Who chokes at the Super Bowl?

What about 'neither' or 'both'? It's possible that both could play well, or both could play poorly.

If I had to choose between the two on who will play better, I would take Manning, because although he has maybe choked at times, he has also played great in some big games. We don't have that history with Grossman, although we saw glimpses of that earlier this year, and even some in the playoffs. There are also other factors involved, like which OL plays well, or which defense does better at pressuring, etc.

 

I will also add that the Bears probably need Grossman to play well, more than the Colts need Manning to play well. Grossman's performance will play a bigger factor in the game's outcome versus Manning's play. Just a guess, though.

 

If choking means that someone who has done well, does poorly when a big moment comes, then it's impossible for Grossman to choke. He's never done really well. :laugh:

I think Manning will prevail.

 

You obviously haven't watched the Bears and Grossman play much this year. No doubt he has been awful at times this year. But he has also had some great games. People seem to forget that this is really his first full year as a QB in the NFL. I think he has done rather well.

I think it is quite possible that both will play well, and it will come down to the running game, return game and defense.

 

Yes, Indy better hope that it's kick coverage does better against the Bears than it did against N.E.; otherwise, Hester might return 1 or 2.

 

The key to Grossman's recent success has been that he's learned to throw the ball away and to quit trying to make something happen. That is what killed him. Grossman has a great long ball - but the story (if the Saints game is any factor) is going to be Chicago's bruising defense. They came together for that game.

Is the 2006 Bears better than the 1985 Bears? Only if they repeat or at least do better in the three succeeding years - which saw the punky QB traded.

 

I really don't think it is beyond question to expect at least one great return. In the playoffs - kicking to avoid Hester hurt the Saints and Seattle big time and gave the Bears some great field position.

DA BEARS!

 

Manning has played in some awfully big games, and won his share. The idea that he "can't win the big one" is a bromide.

Grossman won a pretty big game (The NFC championship game) to get to this point. While he doesn't have the credentials of Manning, he's the QB of a Super Bowl team, which is a pretty small fraternity.

 

His 73.9 quarterback rating for the year doesn't quite make him a pro bowl quarterback. He had 5 games under 40%. So I still don't believe that he can qualify as choking. If he does poorly, no one will say he choked. They will say that the real Rx showed up. If Manning has a poor game, everyone will say he choked. That was my point.

 

Didn't he and Manning have the same number of games with a rating over a 100? Just because one team will lose, does not mean one of the qb's has choked. I've seen good to great play by qb's and their team lost. I would think the ol that can handle the dl of the other team will do well. If the dl handles the ol of the other team, that team is in trouble.

 

Lets compare their playoff numbers so far this year...

Grossman

vs. Sea 282 yards 1 TD 1 INT
vs. NO 144 yards 1 TD 0 INT


Manning

vs. KC 268 yards 1 TD 3 INT
vs. Bal 170 yards 0 TD 2 INT
vs. NE 349 yards 1 TD 1 INT


While Grossman's numbers are not great in the playoffs, it would appear he has learned that he does not have to be superman. He can play within himself, make the necessary plays and let the running game, defense, and special teams help them win.

Manning based on those numbers is not playing extremely well with 2 TD and 6 INTs.

 

The stats underscore the difference between the Colts this year vs. past years. In past years, if Manning had the type of game against the Chiefs and Ravens that he had, the Colts would be home watching the Super Bowl. He doesn't have to put up 350 yards and 4 TD's in every game to win. But, when his team absolutely had to have him be great, he was.

I have a feeling that he doesn't feel like he HAS to throw for 300 yards and 4 TD's to win. That he trusts his teammates more than ever. The Colts have been running the ball more, and better, than they have previously. Since he calls so many of the plays at the line, he's the one deciding to run the ball, rather than the offensive coordinator deciding. That's having trust in your running backs and offensive linemen that they're going to get the job done, rather than totally relying on his "laser rocket arm" (What? I like that commercial). :smilewinkgrin:

Remember when he sort of threw his offensive linemen under the bus after the Steelers loss last year? I haven't heard anything remotely close to that this year. Maybe he's grown up, become more of a team player, and has realized that it doesn't matter how you win in the playoffs, just that you do.

For Rex's part, he deserves credit for playing as well as he has after the beatings he's taken in the press. He was just horrible in the Cardinals game, but fantastic against the Niners. He was terrible against the Packers, but had some great throws (not great games) against both the Hawks and the Saints. And, give Lovie Smith credit for sticking with his QB. The pressure was high to change to Griese, but Lovie stuck with Grossman, which I think has paid off in a more confident QB. Everybody I've read that's written about him are somewhat amazed that he's as calm as he's been considering everything that's been said about him. See yesterday's media day for a perfect example.

To speak to the OP, I don't think either QB will "choke" at the Super Bowl, like, say, Romo blowing the Seattle game.

 

Yeah! Tony Romo was the first 'holder' in history to not get a kick placement down. {Sigh!}

So we can say that he is the real reason Bill Parcells retired!

{Double sigh!}

Ed

 

I was a few minutes late getting to church this morning because I was sitting in Braum's, sipping coffee, working on a fairly simple formula to determine the Super Bowl score, and my concentration cost me awareness of time. It came out Indianapolis 21.7, Chicago 20.1; so round it to 22-20 or 23-20. I will tell the formula if it proves to be really close to that; otherwise, consider it worthless. [I have used it before and it is the closest 'formula' to predict scores I have found-- but that's not necessarily saying alot.]

 

May want to refigure that one. 12 points and it wasn't even that close.

 

Into the 4th quarter there was a decent chance the final score would be 22-20, exactly as my formula. It was 22-17, Chicago was not moving the ball consistently, so all Indianapolis had to do was not give up the big play. But if Chicago did get in range for a FG on a 4th down, they would take it (22-20), and then need only another FG to win. But I think Grossman's inexperience-- perhaps immaturity-- showed here, as he forced throws, and finally had one intercepted and the return got through for a TD where it shouldn't have happened. Then Chicago had to take chances to get back into the game, and being 12 down, a FG then couldn't help them, and they didn't have much of a chance.

Okay, my score was 10 points off, but how close was yours :laugh: ? Really the final score should have been 22-10. If I am going to throw attention to the unlikely interception return for a TD, I will also say it was more unlikely for the opening kickoff to be returned for a TD. These few key plays make predicting a final score so difficult.

 

so except for the final score your formula was right. :laugh: Vegas does the same kind of analysis and they all said 7 points. Next time send the formula and we won't even have to watch or play the game. :laugh: