Another area that many people are not very knowledgeable in is Peyton's post season performance. Far too many people are under the false impression that he had been mostly a "choke-artist" in those games. Truth be told, he was anything but. That train of thought is rather an inaccurate exaggeration. I'll break it down for you.

He has a 7-7 record in the post-season. So I'll analyze those 7 losses for you. The first came in 1999 when the Colts lost by only 3-points to the Titans. Manning threw for 227 yards, no touchdowns and no interceptions. He ran for a score in this losing effort. Not exactly a choke-job by any means

The next year in 2000 he threw for 193 yards, 1 touchdown and no interceptions against the Dolphins. Not so bad either.

2002 is one of the few games you could say he played poorly in. He threw for 137 yards, no touchdowns and 2 interceptions in a 41-0 loss. Even so, it wasn't Manning who allowed the Jets to score 41 points, was it?

In 2003 he lost in the AFC Championship game to the Patriots. Can't really blame him for losing to a team that good in bad weather. It's not like other teams were beating them either. Then again, isn't that the game where the Patriots were so rough with the Colts receivers that they had to change the pass-interference rules? Yes, I remember Marcus Pollard being mauled and having no flag thrown at all. Thus was the flavor of that game.

Suspicious? We are talking about the Patriots after all. Not to mention they had the benefit of knowing Manning's signals in that game. Same was the case in their 2004 post-season matchup with the Colts. Even though Peyton didn't play well in either of those games vs. the Patriots, that's only a total of only 3 post-season losses where Manning looked poor.

When the Colts lost to the Steelers in 2005, they lost by only 3 points because of a field goal their kicker missed. Manning had 290 yards, 1 touchdown and no interceptions with a QB rating of 90.9, not exactly the mark of a choke-artist.

The only other game he lost was last year to San Diego. Even so, he threw for over 400 yards and posted a QB rating of 97.7, yet he still takes the blame for the loss? I recall the final play by the Colts being a dropped ball by Dallas Clark.

Anyway, what you can see is a very incorrect perception of Peyton's post-season performance. People also fail to recognize that he is one of only 4 quarterbacks to post a perfect QB rating in a playoff game (vs. Denver in 2003), has thrown for more yards then any QB in post-season history in a single game (vs. Denver in 2004), won the only punt-free game in post-season history (vs. Kansas City in 2003), led the greatest comeback in Championship Game history (vs. New England in 2006), and won the Super Bowl MVP (vs. Chicago in 2006).

That brings his career post-season QB rating to 84.3. To put that into perspective, it is almost identical to Brett Favre's career QB rating of 86.0. Not so bad for the alleged choke-artist, is it?

Now back to the other quarterback in the debate. When you talk about Tom Brady, the same points always come up for why he is so great. Truth be told, Tom Brady is and has been a very good QB for a decent period of time now. I'm not trying to take anything away from him, he has been an impressive football player. 

People discuss his ability to come through in the clutch. What more people do not know is the logic surrounding that concept. Think about it.

One QB throws three TD passes and one INT in a game. The one INT comes in the first quarter and the other TD's come later in the game with the final one being on the game-winning drive. People call this QB clutch.

Now let's say another QB throws three TD's and one INT in a game. The three TD's come throughout the game but the one INT comes on the team's final drive as his team loses. Those same people call this QB a choke-artist.

Why?

In that theoretical scenario, the "choking" quarterback's defense allowed the other team to score enough points to be ahead. Had the defense held the opposing team to fewer points, you wouldn't call him a choke-artist but would rather say he played a good game. My point is that it doesn't matter when the points and production come in a game.

Brady's comeback drives are often remembered as he's viewed to be clutch. If he wasn't down in the first place we'd just say he played a good game. Why are Brady's Super Bowl's viewed as more impressive with the "clutch-factor" than Manning, who won his Super Bowl outright?

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?