While I have been quite busy as of late, I am going to take a moment to share my "quick thoughts" on a number of subjects surrounding the 2010 NFL season.
If ever there was a possibility of a single player winning five league MVP awards, Manning is your man.
Of course, he'd have to be given that no one besides him has ever won four, but you'll get the idea.
197 of 299 for 2,184 yards, 15 touchdowns and two interceptions.
QB Rating: 101.4
If he continues to play at this rate, he may have to be suspended for unfair treatment of opposing defenses.
15 touchdowns to two interceptions?
What's more impressive is that he has continued to manage games, lead and produce on the football field in spite of playing with roster of starters more injured than most Colts fans would care to fathom.
NFL's Top 100
While some might tend to question if Manning "deserves" to be ranked within the Top 10 players in NFL history, the basis as to why he "shouldn't" rarely stands in credible opposition to the test of reason.
It has been implied that since his career is not over, we should wait.
For him to continue to put all other quarterbacks out of reach?
The list was flawed from the moment the first selection was made.
To place Joe Namath as high as No. 100 speaks volumes; but to include him ahead of Len Dawson almost makes you wonder what the criterion was in the first place, and how they arrived at the conclusion that Namath was the superior quarterback of the two.
Heck by the ranking’s standards, Namath had a “greater” career than Drew Brees; although I’d beg to differ.
Is it not a ranking of the "greatest" players?
Namath would be an easy selection for Top 10 if the greatest emphasis was placed upon popularity and NOT performance on the field. That alone earned him a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
And speaking of Hall of Famers, do many realize that Peyton Manning has already started and won more games than either Joe Montana or Johnny Unitas, the other quarterbacks to join Manning in the Top 10?
Productively speaking Unitas would make for worthy and interesting comparison; Montana would not.
Was it not the argument that Brees more so than Manning, was the quarterback to better protect the football; the better decision maker as they say?
Care not that Manning was backed by the 32nd ranked rushing offense in the league; I suppose that had little effect on his interception-ratio; much like the Saints ground-game in 2008 had little impact upon Brees' 17 interceptions that season.
Suddenly Reggie Bush gets injured, and Drew Brees begins to throw more than five-times as many interceptions as the man whom was deemed by some to be more turnover prone.
Do a few months really make that much of a difference, or do we need to re-evaluate the impact of team support on individual players?
I really wanted Randy to succeed in Minnesota.
It's the place where his legend began; the place he once called home.
I can only speak for my limited exposure to his on field performance, but it seemed that right from the Jets' game, there was something off.
I often find it unfair for writers and analysts to sit back with no NFL playing experience and question a player's work ethic; but it just seemed to me that Randy appeared to be running at 60 percent.
I didn't see the eye of the tiger; I didn't see the hunger.
At this stage in his career, I personally wouldn't mind if he took some "plays off" (I hate that term though, let’s just say conserve his stamina during less important plays) if that meant that he could turn on the juice when the Vikings needed that big play.
The Vikings needed plenty of them, but rarely did they develop on the football field.
There may be a lot more to the story as this is pure observational speculation on my part; it just might be how it appears to a low of viewers watching in the games at home.