Broncos-Chiefs: CB Aqib Talib on a roll through two weeks

The top takeaways and highest-graded players from Denver's win at Kansas City.

| 2 years ago
(AP Photo/Jack Dempsey)

(AP Photo/Jack Dempsey)

Broncos-Chiefs: CB Aqib Talib on a roll through two weeks

Here are the top takeaways and highest-graded players from the Chiefs-Broncos game:

Kansas City Chiefs

– Once again, QB Alex Smith (-2.0) failed to push the Chiefs over the line to victory against the Broncos with a typically conservative passing game, predicated around short passing (20/25 passes aimed within nine yards of the line of scrimmage) and yards after the catch (139/191 passing yards after the catch). At this point, Smith’s performances are a cap (both in terms of his play and the play calling) for the Chiefs’ potential, and only flawless displays (which his first interception ensured he fell short of) are good enough in the biggest games.

– There is a plethora of positive displays to give credit to on defense, but it only seems fair to start with rookie corner Marcus Peters (+3.4). Targeted 14 times, he surrendered six catches for 55 yards and a touchdown, but balanced those catches by getting his hands on five passes. He returned an interception for a touchdown, and also racked up four passes defensed, three of them against Broncos WR Demaryius Thomas (+1.9).

– The Chiefs finally got a multi-year deal sorted with OLB Justin Houston (+6.8) after protracted discussions; after his start to the season, they’ll be glad for it. After notching six pressures in Houston on Sunday, last night he picked up five pressures—including two sacks against the Broncos—consistently getting the better of RT Ryan Harris (-6.8) on the outside, but also working inside, where he picked up one of his sacks against Broncos LG Evan Mathis (-0.5).

Top performers:

OLB Justin Houston (+6.8)
NT Jaye Howard (+5.3)
CB Marcus Peters (+3.4)
ILB Josh Mauga (+2.0)
DE Mike Devito (+1.9)

Denver Broncos

– The hot topic of discussion relating to the Broncos is, of course, Peyton Manning (-2.3). The veteran quarterback offered plenty of ammunition to both his supporters and his detractors last night in an erratic performance. Strong work on intermediate passes (7/13 passing, 124 yards, one touchdown, +2.4 PFF grade), highlighted by a pinpoint back-shoulder throw to Demaryius Thomas, was paired with misfired deep passing (0/4, -2.7 PFF grade) and some alarming passing short and to the right (3/7, 26 yards, one interception, -3.8 PFF grade) that included his pick-six.

– It was a mixed night for Von Miller (+0.2 overall, +2.4 pass-rush) and DeMarcus Ware (-1.8 overall, +1.4 pass-rush) off the edge. Both made significant impacts as pass-rushers (11 combined pressures), but other facets of their game caused their overall grade slide. The duo combined for a trio of penalties, while Ware gave away space in the running game, most noticeable to RB Knile Davis on the Chiefs’ final touchdown.

– After two games in five days, CB Aqib Talib (+2.6) is off to a fast start with a pair of interceptions, picking off a short hitch route by Chiefs WR Jeremy Maclin (-0.3) to help bring the Broncos back into the game at the end of the second quarter. Targeted nine times this season, Talib has surrendered only three catches for 32 yards, allowing an NFL passer rating of 5.1.

Top performers:

NT Sylvester Williams (+3.3)
CB Aqib Talib (+2.6)
WR Demaryius Thomas (+1.9)
WR Emmanuel Sanders (+1.5)
DE Vance Walker (+1.4)

| Director of Analysis

Ben joined Pro Football Focus in 2007, and has since been in charge of the company’s analysis process. He also contributes to PFF’s weekly NFL podcast.

  • anon76returns

    Hard to imagine how KC could earn an aggregate grade that was +20 vs. the Broncos in that game (-19.5 for Denver on off & def, vs. +2.6 for KC). I thought the Broncos clearly looked like the better team, and, considering the location and other factors, am very surprised to see KC grading out better. Something’s amiss when the grades are that far out of whack with the results in the game- hopefully the rounds of re-grading that go on during the week will help change that.

    • Chee

      The broncos clearly looked like the better team? What are you talking about?

    • levi

      thats laughable

    • Samuel Myers

      Good point but the truth is the grades just reflect the aggregate individual performances, so it isn’t quite so simple as to say that the Chiefs graded as the better team — although when you have 4 turnovers you can be the better team more often and still lose. A few individual players with dominant games (See Justin Houston Jaye Howard and Marcus Peters) can make a significant impact on overall grade that doesn’t say much at all about wider team performance.

      Further I think you must remember that the Chiefs were totally done in by their turnovers, which only affect the grades of players directly involved (Charles and Smith) without impacting the grades of any other players on the play. So while that is a BAD TEAM play in the real sense, it doesn’t have a shared impact when there is individual grading.

      Another place to focus on is the offensive line. Denver’s offensive line was totally overwhelmed in the run game and struggled in pass pro at times as well, so right there you have the potential for 5 low grades and 3-5 correspondingly strong grades from the down linemen and OLBs of the Chiefs. Again, this is about personnel matchups, and the Chiefs were UNDOUBTEDLY the stronger team in the trenches (individual stats will support this as well, just look at rushing totals for instance).

      The Chiefs got a very strong performance – minus the fumbles – from Jamaal Charles who found running lanes without too much trouble, which points to both good work on his part and a good showing from their offensive line in the run game. Compare that to the Broncos line which failed to create any space in the run game and also had trouble with the Chiefs’ pass rush.

      I don’t mean to say that you make a bad point, and perhaps there is room for adjustment, but this was a game that the Chiefs probably should have won, and likely would have without those four terrible errors — the Broncos capitalized heavily on those. As a football purist I tend to think of those turnovers as being the hallmarks of a team that isn’t as good, and in that sense I (and you) might be right, but PFF is measuring from a different angle.

      • Samuel Myers

        You could make the argument that game changing or clutch plays should be weighted differently and not taken as just another interception, forced fumble, tackle for loss, sack, touchdown run or what have you. You could make the argument that finishing a play deserves a higher grade than disrupting one, although there are a fair amount of coaches who preach otherwise. Grading football players is highly subjective and difficult, all the more so because it’s the teams that win, not the individuals. So correlating one and the other is a challenge especially on a game to game basis, although I think it’s fair to guess that teams with largely positive grades end up being teams that win games, particularly if their overall score is the result of good balance.

      • anon76returns

        I’d argue strongly with you about domination in the trenches. The Chiefs clearly did better in the trenches on both sides in the run game. But to say that the Broncos were having trouble with the Chiefs’ pass rush is to really overlook what happened there. Using PFF’s numbers, the Broncos got 23 pressures on the Chiefs 32 drop backs, while the Chiefs only managed 15 pressures on the Broncos 51 drop backs. The Broncos were getting 0.71 pressures/pass attempt, while the Chiefs were getting 0.294 pressures/pass attempt. That’s a HUGE margin in favor of the Broncos, caused by the relative advantage of the 4-5 Broncos pass rushers over their counterparts on the KC line. That directly impacted the two most important aspects in the game- how often do you turn the ball over, and how efficient is your QB at passing the ball compared to the opposition’s QB. There was nothing lucky about the Broncos’ win- they made the plays!

        We’ll see where things stand by the middle of next week- usually when I’ve seen team grades this out of sorts with the game results, there’s some significant adjustments with the second and subsequent rounds of grading. I very much expect that to be the case here.

        • bobsaget

          Did you even watch the game? I’m going to side with no since you attributed the turnovers to QB pressures…The pressures caused 1 out of the 5 turnovers.

          • anon76returns

            Smith was hit on one INT, and was throwing the ball in under 2 sec (with a play fake!) without seeing the coverage on the other INT. That’s two plays that were directly or indirectly affected by the pass rush, and led to a minimum 10 point swing in the score in a game that was decided by 7 points.

            How closely were you paying attention to what happened in the game?

          • bobsaget

            The Chris Harris pick was caused by pressue as the pocket collapsed and Smiths arm was hit… There was no pressue on the Talib pick, That was a hot read Smith made due to Talib playing so far off the ball. Smith was late and slow, and Talib made one hell of a play but it was not caused by pressue…

          • anon76returns

            Smith was not late, he was as fast as possible with the play fake thrown in. And he was rushing the throw because the Broncos were putting pressure on him an average of 0.7 times per drop back.

          • bobsaget

            What the hell were you watching dude… It was a 3 yard curl route that was a pre determined hot route that Literally every single QB in the NFL does when they recognize a blitz, or they see a CB playing too soft. The ball got there late, and Smith stared Maclin down. The ball has to be almost at the WR before he even makes his break of turns around. Maclin is already out of his break and the ball is still in smiths hand. Talib made one hell of a play and break on the ball, but the play wasn’t caused by pressure. There wasn’t any pressure on Smith at the time he made the throw.

          • anon76returns

            What are you reading dude? Because you certainly don’t seem to be reading what I’m writing. Smith did a PA fake. In fact, he even half-assed it to try and get the ball out as fast as possible. That ball was out as quickly as it could have been for that play call. And I never said there was pressure on that play. I said that the play call and hot read were the result of the Chiefs OL not being able to handle the Broncos pass rush on other downs. An “indirect” benefit of the pass rush, as I said in my prior post.

      • Taylor Christian Vance

        Y’all both made great points. PFF is not perfect, the art they partake in is highly subjective. I wouldn’t use PFF as a tool to judge a teams performance. It’s more of a focus on how individuals played, per play. For instance, I agree that Dever’s pass rush was far more effective than KC’s, but with KC having about half the number of dropbacks. This effects the aggregate passrush grades of the broncos players, because they get graded per play. This is how the gameplan of one team directly misleads the PFF grades. Of course the chiefs aren’t going to throw 50 times vs the broncos pass rush. We will see this a lot this year if the Broncos can’t pull away early.

    • Forrest

      Are you drunk? The Broncos barely won a game where they had a +4 turnover differential. They clearly looked like they should have lost. The Chiefs were just sloppy with the ball and gave the game away – literally.

      • anon76returns

        Why should a team that managed to force 5 TOs and minimized its own TOs have lost? The Chiefs were clearly better at running the ball and defending the run, but what else did they do better? The best predictors of a win are passer rating differential (Broncos were +33) and turnover margin (Broncos were +4).
        The Chiefs were lucky they weren’t blown out.

        • bobsaget

          Overall the Chiefs defense did a better job individually…Pretty much everyone played a good game except for Fleming who gave up over half of Mannings yards.

          Denver had some nice defensive performances, in Talib, and Harris getting nice turnovers, and Ware and Miller rushing and such, but they gave up 340 total yards of offense and 150 rushing yards… It takes a whole lot of people messing up to give up 150 yards rushing. VS Jamel Flemming single handly giving up 150 Receiving yards.

          • Taylor Christian Vance

            I’ll agree for the most part, but ranking defenses is highly subjective. The Broncos played extremely aggressively. They Blitzed a lot which opened the door for the chiefs to make a few big plays. In the run game, I noticed on the two rushing touchdowns the Chief RB’s took advantage of the Broncos pass rushing up the field to cut a run back for points. Although this style of play most likely contributed to the Chiefs getting offensive yards, It also provided the Broncos with opportunities to force turnovers. Without knowing what each player on the field was supposed to be doing it’s hard to say whether or not they performed badly on a play, individually.

          • anon76returns

            Broncos gave up 314 yards of total offense, not 340. Last year only 4 defenses averaged giving up less than 314 yards/game. The Broncos gave up 26.17 yards per drive- only 2 teams averaged giving up less last year. The Broncos defense allowed zero conversions on 7 3rd down attempts- I can’t remember the last time something like that happened in a game. The Broncos D also held the opposition to 1.42 points/drive- Buffalo was the best in the league last year giving up 1.41 points/drive.
            All of that required coordinated play and smart, assignment based football. It was a dominant defensive showing, and it’s hard to see how the defense can come out with a net negative grade after such a performance.

          • bobsaget

            Alex smith 191 yards passing, Charles 125 rushing yards, Smith 15 rushing yards, Knile 9 rushing yards = 340 yards. The Chiefs Defense only gave up 317 yards…

          • anon76returns

            LOL! Serioiusly? Sorry, but yards lost on sacks count. Yards lost on run stuffs count. Chiefs gave up 299 yards, Broncos gave up 317 yards. Both are very good yardage totals, but the Broncos defense gave up less points, gave up less first downs, and was better at ending drives by holding the Chiefs at 0 for 7 on 3rd down attempts, compared to the Chiefs defense allowing the Broncos to convert 6 times on 16 attempts.

          • bobsaget

            So a a single player Jamel Fleming gave up nearly half of the entire Broncos offense all by him self, and you still cant understand how the other 10 players graded out as better than the Broncos. NIce.

          • anon76returns

            The entire Broncos defense gave up 0 3rd down conversions. The entire Chiefs defense gave up 6, and they weren’t all by Jamel Flemming. Flemming also gave up as many points as Peters and Abdullah. Had Flemming gotten more support from e.g. the pass rush, he might not have looked so bad. You’re trying to put the entire blame for the game on a single player. That’s just never the case.

          • grizpapa

            Actually, Flemming gave up the majority of the 3rd Downs.
            That’s why he’s the #4 CB, Manning did a good job of finding him when he was Matched against Sanders or Thomas.

            Sutton(DC) did a bad job of Protecting Flemming.

        • Gerron S. (ArrowSpread)

          Seriously, anon?

          “Why should a team that managed to force 5 TOs and minimized its own TOs have lost?”

          “The Chiefs were lucky they weren’t blown out.”

          Why should a team that only lost by 1 score despite 5 turnovers be lucky they didn’t get blown out? The defense clearly did a hell of a job in spite of being put in some very poor positions by the offense.

        • Izach

          That’s kinda the point, both those stats were DIRECTLY affected by just 4 plays. The other 100+ plays run favored the Chiefs IMO. Not saying Broncos didn’t “force” those plays just that when you really look at the entire game those 4 turnovers are the entirely storyline it why ppl watch the game, a team can absolutely dominate a game play after play, but a fumble return here, not here, good special teams play and bam other team wins the game

          • Taylor Christian Vance

            We are getting into semantics here but I will throw in my 2 cents.

            First, how did the Broncos D allow so many yards, but no 3rd down conversions? This is because of 1. Big Plays 2. Penalties early in the game. The Chiefs could not drive on the Broncos without the aid of one of these two things happening. So I’d argue, without the 5 big plays the chiefs made(24, 29, 30, 30, 34) the Broncos defense destroyed the Chiefs offense, hands down. That’s half of the chiefs total offense. I also think these big plays were the result of an aggressive defense. Calling blitz after blitz opens the door for chunk yardage, HOWEVER, it also offers opportunities to get sacks(which stall drives), and disrupt the QB(which could lead to turnovers). Both of Alex Smith’s INT’s were either directly or indirectly the result of Denver’s pass rush. Malik Jackson hit Smith’s arm, which forced the Harris INT. Smith went for the quick throw in off man coverage in a throwing situation because he knew he wouldn’t have time to wait for a deep route(which could lead to a sack, fumble etc.). Talib lured that throw, Smith took the bait and talib took the ball. The fact that the Broncos could bring so much heat, yet still keep the Chiefs offense in check(outside of 5 big plays) is amazing. They can sell out to stop the pass, and still stop the quick passes and runs.

            The chiefs had a great game as well. I understand Flemming was the weak point, but the chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. In this game the Broncos were the better overall defense, no question in my mind. That being said, Sean Smith returning will be game changing. Perhaps with him back the Chiefs are better. Time will tell.

            As far as individual performances defensively, the Broncos graded negatively mostly against the run. They key stats I saw vs. the pass was MLB Brandon Marshall (-3.5). This was the first game Marshall has earned a negative grade in coverage in a long time, he’s typically been a top 5 Pass coverage LB. He earned -3.5 on two catches. I watched those plays, and one was a coverage confusion in which a player was unguarded(think it was Kelce), and another was a zone play where he happened to be nearest to the ball. I have no idea how that earns -3.5. The other player to earn a significant negative grade in pass coverage was TJ Ward, who had a couple mental errors for deep plays, and in general is not a coverage player. I’m not surprised he graded negatively yet, wasn’t really “exploited”. Overall, the chiefs had little answer in the pass game, offensively.

            As far as run grades are concerned, the Broncos paid for OLB’s charging up the field in PFF’s grading system. The chiefs could hardly move Denver’s front 5 back. It was more so the differential penetration of different defenders that opened up creases for Jamaal. Was this the intended design of the play, were these olb’s supposed to rush regardless? Or were the supposed to set the edge? I can’t say, but I can say the Broncos pass rush caused 2 turnovers. Their attack up-field, though, opened up holes for the nifty Charles to expose. Without being in the Broncos team meetings, we will never know if what they did was designed, or just a mess up. This is the inherent problem with PFF grading system.

            So, as you can tell i’m a Broncos fan, who spent time judging the Broncos defensive play and came to a positive conclusion(i.e i’ve just made excuses). I’m sure a chiefs fan could do the same so keep that in mind. However, I do believe it’s true that the Broncos offered up 2 offensive looks vs. the Chiefs. The Kubiak look and the Peyton look. Peyton playing his old style rocked the Chiefs, and their defense looked unstoppable vs. the Kubiak look. You can’t just blame Flemming for PM carving up your defense in the PM offense. Where were the sacks? The pressures? Your defensive line couldn’t do much as a team, and that led to your defense getting carved up. I think if denver had gone with that look all game, there would be no question which defense had a better game, both individually and as a team. The chiefs capitalized on Peyton’s and Denver’s inability to execute Kubiaks offense. Whereas Denver faced your offense doing the best they could do(Charles fumbles probably being the exception) and dominated. So, even though the Chiefs defense looked good individually throughout the game, I’d attribute that to Denver failing to operate Kubiaks offense more than the Chiefs dominating them. When they went away from that, the Chiefs couldn’t do much defensively, and that was the difference in the game. IMO

            This is all subjective though, so make your own opinions.

          • Izach

            While I don’t disagree at all with anything you’ve said, I would just like to point out low 3rd down conversions can also mean Chiefs got an1st down on either 1st or 2nd down in general. Usually the best teams don’t even get into a lot of 3rd down situations because good 5-9 yard gains on 1st and 2nd down are common for “good” offenses. if look at overall first downs rather than 3rd down conversions IMO. but given your explaination as well and not looking back at the game currently I don’t doubt your analysis is valid.

          • Taylor Christian Vance

            I just think the Broncos are the best team in the country right now vs. the pass. They got pressure on Smith on 22/32 pass plays(and that includes plays like Talib’s INT in which Smith threw the ball in about a second). If the Broncos can force you to pass, they will win that play 9/10 times. Their Run defense is not as good, but that could be due to blitzing. I need more games to really be sure. The Chiefs had 7 drives in which they couldn’t get more than 10 yards offensively. This is most likely because those were the drives in which the Running game was ineffective or the chiefs had penalties(but i’d have to look again to be sure). In 3rd down and 5+ situations, the Chiefs are forced to pass, which is the Broncos strong point.

            So with this being said, situational football is important. If the Broncos start scoring points and forcing teams to throw the Broncos might end up with the Best defense the NFL has seen in a long time. If the offense stays anemic, they might get exploited for their weaker run defense and end up just good. Also, it could just be that Jamaal Charles is an absolute beast who is the only player who can exploit Denver’s run-game deficiencies. It is much harder to evaluate defenses than people think, football is a team sport. Statistical analysis can only do so much since situations/ game planning play a huge role.

      • SpringsGal

        According to you, defenses don’t get credit for creating turnovers. It is just because the offense just handed the ball essentially gift-wrapping turnovers. If that was the case, Seattle certainly was very lucky during their Super Bowl run. Their defense had no part in creating turnovers.

        Back to yesterday’s game. The pick by Talib was superb play by an experienced corner. Talib baited Alex Smith into that throw. All the credit goes to Talib. And on the second Alex Smith INT, that was caused by Malik Jackson hitting him causing the ball to pop up. Jamal Charles fumble was caused by Marshall aggressively stripping the ball (and the Denver defense showing energy even after playing a bruising game at the end of 60 minutes). On the flip side, KC defense gave up a game-tying 80 yard TD in the last 2 minutes with a raucous home crowd supporting them.

        So I disagree when you say the Chiefs gave the game away. I think Denver was aggressive and took the game in the end.

        • Taylor Christian Vance

          I have one amendment to your statement. I read today that the Broncos noticed Charles was holding the ball in such a way that could allow them to punch it out and that Wade had brought this up to them before the game.

          I wouldn’t call it an “aggressive strip”, more like an intelligent punch.

          But, you’re point is completely right. Denver FORCED turnovers, they weren’t handed a thing.

          • SpringsGal

            Agreed with your statement that the Broncos took advantage of Charles not holding on to the ball tightly.

            My point is that the Broncos defense was able to capitalize on that at the end of a hard fought game. After a 3 plus hour physical game, most defenses would not have aggressively pursued the ballcarrier to cause a strip. Most teams (just like KC did on offense) would be content to play it safe for overtime.

            Denver was the aggressor. And in football, the aggressive team usually end up dictating terms. And winning the game.

      • humper-dinkle dinkle-humper

        Are you drunk, Forrest? KC lost, Denver won. With all of Denver’s issues, their talent showed through.

      • Dan Hachenberger

        Barely won the game? Welcome to the NFL! Thats why we watch the game. A strong case could be made for the fact, that the Broncos took the ball away from the Chiefs! Talib, gambling on jumping that route, Brandon Marshall punching the ball out, Malik Jackson for hititng Smith’s arm on the other pick! Are you drunk?

        • Izach

          That the point 4 plays made the difference in the entire game, the other 100 or so plays seemed to favor the Chiefs as a whole

          • Dan Hachenberger

            I understand your point. The Chiefs played a great game, and look to be a tough team this year. However some people are making it sound like the Chiefs just dropped the ball and the Broncos happened to fall on it. On almost every play in the NFL there are players executing poorly, and players executing properly. This Defense the Broncos has appears to be extremely aggressive and they are “causing” turnovers. The way our defense played last year they would not have created 5 turnovers.

      • Izach

        Couldn’t have said it better, Charles lost 2 fumbles that were at least 10pt swings (FG in the RedZone, def TD at end of game) and could very likely have been 14-17pt swings in favor of KC (if KC scores TD in redzone and scores a FG at end game) not to mention the other Tunrovers. I think Chiefs played well outside of those few plays.

    • J Sandoval

      What he meant when he said “but other facets of their game caused their overall grade slide” is Denver had a LOT of personal fouls… PFF takes away points if you commit a penalty, most don’t take away from a score to much, but Denver’s Defense opened with 4 personal fouls during the first two drives costing their team 60 yards, sending a ‘message’ to the NFL (Hit people as late as you want, as often as you want… it is only going to cost you 15 yards). As long as Denver Defense continues to commit 4 personal fouls during the first quarter of a game expect their PFF scores to stay low.

      • David Huynh

        Why do people keep saying that? Everyone knows that a PF is only 15 yards. Where do you get the part “sending a message?” Are you implying they were intentionally being dirty? We’re they retaliating from KC dirty plays? Because if they were, there would be more PF throughout the game. Not just the first 2 drives.

  • rogue

    KC’s D was great. Too bad it was wasted. This loss is the beginning of the end for Andy and Alex in KC. They let this one get away.

  • Taylor Christian Vance

    PFF, I respect what you do but it’s frustrating y’all can’t see where Peyton struggles and what situations play to his strength.

    Peyton has the weakest Arm of any starting QB in the NFL, and he has since his neck injury. He generates his arm strength with great form. When he sets his feet and drives the ball with his lower body, Peyton can torch any defense. This is why defenses try to “get Manning off his spot”.

    In the face of pressure, a la when his offensive line plays horribly or he plays under the center and wastes precious time trying to get back to his spot, Peyton either rushes his mechanics or his mechanics are directly effected by getting hit as he throws. Because he doesn’t have the “arm talent” to rocket it with out perfect form these ball are both weak and inaccurate. It’s when he is pressured you see the PM everything thought was “done”. In the superbowl vs. the seahawks back before you guy’s were such haters, it was the seahawks line that directly destroyed the most prolific offense every to take the field in the history of the game. Way before anybody dared say PM was “done”.

    Physically nothing about PM has changed since he became a Bronco, and that’s what you hear from Broncos teammates and coaches. Until the Line plays better and Kubiak realizes PM is ONLY good when he plays from the shotgun, y’all will continue to see a subpar Manning. He’s not a guy who can “do it all”. He’s a physically limited QB who is the best in the History of the NFL at doing one specific thing. He can read the defense better than any QB, anticipate blitzes and get rid of the Ball before it get’s there assuming he has the time to set his feet. Anything that decreases this time will hurt him dramatically.

    • Taylor Christian Vance

      Andy Reid said it after the game, “When he’s not being hit, PM is as good as he’s ever been.”

    • snoth cambin

      Peyton has a 101 passer rating under center averages 8.1 yards per attempt and has 274 touchdowns to 107 interceptions. Not to mention the 64 completion percentage.

      My thing with people who are both killing him and making accuses is that its hypocritical to the other face on mount Rushmore QB in Boston. He doesnt have deep passing ability he can still sling it but he doesnt have the accuracy that a drew brees, he passes most of throws in between 10-20 yards but the criticism for brady the first 4 games of last year was his O-line his receivers and his accuracy. To where Manning his hit with his O-line his body and his deep throwing ability.

      If brady can adapt and build on what he does well which is his Intelligence pre-snap his intermediate accuracy/velocity and his ability to read blitzes and defenses with the best ever why cant peyton do the same? Only an idiot would curse Peyton for adapting to his strengths and not trying to be a 32 year old running the bootleg

      • Taylor Christian Vance

        Firstly, where did you get those “under center” stats? I consider myself a Peyton-o-holic and have never seen somebody breakdown his stats in the shotgun vs. under center.

        For the rest of your post I had difficulty understanding when you were talking about Manning or Brady. Are you saying there are parallels between both of them and Manning will rebound like Brady did last year?

        • snoth cambin

 all the way at the bottom.

          What i was saying was that the criticism of Peyton this year has been hypocritical because Brady hasnt thrown deep well in 5-6 years but we dont bring it up with Brady why Peyton? And when Brady struggled his first four games the criticism wasnt toward Bradys age or his deep throwing ability it was his accuracy his offensive line and his receiving corp, but with peyton its all age and deep passing ability. And why cant we look at what Brady does in NE where he has completely morphed into an intermediate accurate thrower who relies on his brain and trusting the receiver then his physical attributes and say why cant manning do that instead of trying to be something he physically cant be?

          I dont know if he can bounce back because of his offensive line and peyton doesnt have the same zip on those balls short or long but im not counting him to fall into obscurity

          • Taylor Christian Vance

            Completely agree man. I had no idea he was under center so much in Indianapolis. That just add’s another layer of confusion for me as to why he’s ineffective there this year, but I’d say the running game/ offensive line might have an impact.

          • anon76returns

            Manning’s a lot older and has had extensive nerve damage since he was taking snaps under center in Indy. That pretty much explains it (and is one thing that brakes the parallel between Brady and Manning).

          • Dan Hachenberger

            Manning is 1 year older than Brady!

          • anon76returns

            I know, but Manning’s 8-10 years older than he was when he was taking the majority of his snaps from under C inIndy, and he was definitely beat up quite a bit in those years.

    • thecashman

      Evidently you missed the pass to Sanders for the first score… It was on the mark, a tight spiral and was not a wounded duck throw.. It had zip on it…

      • Taylor Christian Vance

        Not exception “zip”, just functional “zip”. It was also a throw Manning stepped into. As per my point Manning can throw a decent ball if he steps into his throws. If he can’t, his throws look terrible and often miss their mark. You might try rereading my comment for better understanding.

        • Douglass Pinkard

          Hard to see why you’re being snotty at thecashman’s expense–he isn’t the one under-appreciating you boy. As for PFF “hating” on Peyton, the idea’s ridiculous. Certainly the Denver O Line is in awful shape, but their metric (or whatever one calls it) rates guys on what they did rather than what they’re likely to have done had they received better protection. Is their process no good? Very possibly. But the idea of reducing it to “you guys just hate Peyton Manning” is something one would expect from a 12 year-old girl. I cannot imagine they designed their rating system as a way to “get” Peyton Manning.

          • Taylor Christian Vance

            I never said anything about PFF purposefully targeting PM. Their analysis of him is just, for lack of a better word, incomplete. They should know the weaknesses of their actual grading system, and qualitatively analyse accordingly. Which is to say, when Peyton threw to the right, “alarming 3/7 for 26 yards and an interception”, during the interception there were two free blitzers in his face. Take away the pressure and you take away the interception most likely. Then his numbers are far less “alarming”.

            As for being “snotty”, when talking to someone who in general believes as i do that Peyton is not finished. There is a spectrum of opinions ranging from “Peyton done” to “Peyton is as good as he ever was” arm strength wise. My opinion falls in the middle, and I have reasons for this. Just because someone agrees with my overall point, doesn’t mean I’m gunna agree with him just cuz he’s not “under-appreciating my boy”. Peyton’s arm IS weak, anyone who thinks otherwise isn’t watching carefully, imo. BUT, his weak arm doesn’t really matter most of the time. That’s my argument, and i’m not gunna temper it for anyone. I appreciate the exchange of opinions/knowledge.

    • Izach

      Couldn’t agree more, manning has been this way since being a bronco. While I like PFF for their stats and record keeping they infuse too much bias and faulty formula work in the grades, half the time difficulty is taken into account the other half it isn’t.

      • Cynthia Pullman

        Allow !me to show you a fantastic ways to earn a lot of extra money by finishing basic tasks from your house for few short hours a day — See more info by visiting >MY___{DISQUS}___ID::

  • jim

    t*m br*dy. *patriots cheaters.

  • Douglass Pinkard

    I intuitively understood–despite having not seen the game itself, only the box score afterward–that against this Chiefs passing defense Manning’s numbers should have been far more impressive than they were. The rating here appears to confirm as much.