there was a "citation required" attached to the statement of the intention to try for an undefeated season and a reference to the fact that the season today is longer that that played by the 1972 Dolphins. Not only is is unclear what citation was required, none *is* required -- res ipsa loquitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur).

Added a mention to the Colts almost going undefeated in the 2005 season. Although it's mentioned under the Colt's article; I figured that if they had actually won, almost everybody would attribute the season to Peyton and his passing game (although Edgerrin James is having a great season), so I thought it would merit a mention here. Tim 03:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

er, did you read the article? it's mentioned like 2 lines above where you put it. Simishag 03:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, haha. Man, don't I feel like an idiot. Nevermind. Tim 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

no worries. your para did seem to be written better but the section as a whole would need to be reworked (the chronology is a bit out of order). feel free to take another crack at it. Simishag 03:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I did two rewrites of the 2005 season.

Here's the first, a basic rewrite of the writing already on the page:

When the 2005 season started, it was an entirely different story. The Colts’ defense has been vastly superior compared to the previous years, and coupled with Manning’s passing game and Edgerrin James’ running game, the Colts started their season with 13 wins before a disappointing loss in week 15 to the San Diego Chargers at home on December 18. The final score was 26-17. (If they had ansucceeded in going undefeated, they would have been the only team to do so in the modern NFL regular schedule. When the 1972 Dolphins went undefeated in both regular and post season play, the regular season was only 14 games long, compared to the 16 game season NFL teams have today.) In week 9 of the season, coming off of their BYE week, Manning and the Colts finally beat the Patriots at their home 40-21 on Monday Night Football. It not only ended a 10 year losing streak for the Colts when playing at Foxborough, Massachusetts, but it also ended Manning’s heavily criticized 7 game losing streak against the Patriots.

Here's the second, a more chronological order of the season:

When the 2005 season started, it was an entirely different story. The Colts’ defense has vastly improved over the previous years, and coupled with Manning’s passing game and Edgerrin James’ running game, the Colts have had one of the best seasons of any team in recent years. In week 9, the Colts, at 7-0, came off of their BYE week and faced their rival who had denied them the chance for the Super Bowl several times before, the Patriots, whose standing was at 4-3, at Gillette Stadium, [[Foxborough, Massachusetts]. The Colts finally ended their 10 year losing streak at Foxborough, with Manning ending his heavily criticized 7 game losing streak against the Patriots. In week 15, Manning and the Colts played the San Diego Chargers at home in the RCA Dome. The Colts had been playing for an undefeated season, going 13-0 before this game. However, the Colts played a sub par game against the Chargers and fell short of the win; the score was 26-17. (As a note, if they had succeeded in going undefeated, they would have been the only team to do so in the modern NFL regular schedule. When the 1972 Dolphins went undefeated in both regular and post season play, the regular season was only 14 games long, compared to the 16 game season NFL teams have today.)

Or you have the information still on the page. Which one is more in line with Wikipedia's standards? Tim 04:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Second version is well written, much better than what's on the page now. I would remove the last paragraph in the current section, and the last couple sentences of the preceding para, and replace all that with your new version. That would also put the criticism about Florida and Marino in its own para separate from the season by season account. Maybe move the criticism to be last after the season accounts. Simishag 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Followed your advice, and moved around some of the sentences. I agree that the second paragraph is the better of the two. Tim 07:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

hey - i might touch up the writing in the perfect season section(if that's cool) and i also feel that information regarding the schedule strength and the offensive abilities of the teams they faced could better explain what went into making them go 13-0. after i brain something up i'll throw it out here for critique. peace--Nod 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay rumors

Not going to keep reverting obviously... but this is not a story being covered by the actual media, because it's not a story. There's no reason to mention it in the article. --W.marsh 07:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To the anon user hiding behind an IP address: Your other contributions suggest that you're more interested in making trouble than in improving this article. Before adding rumors from a random blog, please see:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Unattributed_material
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_secondary_sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence

Citing a blog that claims to have heard rumors from yet another blog (a claim which itself can't even be verified) does not make those rumors verifiable or appropriate for inclusion here. Simishag 07:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever printed that crap about Peyton Manning being gay is a complete idiot. Most clowns who are jealous are the ones who start these rumors.

Why is there no information...

about how much of a crybaby Peyton Manning is? About how he constantly bashes teammates, blames losses on them, doesn't take the ride for his own mistakes or complete chokes? Yells at his players, coaches, etc... take the good with the bad.

Personally, I'd like to see this page simple, like:

Peyton Manning: a man created by a great offensive surrounding. The end.

It'll be humorous to see what this joke does next season without Reggie Wayne or Edge James (the main reason for mannings hype). THEY STILL HAVE REGGIE WAYNE. YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

Chances are over for a superbowl...and the fall of a media figure is upon us. Poor poor peyton... spoiled all his life, but somethings cant be given to you... although refs tried their hardest.

Without citations, all of that is original research and obvious POV. Anonymous detractors tend to come out of the woodwork after big losses, and it's fair to say Manning has a history of choking in big games (which has been duly noted), but no unbiased observer would claim that every bit of his career success is due solely to his coaches or teammates. Simishag 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Trust...Tee Martin (who? I know..), Tee Martin won the big game manning couldint with practically the same exact team....minus peymetons of course.

Manning is a good quarterback, however, he's certainly not great. A quarterback is measured by more than just statistics. You have to consider things like how that individual respondes to pressure situations, how good of a leader he is, etc. Perhaps its just my opinion, but it seems as though Manning gets all the credit for wins, but doesn't ever recieve blame for the loss. (For example, when the Colts lost to Pittsburgh in '05, Manning alluded to the offensive line being at fault, and yet had they won, or in any previous wins, did he ever say, "no, don't give me the credit. It was all the o'line?". Of course not.) What shocks me is that after the overall impressiveness that the Colts had in '05 when they still lost, the loss of key free agent Edgerine James (among others), the improvments of so many other AFC teams, and yet still the Colts are favored to win the super bowl? That makes no sense.

Criticism

OK, I know some folks have tried to make a mockery of the criticism section I created, but as it stands it requires no citation. This is stuff every NFL commentator in the nation has been discussing for some time now, and even more so now, and will be until Manning wins a big one. While I agree completely with the guy who made the Tee Martin comment above, I worded the section as neutrally as possible and so have the other serious editors who have come along. So I'm removing the citation tag for now. User:Havardj

If it's stuff that "every NFL commentator" has said, then a citation should be easy to find. See WP:NOR. --W.marsh 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To expand a bit, I don't like people adding their opinions with the weasel words "Many fans", "Many commentators believe that", "It is commonly felt that", etc. All those words mean are "Well this is what I think, but I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia to know you can't add your own opinions outright". I have no problem with a criticisms section if a source or two in the mainstream media can be cited so I can check and see if that source really says it, thus making it encyclopedic (it's in line with WP:NPOV because Manning certainly does have his critics). But as it is... it just seems like original research. Seems like a standard use of the unreferenced tag is called for. --W.marsh 16:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:W.marsh, you have an excellent point about people using wikipedia as an outlet for personal opinions and covering it up with "many say," etc. However, in research isn't there a line between claiming something requiring documentation (i.e. outside proof in form of external sources) and simply stating common opinion? I mean, criticism of Manning can be found on the front page of any sports cite on the net! And its not original research, which implies that I had to go out on my own and figure this out. While I could, I don't need to bother, as everyone else has already come to this conclusion. However, you're right. I shouldn't have any trouble finding this stuff, so I suppose I'll find some, and document the section. User:Havardj

Like I said, it's just important that anyone can actually check the claims made in an article. Like you say, this is all commonly said stuff... but it makes it encyclopedic if we actually define who says it, instead of the hopelessly vague "many sportswriters" etc.

An underlying reason I keep asking for references is that these "criticism" sections can spiral out of control, as everyone adds their own take... as we've seen here. And I thank everyone who's been involved in trimming it down so far. But if criticisms are referenced to notable commentators and writers, the section is actually useful and not just a pile of the kind of comments you can find on any random NFL message board. --W.marsh 17:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point. I really don't want to seem belligerent, I just think its a little overzealous to require proof of common opinion. However, I added a citation from ESPN.com. And I do agree on the point of criticism sections getting out of hand. I've tried to make my original and subsequent contributions unbiased, including making note of the counter-criticism dealing with Manning's college performance vs. the Gators. User:Havardj

I removed the stuff (twice now) about Manning being a good guy and a role model. It may be true, but it's irrelevant to criticism of his skills on the field. Also, as written, it was uncited and annoying POV; reading it makes me feel like I'm watching Sunday Conversation on ESPN or some sappy show like that. Let's stick to legitimate criticism of on-field performance, like prominent sports commentator quotes and his statistics in big games, rather than try to find something "nice" to say about him to balance out the criticism. Simishag 22:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed this text: "A counterpoint to this is that in the 1996 game, Manning threw 4 interceptions which helped Florida get out to a 35-0 lead, and that he played poorly in the 1997 game, with the only touchdown pass being thrown late in the game when the game was already well in hand," because it is flat out wrong. In actuality, he threw 3 TDs in that game, was 29-51 passing (the 13th highest total all-time at Tennessee), and amassed the aforementioned 353 yards (12th all-time, Tennessee) in his "poor" performance (http://www.gatorzone.com/football/history/1997/game1997.pdf). Compare that to the 14-32, 3 TD presumably "good" performance of the Florida quarterback, and you may start to realize that critics of Manning's college career are merely carrying over their agenda, with little regard for the facts. Of course, that's a personal opinion, so I thought deletion was the best strategy.

Who screwed up the Criticism section? I thought it read well the way it was...now, we have unencyclopedic POV claims of "clearly holding the edge in 'clutch' performances" and a reversion to the incorrect 0-4 stat against Florida. Doing soem editing now, although a full deletion back to the previous might be warranted. I don't see any of the new stuff contributing, but I'd like to hear what everyone thinks first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.223.206.219 (talk • contribs)

Go for it... ultimately uncited anything like "Most fans think..." should probably go. I regret that I haven't had enough time to keep the section pruned... it takes a lot of work with a guy like Manning. --W.marsh 12:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the links into references -- I think it reads a lot cleaner that way. Also, on top of a couple of grammatical problems, I removed or edited some of the wording; this is obviously a pretty tricky section to keep as NPOV as possible, and I don't think it's quite there yet. Kybard 23:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

College Record

Peyton wasn't 0-4 against Florida and 26-0 against everybody else in the SEC; his freshman year he didn't start the Florida game, so that loss is not "his." However he did start the Alabama game, which was also a loss. So he was 0-3 against Florida and 3-1 against Alabama for his 4 SEC losses in his career.

fixed, thanks for the info. Simishag 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

the playoff stats

the playoff stats i originally saw on the page are wrong so i took the liberty to correct them (this was the 2nd time so i am making this message in the hope it stays fixed).

you can check this informatation here..

look under "playoff data"

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/MannPe00.htm

05-06 season cleanup

The 2005-2006 season bit of the article read like half was written by a colts blog, and the other half by a patriots blog. I did a major cleanup, and while it's not perfect, it's a lot better than what was there before.

Marketing career?

Is it appropriate to add a section to this article about the commercials Peyton has been in? Or at least the companies he has endorsed? I don't have enough information to do it myself, but it's something I would like to see and read. --Crisu 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've placed a request for semi-protection to attempt to counter-act the consistent vandalism. Dlong 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Records

Because of the lock I can't edit the page, but i'd like to note that in 2004 Manning broke Marino's record of 4 consecutive games with at least 4 td passes by doing it 5 games in a row.

Also, factual mistake that cannot be corrected because of the lock. Peyton's older brother Cooper went to Ole Miss, not UT. This is correctly noted on Eli's page, for those who doubt me.

Stats

An anonymous user keeps editing this page to conform with ESPN's stats which seem to be regular season only, and refuses to address the issue. Because of this, I'm treating this as vandalism. I can't watch this page 24/7, though, so keep an eye out for this user Dlong 07:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References

I noticed you guys, especially Dlong, have stepped up to the plate to get this article to be well-sourced. I must say, very well done. We can always add more, but I think we can remove the citing sources template at the top of the page now. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't know what's up with my edit summary for the previous edit. It's some auto-generated thing, please ignore it. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Overrated

Is that too POV for Wikipedia to state the obvious that this guy is Overrated as a Quarterback. I mean to have your Kicker to pick up the slack for your choking in a divisional game.