Talk:Peyton Manning/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Misuse of Irony

Under the "Advertising" section, it says something like, "Ironically, Peyton was not used in the Disney World commercial but instead Tony Dungy and Dominique Rhodes." This is not ironic, look it up in the dictionary. It would have been ironic if the producers of the commercial had stated that they wanted to use Peyton in the commercial, but they had to use Dungy and Rhodes instead. Why is this even notable? They probably asked Rhodes because they thought he might be the MVP before it was officially announced. But this should either be taken out because it's just irrelevant or at least change the use of "ironically" to "oddly enough" or something. go peyton i lv your game ben suckybuger will hopefully play u and lose then cry

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.93.24.11 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Oooh, some good vandalism going on today

Nice part about Naughright's "vulva mouth" and Peyton's small penis. This thing should really be locked yearly from January to March. Also, why the reversions on the Criticism section? Surely if it's ok to point off his playoff stats in 5 poor games in 4 years, it's also acceptable to point out his playoff stats in the other 3 games that occurred during the same period? Don't mind me though...just adding to the mockery of that section before it gets cleaned up again after the playoffs, just like last year. 74.130.15.24 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally loved this line from the 2006-2007 section: "Manning then threw for 6 touchdowns in the AFC Championship game as the Indy defense sacked Tom Brady 6 times and broke his neck, crippling him for life." While I'm sure a lot of Colts fans would like to see such a thing, I rather doubt it happened. As I'm not sure if there is any truth in the sentence, I actually did not edit it out and was hoping someone who watched the game could clean it up.
Also, as a side note, is it entirely necessary to provide such truly trivial trivia as him having lived next to Anne Rice and Trent Reznor when he was younger? I can't imagine it has ANYTHING to do with his life as football player, which is primarily his reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia, non? SINsApple 05:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, the AFC championship game takes place this coming Sunday. Quadzilla99 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a change on his 'position'? I'm pretty sure "Bottom" is not the same thing as "Quarterback". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.125.32 (talk • contribs)

Ok...although definitely chuckle worthy, I doubt a redirect from "choke artist" is appropriate. 74.130.15.24 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The choke artist page was apparently initially created as a redirect to this page, and wasn't simply vandalized, so I've made a request for speedy deletion. Dlong 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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:

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.

Peyton manning has been married to his college girlfriend since 1998. 192.80.64.232 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

I don't know what you're talking about, Manning gives his teammates credit all the time (eg Superbowl XLI post game interviews genius). '05 was an isolated case, but it was indeed true if you know anything about blocking. The O-Line was awful that game. Manning's rating was 91 anyway, the outcome depends on the entire team as well.

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)

This is cute. are you trying to make Wikipedia seem more respectable, or are you trying to keep out the obvious that Manning is a overrated piece of shit. If it is the latter then you are scum, if it is too try keep Wikipedia respected then you are wasting your time. Most people know Wikipedia is a fucking joke when it comes to facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.51.41.72 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Good comment. Not surprisingly, it's January and the Criticism section has gone to hell again. 74.130.15.24 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This section is going to need a rewrite now. A Superbowl appearance is a pretty significant change in the criticism landscape, and he played something in line with his regular season stats in what's seen as a "big" game (other than the Florida game in college). Still valid criticism to be had, but a 350 yard game and a win against Brady must be mentioned to give an updated picture. It shouldn't be hard to find cites either, as every major sports website will probably spend the next few weeks talking up this angle of the Superbowl. 74.12.169.246 08:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole section should be blown up and started over. I think the "criticisms" heading should be changed to a different heading, as the AFC Championship game silenced many critics. Why does Manning even have a "criticisms" section if other qb's he was comared to (Marino, Fouts, etc.) do not? It's also worth mentioning his stats in the Florida games in college. The 1995 game (lost 62-37) certainly cannot be blamed on Manning, who threw for over 320 yards and 0 interceptions.--Tjcthree 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to keep the criticism section indefinitely, but I do think with this Super Bowl win that it's going to be a lot shorter, and probably more in the past tense. However...the only way that my guess can be shown true is with referenced proof. Any editor's particular feelings one way or the other are not the point...referencable media perceptions are. ESPN created a 'You can't blame' about Manning's criticism, because obviously criticism existed at one time. That won't go away, and comparing what columnists, newspapers, and other secondary sources say now with what was said then will actually make this a stronger article in the end.
That is irrelevant, really. The section needs a rewrite from the ground up, to make it actually have some sort of cohesion and flow, no matter what you think that rewrite should read. Four paragraphs of criticism followed by a sentence that says "wait that's wrong" makes for a mighty confusing article. There should be a mention that for a long time before 2007 his lack of "winning the big one" was a point of criticism, perhaps a few game examples, and a brief statement that some of his losses have been difficult to pin on him. That's it. Do you see paragraphs of criticism in John Elway's article? No. Why? Because ten years later he finally did win the big one, just like Peyton. 74.12.146.176 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: Let's wait a few days, and let news articles about Manning come in, so a general statement about "what the media says now" can be established...then edit the section appropriately. Skybunny 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote get rid of 90% of it. It's filled with opinions which, although indeed said by sportswriters, were dubious in nature...and proven so during XLI. Things like "he'll never win the big one" or "he puts up great numbers but never comes through in the clutch" reflected a willful ignorance of his career. The definition of "big games" always seemed to be, by definition, "games Peyton lost." For example, the Nebraska postseason loss was a "big game" for critics, but the other 3 college postseason game were not...the playoff losses were all "big games" but the wins against Denver and KC were not. Games against Georgia, Alabama, and LSU were not considered "big games," but the ones against Florida were. The inconsistencies are mind boggling. Add that into that the fact that his victories tend to "disappear" in the Peyton-hating choker mythos (e.g. his "big game" record in the playoffs was 3-6 a month ago. Great! That shows he a loser. Uh-oh. Now it's 7-6...we should probably make that stat disappear) and you begin to see what a poorly constructed pile of crap that criticism was.

It's just a sportswriter pile on like the "0 for Florida" thing - one guy says it, and suddenly it's all over the place because it's catchy (I can't tell you how many time I've heard Stuart Scott say he was 0 and 4). Kind of like how the Tee Martin '98 nonsense found traction recently. The team was NOT "virtually unchanged," other than the Tennessee name...you had an older more experienced defense, a much weaker Florida (and the rest of the SEC for that matter), and at least two game changing miracles (non-existent pass interference against Syracuse, and the inexplicable "lay-down" fumble against Arkansas) that the QB had absolutely nothing to do with.

People who have made the point that other QBs aren't subject to this kind of bs morning sportstalk section are 100% correct. Go to the Brady page and look through the talk section. You'll notice just such a section was deleted...although I'm sure anybody who wants to could find quotes from that minority of sportswriters out there who are happy to express the opinion that he's been carried on the foot of Adam Vinatieri, the tuck rule was a joke, and that his defense and coach are more responsible for his success than anything else.

But that's all that is, an opinion writer's opinion...hardly worthy of the largest section of biographical encyclopedia article. While it's worthy to note that, yes, Manning suffered criticism, let the facts speak for themselves. Pre-define "big games" (say ranked opponents, and postseason games) and then give his record. Don't let some biased editor define "big games" on a post-result basis. Otherwise, you get into this bullshit game specific tit for tat that dominates the section and only serves to make it longer.

After all, who looking at this page really cares that Brady is 12-2 in the post-season? Brady's page doesn't inform us that he is 0-6 for 30 TD seasons...nor should it. We should get rid of this bloated, back and forth section, and reduce it to an appropriate size. If you want sports-show style debate, go elsewhere.74.130.15.24 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


-- A section like this is absent from articles on Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, etc. That was hypocritical enough before Superbowl XLI, but now it definately needs to be flushed down the toilet now that the Colts and Manning have won a championship. -Dave --

No other player has a "criticism" section, nor should Manning. I will be deleting and reworking this section within the near future. --Tjcthree 15:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section needs to be added for source see http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=261&Category=7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.234.250.71 (talk • contribs) 10:40, May 29, 2007 (UTC)

Well, that article was obviously written prior to the 2005 season. Since 2005 the Colts are 3-0 to the Pats, so that article is meaningless. --rogerd 15:26, 29 May 2007 (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)

I second this. Way too much vandalism going on. Even stuff I have added in the debate and criticism section, which is all cited, has been vandalized. There needs to be something done here. NeelyCrenshaw 05:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I suggest a semi-protect until one week after the last week the Colts are alive in the playoffs, because that's most likely what's triggering all the attention by anonymous/new users to this page. (Most vandalism and negative POV focuses on Manning 'choking in the playoffs', so, we're going to get a lot of it right now.) Skybunny 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made a request asking for exactly that. Dlong 20:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection is really best for when there's 5-10 instances of vandalism a day, or beyond that... right now vandalism is very light except on game day. I'll consider semi-protecting next Sunday should it start to get vandalized a bit. --W.marsh 00:43, 15 January 2007 (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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.51.41.72 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Dlong 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If only Peyton was clutch like Tom Brady he wouldn't have to rely on his kicker to win playoff games...er...uh...nevermind.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.15.24 (talk • contribs)

Your mom :D

In other news, American football fans are emotionally racist against kickers, thinking them not football players to begin with, but rather "foot-to-ball" players. --Chr.K. 06:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To-do list

Add anything that you think needs to be done to this article here. Hopefully we can get this article taken care of and make it at least a GA if not a FA. Things I'm (slowly) working on:

  • Getting the "Citation needed" tags taken care of
  • Add author and date to references
  • Add information on NFL career prior to 2003
  • Clean up criticism section
  • Find information on Colts' records he holds (I can only find an outdated listing)

Dlong 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is off to a very good start I have some recommendations for a couple of improvements:

  • Change High School career to "Early life" and expand. This should be easy as you can include info about his growing up in the household of Archie Manning and talk about how him and his brother were taught by Manning from a young age on how to play quarterback.
  • Add a personal life section.
  • Move college awards down to the bottom of the article.
  • Divide his NFL career up into sections like early career, Mora era, and Dungy Era. Or Early career, Mid Career-Patriots roadblock, and Recent years, like FA's Denis Law, Cynna Kydd, Gilberto Silva, and Moe Berg, almost all FA sport bios have this format. Or you can combine the two and give section titles with years like FA Wayne Gretzky. There shouldn't be a section for each year I see very few FA sport bios with this format. The year by year delineation is pretty dry and boring for me and very few FA sport bios have that format the closest is race car drivers, Damon Hill and Alain Prost which still have some one word descriptions of the periods in the headers.
  • Obviously fill in 2001-2003.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadzilla99 (talk • contribs)

I've taken care of the first two items on my list, and part of the third. The criticism section definately needs to be rewritten after tonight's AFC Championship win. We should probably wait a couple of days for some articles to come out. That way, we don't run into a problem with original research. Finally, all of the items Quadzilla has listed need to be taken care of. Dlong 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm not a registered user and don't want to take the time to be one, Someone please fix the vandalization for the picture caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.88.243 (talk • contribs)

More Vandalism

I am also not a registered user, but will somebody please remove the comment "Big Ben is way better than Manning" right after the 6th footnote. Not only is it missing a period, or states a personal opinion, it is completely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.205.14 (talk • contribs)

I removed that 5 hours ago? Dlong 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Please someone fix the vandalism featured in the first two sentences. If only for the fact that it is complete bull. Everyone knows Manning is better than Brady. If anyone would like to discuss the meaning of overated look it up in the dictionary first.. I can promise you will find a picture of Tom Brady.--- Brittany

I don't see anything like that now, or in the recent history. So I'm guessing it's been taken care of. Dlong 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

I remember Peyton also being a spokesman and on the cover of NFL Fever, and starred in many commercials for them. NFL Fever was a property of Microsoft for Xbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sharrock2003 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a source for this? We should probably get sources for the other ads too, though pretty much everyone has seen them. Dlong 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link I found: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/jul02/07-25manningreturnspr.mspx

I also remember him doing commercials for it too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sharrock2003 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

It's been added. Let me know what you think. Dlong 13:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

200.107.49.97 16:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)The Wikipedia article mentions that Peyton Manning has done commercials for St. Mary's Medical Center in Knoxville, TN. What it does not mention is his tie-in with the hospital: during his senior season, he had arthroscopy done on his knee at St. Mary's. He was pleased with the care he received and later agreed to do commercials for the hospital. DGraham 10 February 2007

2001-2002 season??

Why does this article skip from 2000 to 2003 in the Professional Career section? --pagemillroad 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't written those sections yet, because I haven't had time or energy to do so. If you want to write them, feel free. Dlong 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Superbowl win?

With his current win over the Bears in the Superbowl, Shouldn't that be added instead of the current: "he will face the bears..."

152.3.76.76 03:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This was taken care of almost immediately after the end of the game. Dlong 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The 2006-07 season

However, while Peyton Manning played well in the Superbowl, Domique Rhodes deserved the MVP award, as he single-handedly maintained the Colts lead against the Bears, especially in the 4th quarter, contributing to many incomplete passes by the Bears themselves.


single handidly...very very very biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.123.59 (talk • contribs)

Good thing it was removed 15 minutes ago. Dlong 04:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Without Rhodes, the offense might've survived on Addai alone. Without Manning, there is no Colts offense. MVP duly noted. --Chr.K. 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a forum.►Chris Nelson 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First Colt MVP

Should we mention Peyton was the first Colt to win Super Bowl MVP and why? -- since its kind of an unusual trivia question?

Can we also mention the award that Peyton has, which is Most Consecutive Years of Being Owned By Tom Brady Award, which is still running, go pats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.170.72 (talk • contribs)

Obviously this is POV. And irrelevant. The Colts are 3-0 the past 2 years against the Patriots. Dlong 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Political Activity

Under "Miscellaneous," I think it's worth mentioning that Manning donated $2,000 to George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

It think it would be worth mentioning...

That Scott Wiese, a Chicago Bears fan, changed his name to Peyton Manning after the Colts won the Super Bowl.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CHI/9981549 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.33.24.131 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe that the report is that he has petitioned the court to change his name to "Peyton Manning". There has not been an official ruling. In addition, the report said that this was based on losing his Super Bowl bet. Lmcelhiney 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Stats

I have a quick question, under the infobox stats, it gives you options to add a link to Peyton's stats at espn, PFR, Database football, SI, CBS andnfl.com, but how can we add a link to Peyton's stats at yahoosports.com and foxsports.com, what's the code for those 2 sites, they belong in the infobox stats to, is it possible, just wondering if anyone knows, Thanks, Malibu55 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55

Links to 3 websites is enough. We don't need six in the infobox. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point; I know you are adding these links here so that you can try to get them on the Brett Favre page, by citing the fact that "the Manning page has them too." –King Bee (T • C) 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

malibu55 added 1, the others were there to begin with and 3 is not enough, people shopuld have links to all, so they can check opther site, KIng Bee is a vandal, GrowingPains1 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1

Ignoring the whole "starwars" guy (I read up on him), would it really hurt to have 6 pages listed? It's not like it takes up an extensive extra amount of space. I say go with it. Dlong 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I just don't see the need. If you dig on having 6 links there, that's fine. I just thought it looked a bit cluttered. –King Bee (T • C) 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's designed for all 6 links, you didn't design the page King Bee and it belongs, it's not cluttered, it's useful, quit reverting it, we decided on this here a long time ago, and we will add the sixth one once we get the code for it, it's very useful. LadyVols 23:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)LadyVols

What makes it looked cluttered (to me) is all the awards. How's this sound: List the 3 MVP awards, below that have a link to the NFL awards section, and below that a link to the College awards section. Dlong 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that's what I'm talking about. Way to take initiative; I like the new format. –King Bee (T • C) 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Stats

I've reverted some changes by a sockpuppet account per WP:DENY. This is in no way a judgement on my part on whether there should be 3 or 5 external stat links and if any established editor wishes to revert my change, by all means feel free to do so.--Isotope23 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We will there were 5 before and the sixth just needed to be added, as it does in the Favre Page

Like I said before, if someone who isn't a disruptive sockpuppet wants to change this, they should feel free to do so.--Isotope23 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So there is nothing wrong with them then, then they should be on the Favre page aslo, thanks for verifing that, there were 5 and you changed it to 3 vandal

Seven Interception post season record

He played a certain way in the first two games, and then in a different fashion the latter two games, thus I clarified the situation.

I think this is very relevant to the 2006 season. It is a fact, and not opinion. If mannings wikipedia site could only talk about the good that Manning does, we lose all neutrality. Then it would just become a peyton manning fan page.

Please sign your posts (with "~~~~"). Messages go to the bottom of the page (use the "+" at the top to start a post) The removal of your statement was because it was dropped into the middle of someone's referenced text, not because of opinion. Please provide a reference so that no one thinks that your text is just opinion. Thanks! Lmcelhiney 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Also, I made a note of it in:

"Career (individual) Manning holds a number of individual career records:" section

If this is for career acomplishment records only, then I wouldn't object to it being removed from this area. I guess the question becomes: if a person holds a negative record (i.e most consective losses record, lowest qb rating in a season record, etc.) can this be put in the career records category?


Check with WikiProject NFL on that. Also, even if that is allowed, we need a source that the seven interceptions is in fact a record. The citation given simply states that that's how many were thrown. I've left it for now, however Dlong 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I was always under the persumption that Brett favre's 2001: 1 int first game, and 6 int second game set the record. I will agree to remove it until we have fact that this was the record.

The record is 9: http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/nfl/hof00/lott-stats.html

Dlong 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's Lott's record for interceptions made, not thrown. Ty Law may be getting close (thanks in part to the discussion we're having now), but, it's not the same thing. Neier 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This page mentions a few other 6-int games, before the era of multi-game playoffs; and also has a career leader list (as of the end of last season). Another season to look at may be 1981-82, where Joe Ferguson tossed four and won the first playoff game [1]. I can't find any report on int's in their second game. Anyway, having said that, my opinion is that it is ok to mention the feat in the 2006 season if it is a record, or even if it just tied Favre; but, I think the "records" section is for official records. Someone would need an NFL program or media guide from the SB to see if single-season playoff int's are something that are kept track of by the league. Neier 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I will take it out of the records section no matter what. I believe it is more of a "distinction", then an official "record." It seems very hard to gather interception data, if it is not an accompishment it usually isn't touted by the NFL. Of course, interception data by a defensive player is an accomplishment, thus the Lott record was easier to find.

The adding on to the 7 int, 4 td post season

This was added to the sentence: Ironically, Manning won his first championship during a year in which he was having arguably his worst statistical post-season throwing for 7 interceptions, and finding the end zone only 3 times:

"(though this is not a very accurate portrayal of his play in the latter two games)"

Is this really necessary. The numbers were for his post-season as a whole. I dont think we should get into each individual game. Also his numbers were still subdued even in those 2 games that are being refered to. (2td, 2 int). It just seems to be too much of a POV.


Heh, I'm the one that did that, and maybe you're right. But at least let the 4 td thing stand. He did find the endzone "4" not three times. I also don't think his numbers were "subdued" in the last two games considering the defenses he was up against (as well as the rain and bone bruise on his throwing hand in the Superbowl). 596 yards, 3 td, and 2 int in the AFC Championship/Superbowl.

so instead of putting 4 td including a rushing td in parentheses lets just change the 3 to a 4 in the original entry.

"Manning won his first championship despite having arguably his worst statistical post-season; throwing for 7 interceptions and finding the end zone 4 times." I'm removing this because statistically, this is untrue. His QB rating for the 2006 postseason was 70.5, which was higher than his ratings in the 2001 postseason (31.2) and 1999 season (60.9). It's not something that can be stated "arguably" if it can be proven or disproven through statistics.


Your right manning has had some of the worst postseasons imaginable..this one was close to them but no cigar. DChase1 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean this one was "close to them"? Yeah the first two games were subpar but the last two were classic. After the 2002 31.2 Qb rating postseason, he blew out the Broncos in 03 41-10 with a 158.3 rating, which helped make up for the horrible showing the year before. He's had some of the most successful postseason games imaginable as well (03/04 Broncos and 06 Pats).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Huevonkiller (talk • contribs)

your right 7 int 3 td isn't subpar it is the absolute worst interception to touchdown ratio in postseason history. He had some yards yes, but his redzone performance was awful. Vinatari broke records. DChase1 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in the 03 postseason, he had 9 TDs and 4 INT, but he didn't win the Superbowl, did he? Don't be a hypocrite, you can't judge the entire 06 postseason by the way he played in the first two games. The last two games, against better competition, he stepped up.

His performance was really good during the PATS game, where he lead his team to the redzone five times against the second best scoring defense (and Reggie Wayne fell in the endzone taking away another TD, fellow). Not to mention he won the Superbowl MVP. Keep hating if you want, because Manning put up a Qb rating of 91 in 2005, and he didn't win the game. It's a team sport.

Vinateri is a kicker Pat fan, relax.

Well the last two games he had 3 tds and 2 picks. In the first two, Harrison ran the wrong route twice to cause two picks, and he played statistically the best defense in the game on the road the following week so why are you freaking out? K then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huevonkiller (talk • contribs)

Yes vinatari is a kicker..thats the point. If you didn't know: this pas season vinatari broke the record for most points in one post season by a kicker thanks to Peyton "my leading receiver is on the opposing teams defense" manning. Your a colt fan you should know those type of things. DChase1 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So Vinateri was the reason the Colts beat the Pats or Bears? No, so move on. He didn't do jack in the most important playoff games. You're probably some guy who thought you had Peyton all figured out.

Didn't you get the point when I said Manning had 9tds and 4int in 2003? What are you trying to prove? He would have won in other years if he had a better defense or better teammates around him. Superbowls are a team accomplishment. To reiterate, he had a QB rating of 91 and the Colts still lost last year.

In the most important playoff games, Peyton played spectacularly; whereas Vinateri got the majority of his work in the first two games. The Colts go nowhere without Manning's performance against the Pats. So your stupid nickname doesn't always apply. He led the Colts to 38 points against the SECOND best scoring defense (and Wayne fell in the endzone on another TD throw), and had a good effort in the Superbowl. BTW, Harrison dropped a couple of balls in that game, or else Manning would have close to 300 yards, and he was the Superbowl MVP.

So in reality it is a tale of two halves of the postseason. The fact that you like to bitch about the least important games is telling. You speak as if the entire postseason was played poorly, which is false. Off topic: I believe in Karma and all that nonsense, so I'm not surprised Peyton finally won a Superbowl after having to deal with dickheads in the media like you every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huevonkiller (talk • contribs)

Enough. This isn't a forum. If you want to discuss whether or not manning sucks or whatever, take it elsewhere. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Also, sign your goddamn comments. I'm sick of doing it for you. Dlong 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Manning a team player?

Interesting article about Peyton Manning being a selfish player. I disagree with the writer's opinion of Peyton Manning, but I agree that football in general is becoming more about the individual than about the team. http://www.helium.com/tm/186138/weeks-before-opening-kickoff What do you all think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.153.57 (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Not much of an article. 4 paragraphs with 1 example of selfishness? Dlong 02:02, 2 March 2007

Sounds kind of stupid considering Edge got 9 tds (and 334 rush attemtps) in 2004, and his career high is 13 which isn't some drastic difference. Manning sat out the fourth quarters and second halves of various games that year; not to mention that he didn't play in week 17. Seems like unfounded criticism. He basically congratulated the entire team after the Superbowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huevonkiller (talk • contribs)

Huevonkiller, when does an MVP not congratulate his entire team? That's like rule #1 in Athlete Public Relations Management. "Always give props to your O-Line" is probably page 1 in the "How To Not End Up Looking Like Terrell Owens" manual. Also, Peyton sat out in week 17 because the record was already broken. Don't get me wrong, I was cheering for him, and I would have been really upset (and surprised) if they'd benched him in week 17 if he hadn't broken the record yet.
I mentioned this article so we could have a conversation about individualism in the Colts organization. I agree the writer doesn't cite enough sources, which is why I wouldn't put a link to it in the main wiki article. But rather than being technocratic wikipedians about the empirical verifiability of everything that anyone writes, could we perhaps recognize the guy's editorial/article for what it does do, which is provide us with a provocative idea you don't hear enough people talking about?
I understand you guys are probably Colts fans, as am I. As a Colts fan, if there's one thing in that guy's article I agree with it's that we are a TEAM, and not just one player. I worry that Peyton getting the MVP really sent the wrong message to everyone. Regarding Edge, if he was so happy about playing in Peyton's shadow, why'd he bolt to a dried up team in a dried up desert? Same reason: individual selfishness. He wanted to be the big fish, and Indianapolis was too big of a pond for him. We can't afford to keep losing players who play our key supportive roles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.220.153.57 (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Well obviously, the game IS INDEED more about the individual than the team. Qbs get pretty much all the credit when they win Superbowls (Joe Montana, Bradshaw, Aikman, and Brady). Yet a terrific QB like Marino gets ignored for something his team in general couldn't accomplish. I also don't think you should be worried about Peyton getting the MVP. The Chicago safeties played deep pretty much all game opening up the running game. Peyton set up the whole offense imo, and had not Harrison and a couple other guys not dropped some intermediate/long balls, he would have close to 300 yards.

Edge wanted more money, I can't see how that was just about him not getting enough attention, that was a business decision. And the Colts could actually afford to lose other vital skill position players and replace them well (like they did with Edge); except maybe Defensive Linemen and LBs.

Either way, I thought the guy used a very stupid example to make his point. You should find another article with a similar subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huevonkiller (talk • contribs)

Autograph deal

"Just days before the Super Bowl, Manning's marketability as one of the NFL's most popular players took a step forward when he was signed to a lucrative and exclusive autograph contract[5]." Does this really belong here? Sounds a lot like marketing to me. 74.130.23.77 10:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I deleted it. --ElKevbo 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Age

manning is 31 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.55.162 (talk • contribs)

No he's not. Do the math. He won't be 31 until the 24th. Dlong 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


that's not math, that's counting. (Mythos721 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Roadmap

Article is getting better. I would say our goals are:

  • Adding more comprehensive coverage of earlier NFL years. Granted Wikipedia wasn't around then, but they are still important years (albeit not as important as the later years, especially the last 3, which were massive years for both Manning and the Colts)
  • Adding 1-2 more images, which would be appropriate for an article of this length. Not sure what we could add that wouldn't be fair use... but just throwing out there to see if anyone has ideas.
  • Modify the layout for the quotes under "Advertising". Just kind of awkward... maybe integrate it into the prose, or at least put the quotation boxes down with the paragraphs.
  • Perhaps add a "personal" section, to bring in all the information about his family that is currently scattered across the article, and also mention his off-the-field reputation (squeaky clean, practically non-existent other than his advertising) and his charity activities.
  • Maybe trim "2005 season" slightly section and expand "2004 season". IMO 2004 was more important both because Manning set the most important single-season QB record that year, and because of the resulting MVP award. 2005 was mostly notable for the spectacular start and the notorious finish, the rest of the season really only needs light coverage, and that's how the section reads now. Nevertheless the section is quite long and perhaps still suffers from recentism.
  • Trim "College records" a bit... do we have to list every single one? "Most offensive plays in a season", "Passing attempts in a Season", some of this just seems like trivia. Alternatively, a sleek, space-saving table might be a good idea here.

Just some thoughts... hopefully I will get around to addressing these myself. IMO once they're addressed this article will be to "good article" status for whatever that's worth. I'm hesitant to try to get an article on an athlete who's still playing to featured article status... since the subject will probably do quite a deal before their career ends, meaning the article will change a lot. --W.marsh 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Personal or Family section: The intro does seem odd with his marriage in the middle of some records. Canuckle 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleft Palate

Over on the cleft palate article, it lists Peyton Manning as a famous person who experienced this birth defect. I don't see any evidence that this is factual. Canuckle 07:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If anyone has a reliable source on this, it would be much appreciated. Canuckle 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)