Manning Passing Record

[oldecapecod11]

ARCHIVE

Manning Passing Record
Started by Reaser, Jan 02 2014 06:34 PM

11 replies to this topic

#1 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 02 January 2014 - 06:34 PM

Sure everyone is aware that the 7-yd completion to Decker in the first quarter of this past weeks game was 'reviewed' and it was determined to let it stand.

Saw the play, thought it was a backwards pass/lateral, brought up the 'coaches film' and paused it at release point and when Decker caught it, clearly a lateral in my opinion (for full disclosure, I put 15 seconds of my time into it, looked at it, said "yup, backwards", closed it.)

I don't think stats are overly important but like anyone I like stats and records and such.

Does anyone care about this? Seems like an integrity question to me, at least that's what I get from the decision by Elias; "fairest resolution is to let it stand" . . . So instead of accuracy and actual official stats the standard is evidently "we'll just give it to him since he needs the yards for a record."

Not the biggest deal in the world, but why even have "official" statisticians if the only consideration given in stat keeping and/or correcting errors is if the stat is needed for a record or not?

#2 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 02 January 2014 - 07:14 PM

It was asinine to not change the ruling on the play in question.

#3 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member
323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 03 January 2014 - 12:49 PM

It would have been grossly unfair under the circumstances to make any change. Manning and the Broncos have to be entitled to rely on the plays as called on the field, and not make decisions based on what might happen in the following weeks. The ruling was made. The other team didn't challenge it. That's the end.

Taking away those yards in my view would be no different than going back to that infamous Jets-Seahawks game from 1998 and saying, "sorry, our angles show that Vinny Testaverde didn't get the football across the goal line, so we're taking away the touchdown, and awarding the win to Seattle,"

#4 JWL
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,846 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 January 2014 - 01:02 PM

There was nothing for the Broncos or Raiders to challenge. The play was a legit play whether a pass or a lateral.

If your argument is that Manning would have stayed in the game longer if the play was ruled a lateral at the time, then I could understand. But if the coaching staff is really concerned about passing total records, then that is sort of silly. Is the passing yardage record really that big of a deal? Maybe. Maybe Brian Callahan (or some other lowly assistant coach) was actually looking at the stats and telling John Fox "only 42 more yards to go."

Dave Hampton's attempts to reach the 1,000 yard mark was more understandable because that particular milestone was always more sexy.

James Wilder going for a scrimmage yards record in 1984 and the Buccs making a mockery of the end of a game was a bit much.

Elias should have changed the ruling of the play in question. They did this earlier in the season involving a Jay Cutler play (I think).

#5 Reaser
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,729 posts
Gender:Male
Location:WA
Posted 03 January 2014 - 03:06 PM

Jeremy Crowhurst, on 03 Jan 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:
Taking away those yards in my view would be no different than going back to that infamous Jets-Seahawks game from 1998 and saying, "sorry, our angles show that Vinny Testaverde didn't get the football across the goal line, so we're taking away the touchdown, and awarding the win to Seattle,"

That's a horrible comparison. That was an officiating error, points on the board, and a win/loss situation. Not a stat-keeping error.

An actual comparison would be Matt Forte in week 2 of this year receiving a lateral/backwards pass but being credited with a reception. Play was reviewed by Elias, and the reception was correctly changed to a rushing attempt.

Essentially the same situation with Manning to Decker, but it wasn't changed because changing it would have left Manning short of a record.

I don't necessarily care about the record, but it is a massive question to the integrity of those in charge of keeping 'official' statistics.

Jeremy Crowhurst, on 03 Jan 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:
It would have been grossly unfair under the circumstances to make any change. Manning and the Broncos have to be entitled to rely on the plays as called on the field, and not make decisions based on what might happen in the following weeks. The ruling was made. The other team didn't challenge it. That's the end.

Why exactly would the 'other team' challenge it? What exactly are you talking about?

#6 Bob Gill
Pro Bowler
PFRA Member
1,200 posts
Gender:Male
Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:33 PM

A similar stat-keeping error occurred during a playoff game in 1982, I believe (that is, following the 1982 season) between the Jets and the Bengals. The Jets won by something like 44-17, and Freeman McNeil set a playoff rushing record by gaining 200-some yards. With a big lead, the Jets took him out after learning that he had broken the record. But after the game somebody working on the stats realized that one carry by somebody else had been mistakenly credited to McNeil, and without those extra few yards he wound up short of the record.

As you can see, that's almost exactly the same situation we have here -- but in that case McNeil's stats were corrected, even though the Jets might have left him in for another carry or two to break the record if they'd known the correct total. With that as a precedent, I don't see how anybody could justify not correcting the stats in this case.

Another similarity: Eric Dickerson shattered the playoff rushing record just a couple of years later, and the same thing is just about guaranteed to happen with the season record for passing yardage, the way things are going now. Maybe Manning himself will be the next to break it, but legitimately this time. But whoever does it, it ought to be done legitimately.

#7 RebelX24
Starter
Forum Visitors
186 posts
Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:41 PM

Yeah, this needs to be corrected, in the interest of integrity and accuracy. I like Manning, but sometimes, as in cases like this, there's simply too much bias for him.

#8 Jeremy Crowhurst
Starter
PFRA Member
323 posts
Gender:Not Telling
Posted 03 January 2014 - 05:17 PM

GROSSLY unfair.

Reaser, a few years back somebody was chasing the season sack record. I don't think it was the year Strahan broke it. The player was credited with a sack, then after the game the coach of the opposing team challenged the call -- he went to the officials and said the play was a designed QB scramble, and therefore not a sack. The defensive player was, accordingly, stripped of his sack.

So, I say, if the play is made, a ruling is made on what it was, and the other team doesn't take issue with it, then it should stand.

The Freeman McNeil situation is unfortunate for him, but you can hardly say that the Jets couldn't possibly have known there was an issue when a player who wasn't on the field was all of a sudden credited with an extra carry for however many yards.

However, I get (now) that this is part of what Elias does on a routine basis, that stats are adjusted regularly throughout the year in the days following a game. The Broncos probably should have been alive to this, and kept Manning out there for another series if the record was important to them.

So, maybe not "grossly" unfair....

#9 NWebster
Veteran
Forum Visitors
796 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Philadelphia, PA
Interests:Defensive FB Stats, Special Teams Performances, Heavy Metal Music, Fitness
Posted 03 January 2014 - 07:14 PM

It was a great season, and I've no doubt he would've broken the record, but the numbers are the numbers. Were this baseball - where there's more of a stats focus I think there'd be a huge outcry - i suppose the most likely similar baseball scenario is having a hit taken away and awarding an error or visa-versa.

I think the distinction Reaser is making here - and it is a good one - is that unlike Vinny's TD or the like, the statistical change makes no impact on the game at all, it's merely a statistical change.

Ellias has been revising data for years . . . recall Mercury Morris only got his 1k season and the Dolphins their two 1k rushers when an additional 7 yard carry in his favor was"found" after the end of the season. Some of these changes are legit, some dubious, in this case the non-change is highly dubious. I do believe now the NFL actually tracks the changes on NFLGSIS or somewhere similar (cannot remember where I ran across it), but I don't believe they track the outcome of every play "reviewed" as such a situation like this could be lost to history, and I believe that tracking itself only goes back a few years.

#10 Guest_BigMck_*
Guests
Posted 03 January 2014 - 08:44 PM

It would be a very big deal if the record he was breaking was 30 years old. Manning's record will be broken in the next year or two by him or someone else. The game played today is a lot different than 15 years ago.

#11 John Grasso
Starter
Board of Directors
350 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Guilford, NY
Posted 04 January 2014 - 09:41 AM

Isn't the record - total passing yardage? Didn't Manning pass the ball not hand it off?
Didn't his team gain seven yards on the play?
What's the big difference where the receiver was standing - he caught a pass and
gained seven yards.

Had that been the final play of the game I could see some
sense to the controversy but had that not been ruled a forward pass then Manning surely
would have gained the necessary yardage on subsequent plays.

Instant replay has turned the country into a nation of nit-pickers.

#12 luckyshow
Starter
Forum Visitors
360 posts
Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:19 PM

A lateral is a handoff, not a pass. The receiver should get rushing yards. Do we count flea flickers as a pass from the halfback to the QB? Since it could have been lateraled again and again, being the receiver could have legally forward passed the ball, IT IS NOT THE SAME AS A PASS. Or are we as simple and dense as parts of the public now?

Historians and statisticians don't go on what something looks like. Did he have any laterals this season, which would include tosses to his backs? Then why not throw those in the totals? They may have looked like passes.

If we assume this is a fantasy record easy to break next year, why do we even bother celebrating thee things?

[Reaser]

#11 John Grasso
Starter
Board of Directors
350 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Guilford, NY
Posted 04 January 2014 - 09:41 AM

Isn't the record - total passing yardage? Didn't Manning pass the ball not hand it off?
Didn't his team gain seven yards on the play?
What's the big difference where the receiver was standing - he caught a pass and
gained seven yards.

Had that been the final play of the game I could see some
sense to the controversy but had that not been ruled a forward pass then Manning surely
would have gained the necessary yardage on subsequent plays.

Instant replay has turned the country into a nation of nit-pickers.

... or some people simply know the difference between a lateral and a forward pass.

[oldecapecod11]

... and some people don't.

[Reaser]

... and some people don't.

Evidently.

[oldecapecod11]

Manning football in Canton