Best. Article. Ever. Its like this writer reached into my brain in order to answer the question I get from Denver fans all of the time as to why I despise Panty. Hit the nail on the head! Crotch-nuzzlers!! BAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! SO TRUE!!!! If the Broncos were coming to town this weekend, the fear and loathing would remain high in New England. But it’s the Colts, a team that inspires neither at this point. Who’s afraid of a team the Patriots have outscored 144-66 in three meetings with Andrew Luck at quarterback? Who can loathe Luck? He’s completely inoffensive and -- while a media darling since Stanford -- hasn’t been saddled with the same fleet of crotch-nuzzlers and apologists that his predecessor Peyton Manning was. People wonder why Manning’s decline has been joyously chronicled. It’s not that people hate the player. People hate the media game in which Manning’s past failures and sharp decline can’t be objectively discussed without excuse-making and blame-laying. Manning’s NFL record has been the chew toy locked in the teeth of both the propagandists and the realists for almost two decades. His entry into the league in 1998 as the No. 1 overall pick and the son of a talented, well-respected but average quarterback came with almost universal guarantees of brilliance. There would be no deviation from the script that had Manning as the smartest, hardest-working, most talented, prolific quarterback ever spawned. Peyton would become the greatest quarterback of all-time. That proclamation would brook no Internet opposition because, in 1998, there was no thriving Internet community to offer it. So even as on-field evidence showed a player coming undone in the biggest NFL games, as he had in the biggest college games, the propaganda kept flowing. It flowed right through Sunday, when Jim Nantz and Phil Simms marveled at the Colts defensive game plan and tackling without conceding that Indy was able to play that way because Manning’s arm strength and velocity would get him kicked out of the NFL Combine at this point. Luck hasn’t been coddled like Manning was. Despite being twice the athlete Manning is, his performances are parsed with greater objectivity. And he doesn’t appear to have anywhere near the same brand consciousness as Manning, and that lack of self-promotion is an asset. Both Manning and Luck have a doofish “aw-shucks” air about them. On Luck, it’s endearing. With Manning, it feels manufactured. Jeff Cohen, thought youd appreciate the nod to his choke-fest starting back in college. . .
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 03:54:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015