Bigger underachieving team: Manning Colts vs Rodgers Packers

[LightningStorm]

During Peyton Manning's 13 seasons with the Colts and Aaron Rodgers's 15 seasons with the Packers. each team won a single Super Bowl. However, several consider both these teams to be an underachievement due to the fact that many believe they should've won multiple SB's due to having an at minimum borderline top 5 QB of all time. A single SB is basically the bare minimum for that type of advantage at the most important position in football. The 2009 Colts were the only time either team even made it to another SB. When looking at each of these runs, which team do you think underachieved more and left more on the table?

I would have to go with the Colts. They did a much better job of surrounding Manning with talent than GB did with Rodgers. The biggest thing though is the Colts had numerous instances where they lost to inferior teams. Manning's performance in the playoffs also dropped more than Rodgers. But the Packers often lost in heartbreaking fashion more, as half of their playoff losses (5 of 10) came when their opponent's game winning score was on the final play of the game.

Ironically, I think their SB winning teams of 2006 and 2010 were at best the 3rd best teams for each during that run. I thought 2005 and 2009 were the Colts 2 best teams, while the Packers 2 best ones were 2011 and 2014. Their 2006 and 2010 teams happened to get hot during the playoffs.

How do you think these 2 eras of a team with a borderline top 5 QB of all time that only resulted in a single SB win compare?

Click to read more...

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

They both have some bad losses but at least the Colts made a 2nd Superbowl.

 

[Babe Ruth]

Manning' Colts had a real problem being in the same conference as the best dynasty of the generation. I think Rodgers' Pack had an easier path to the Stupid Bowl, so I'd consider Rodgers' tenure/teams more underachieving.

The Earl Campbell Oilers had a similar predicament (to 2ooos Colts). Houston was one of the best teams of the late 70s, but the late 7os Steelers were (basically) always a little better.. so Pittsburgh won all the championships & Houston couldn't get thru to championship games. Just my take..

 

[Voight]

Manning Colts. They had some amazing offensive weapons all those years yet constantly choked. Irsay at least wasn't afraid to spend money to improve the team and go after free agents.

 

[Elvis P]

It's a tie between the 2 most overrated QBs ever.

 

[LightningStorm]

Manning' Colts had a real problem being in the same conference as the best dynasty of the generation.

False, this is a huge myth about the Manning Colts. Of their 11 playoff appearances, they only faced the Patriots 3 times (going 1-2). Only 2 of their 10 playoff losses were against the Pats. The Jets and Chargers also beat them twice.

Losing to an underdog was always a bigger problem for the Colts in the playoffs than getting by the Patriots. I know this is outside the scope of this thread, but I'll also point out that once you count his Denver years, Manning actually has a winning record against the Pats in the playoffs, though the home team won every game.

 

[Babe Ruth]

False, this is a huge myth about the Manning Colts. Of their 11 playoff appearances, they only faced the Patriots 3 times (going 1-2). Only 2 of their 10 playoff losses were against the Pats..

I said the (Manning) Colts shared a conference with the best dynasty of the generation. How is that a "huge myth".

I never said the Colts lost to the Pats every postseason. But you point out that the Colts did have a losing record against them. So it would be fair to say that the Pats did limit the Colts' championship tally. My point: AFC was the tougher conference because of the Pats' dominance/presence, that's why I believe the Packers were more underachieving.. they had a clearer path to Stupid Bowls, but didn't get it done.
I don't understand getting fact-checked, for something I never said..

 

[LightningStorm]

I said the (Manning) Colts shared a conference with the best dynasty of the generation. How is that a "huge myth".

I never said the Colts lost to the Pats every postseason. But you point out that the Colts did have a losing record against them. So it would be fair to say that the Pats did limit the Colts' championship tally. My point: AFC was the tougher conference because of the Pats' dominance/presence, that's why I believe the Packers were more underachieving.. they had a clearer path to Stupid Bowls, but didn't get it done.
I don't understand getting fact-checked, for something I never said..

The Pats are still only 20% of their playoff losses. Heck, the Colts lost double the amount of games as a home favorite than they did to the Pats. As for the 1-2 record, that's the same record they had against the Jets, and they had an even worse record (0-2) against the Chargers.

A team who the Pats hurt more during that time was the Steelers. Beat the Steelers twice in the AFCCG in Pittsburgh. Also, the Steelers avoided the Pats during all 3 of their SB appearances, while the Colts beat the Pats the year they won the SB.

The AFC being the tougher conference and the Colts main problem being that they lost as the favorite a lot are 2 things that can both be true at once.

 

[The Note]

Only reaching one SB with prime Aaron Rodgers is pretty disappointing, especially when you reached the NFCCG 5 times in that span. Some of that falls on Rodgers, sure. Though, I have hard time blaming him for the Packers getting bludgeoned by the 9ers in the running game, or Kevin King being left out to dry against Tampa (as just 2 examples). Getting to and winning a SB is very difficult, but you'd still expect to find a way to perform better than 1-4 in championship games. I was fairly young during the early part of Peyton's heyday with the Colts so maybe this is recency bias by me, but the Packers still feels like a bigger missed opportunity.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Rodgers Packers by a bit, generally had a better defense and had lesser competition to go through as a whole in the playoffs...though, the Colts were generally gifted easier division finishes as a result of their RS division competition...

Min. 10 game seasons
Packers median defense: 13th
Colts median defense: 17th

Above average or better defense seasons: GB 8 of 13 seasons; Ind 6 of 13 seasons.
Bottom 10 defense seasons: GB 2 of 13 seasons; Ind 5 of 13 seasons.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Rodgers Packers, pretty easily IMO.

Manning's time coincided with Brady/Belichick. Rodgers hasn't had any kind of roadblock that begins to rival that. He simply fails to deliver when the lights get bright.

Rodgers Packers by a bit, generally had a better defense and had lesser competition to go through as a whole in the playoffs...though, the Colts were generally gifted easier division finishes as a result of their RS division competition...

Min. 10 game seasons
Packers median defense: 13th
Colts median defense: 17th

Above average or better defense seasons: GB 8 of 13 seasons; Ind 6 of 13 seasons.
Bottom 10 defense seasons: GB 2 of 13 seasons; Ind 5 of 13 seasons.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. The NFC North was a cupcake division most years for The Packers. The Bears and Lions were consistently bad and the Vikings were mostly bad with a couple surprise seasons thrown in

 

[TheGreenTBer]

The Great Battle between Forehead and Shroomhead

 

[Canes]

I can see the argument for the Packers but it shouldn't be as lopsided as it is in the poll, a lot of recency bias. Colts constantly underperformed regardless of the Patriots dynasty, and aside from 2006 where they actually won, they had plenty of chances to win a 2nd Super Bowl from 2005-2010.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

The Packers were the biggest underachievers of all time because if it weren't for a complete imbecile GM and a gutless incompetent worthless coach Rodgers is the one with 3+Super Bowls.

 

[Canes]

The Packers were the biggest underachievers of all time because if it weren't for a complete imbecile GM and a gutless incompetent worthless coach Rodgers is the one with 3+Super Bowls.

lol no.

Rodgers would have been lucky to win another one with a competent GM and coach.

 

[Dr Salt]

I'll take this from two sides, emotionally and logically.

Emotionally it's clearly the Packers. They got there with Rodgers very early and went on with 12 years without a ring since while the Colts got there with Manning a bit more than halfway through and had like 4 more chances to get there? Also on the emotional side, I'm sure Andrew Luck's tenure hurts that fanbase far more by far while the shortcomings in the playoffs of the Rodgers era is more fresh.

Logically, at least the Colts made it to a second Super Bowl. I don't really think a single loss was as bad as 15-1 and a one-and-done but that being said they made a habit of going one-and-done way too often. I feel like the Packers often lost to teams that people expected them to lose to while the Colts were losing when they were favored like against the Chargers or Jets. Both of these teams lost a lot in close games, so I'd call it around even. Think it depends if you consider one-and-done shortcomings or constant conference championship exits worse (obviously the teams had a mix of both but this is what usually happened). Same with constantly just being short of the super bowl vs getting there one more time.

 

[LightningStorm]

I'll take this from two sides, emotionally and logically.

Emotionally it's clearly the Packers. They got there with Rodgers very early and went on with 12 years without a ring since while the Colts got there with Manning a bit more than halfway through and had like 4 more chances to get there? Also on the emotional side, I'm sure Andrew Luck's tenure hurts that fanbase far more by far while the shortcomings in the playoffs of the Rodgers era is more fresh.

Logically, at least the Colts made it to a second Super Bowl. I don't really think a single loss was as bad as 15-1 and a one-and-done but that being said they made a habit of going one-and-done way too often. I feel like the Packers often lost to teams that people expected them to lose to while the Colts were losing when they were favored like against the Chargers or Jets. Both of these teams lost a lot in close games, so I'd call it around even. Think it depends if you consider one-and-done shortcomings or constant conference championship exits worse (obviously the teams had a mix of both but this is what usually happened). Same with constantly just being short of the super bowl vs getting there one more time.

I divide it in a similar way between head scratching for the Colts and heartbreaking for the Packers.

The Colts, even in games they were underdogs, had some head scratching performances. Getting blown out by an average Jets team 41-0, which was a road playoff game but you'd expect a much better performance. And while they at least put up a valiant effort as underdogs in a 24-14 loss in the 2003 AFCCG, their performance the following season in Foxboro was terrible with their 20-3 loss. Sure, the Pats were still the favorite, but you'd expect a better performance than that from Manning after setting a then record 48 TD passes in the regular season. Then 2005 was their worst loss, when they got 2 extra lives against the Steelers at home and still blew it. Also lost at home in 2007 to the Chargers when Philip Rivers was unable to finish the game. The SB in 2009 was a tossup, but they only scored 7 points in the 2nd half against a Saints team much more known for their offense. Lots of head scratching performances here.

The Packers, meanwhile, have had a lot of heartbreaking losses. The effort has been there, as they've been in position to win these games despite being the lesser team in most. First Rodgers getting stripped sacked in OT in 2009 in Arizona with the Cards returning it for a TD. Then the 3 straight seasons (2013-2015) of losing a playoff game where the opponent's game winning score was on the final play. The 2014 NFCCG in Seattle was the worst playoff loss by either team in this thread, as that was one breathtaking collapse in the last 5 minutes of the 4th plus OT. Then the 2020 NFCCG loss to the Bucs where LaFleur inexplicably kicked a FG down 8, and last the special teams meltdown the next season against an inconsistent 49ers team, though Rodgers struggled that game as he always did against SF in the playoffs. Lots of losses where the Packers got their hearts ripped out at the end of the game.

 

[Terry Yake]

manning colts by a hair

6 times they won 10+ games in the regular season and were one and done in the playoffs

rodgers packers usually made it to the divisional round or conference championship game before losing

 

[MaxV]

If only Bob Sanders could stay healthy even for a 4-year-stretch...

I bet there are new NFL fans that look at the history of DPOY winners (with all the HOFers on that list) and react with "who?" to the 2007 winner without realizing that it was a NO BRAINER.

The season that Colts won the SB was the one where they allowed 5.33 rushing yards per attempt during regular season, including 375 rushing yards allowed in the game vs Jags.

Bob Sanders only played in 4 games during the regular season, but he did get back right in time for the playoffs...

Perhaps one of the biggest "what could have been" careers ever.

 

[LightningStorm]

If only Bob Sanders could stay healthy even for a 4-year-stretch...

I bet there are new NFL fans that look at the history of DPOY winners (with all the HOFers on that list) and react with "who?" to the 2007 winner without realizing that it was a NO BRAINER.

The season that Colts won the SB was the one where they allowed 5.33 rushing yards per attempt during regular season, including 375 rushing yards allowed in the game vs Jags.

Bob Sanders only played in 4 games during the regular season, but he did get back right in time for the playoffs...

Perhaps one of the biggest "what could have been" careers ever.

Plus him intercepting Brady to seal the 2006 AFCCG.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

I got the vibe the Colts were a bit too dependent on Manning. No good run D, great edge rushers. Good only when leading,