Peyton Manning mark under review
 

The league's record-keepers were taking another look at things Monday, as is customary each week in the season. At issue, according to sources, is a 7-yard completion from Manning to Eric Decker with just over a minute remaining in the first quarter.

In one camera angle, the pass to Decker looks like a lateral, which would make it a running play. Another angle, from above, shows Decker receiving the ball at the Broncos' 48-yard line, with Manning slightly deeper than that.

If the play stands, Manning would keep the record. If it is eventually ruled a run, he would be credited with 259 yards Sunday and 5,470 this season. The 5,470 would be the second-highest season total in league history and still easily be Manning's career best.

Peyton Manning of Denver Broncos may lose passing yards record - ESPN

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

It would be funny if they changed it but they won't and if they did it would only lead to a astrix on Drews record as Manning would have broke it if he didnt sit.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

How would Manning not playing in the second half put an asterisk on Brees?

Brees broke his own record!

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Because Manning wouldnt have come out the game for anothrr drive and would have broke the record.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Because anything the Saints achieve always has an asterisk next to it. Goodell makes sure of this.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Big deal, brees has broke 5K 4 times, 3 years consecutive aswell

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

If he was taken out of the game it's not an * it it what it is.... No record. Assumptions are moot.

Should we give Graham an * because we ran the ball?

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Im not trying to big him up or belittle Brees record as I dont really care about individual record unless its done winning a championship. Manning plays the full 16 games and he breaks record thats all.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Or he brakes his ankle, re-injures his neck... the next play and nothing else...

Lets not assume, if something did not happen then it did not happen.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Is there an asterisk by the Saints 2012 season because Payton was suspended?

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

this record meant something when defenders were allowed to play defense. since the original record Drew broke the defense has become hang strung for more points which results in an increase in revenue. the gold of the rule changes were to bring casual or less interested fans in football into the viewing audience.

so you dumb down the game for more money and to cater to the lower football IQ fans. so many of these new water down records honestly mean nothing in my book. the changes to the game do not justify the means of the nfl to make its financial goals.

two record books need to be printed

records when defenses were allowed to play

records when defense we not allowed to play

rule changes have allowed many wr to become starts that would have gotten eaten alive in the old days. game is going to hell in an hand basket in more ways than this.

any other old timers feel the same?

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

I agree to a point.

The QB still has to throw the ball and the WR still has to catch it.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

I'm not sure which changes in particular you are referring to. I assume you mean the rules limiting the ways in which a defender can tackle.

I think the officials are over-enforcing these new rules sometimes -- under-enforcing other times. In general though, I agree with trying to limit the injuries and the league's attempts to do that. Being a supporter of a sport in which players lives and the lives of their families may be ruined because of life altering injuries -- it makes me disinclined to support it.

Call me a wuss -- but I don't want players going out there playing their guts out for my enjoyment -- and then have to watch as they are carted off the field a quadriplegic. I'll take the "wussying" of the game rather than watch that.

BTW, that hit to Jabari was gruesome. I really hope he is OK.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Based on your comments, I take it you weren't following the Saints in the late 1980's. "Could've, should've, would've"... look it up.

Here is the thing: back in 2011, Brees' numbers went through similar scrutiny after games, and there were yards taken away from him as well because of screen plays which, post-game review, ended up being ruled laterals... and the Saints run a lot of those. So, why wouldn't Manning's numbers go through the same scrutiny? Why would you discount the yards Brees lost due to adjustments?

Speaking of what Manning would've done had he kept on playing:
remember the 2009 Colts' season? The Colts were 14-0, with games against the Jets and the Bills left on the schedule. The Jets were in full meltdown mode. The Bills were, well, the Bills. The Jets were about to be put out of their misery (remember the Rex Ryan speech "I thought we were out but weren't"? .. I digress), but Manning was benched the second half of the Jets game, with a lead, and Curtis Painter played the last half of the Jets game, which the Colts ended up losing, and the entirety of the next game against the Bills, which the Colts lost as well. Had Peyton manning played the last 2 games, no doubt the Colts would've finished the season 16-0. But they didn't. Peyton didn't play at all, poor Curtis Painter looked like a HS QB playing in the NFL going 8 of 28 for 83 yards 0 TDs 2 INTs in 6 quarters of professional football, and the Colts ended their season 14-2.
SO
Based on your "if Manning would have played" theory of awarding football records, would you give the Colts a 16-0 regular season record in 2009?

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Its a bit different yo say had he plsyed they would have won compared to he would have thrown for 7 yards in one half dont you think.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

Not different at all. Same could've. should've, would've. Same he did not do it.

The bottom line is, whichever way anyone feels about the record, statistics are always finalized 2-3 days after the game, not the day of the game. This is well known. Just like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Stafford, etc have yards removed from their totals because certain plays were deemed not forward passes, so should Manning.

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

What about Adrian Peterson coming up 30? yds short of breaking the single-season rushing record?

If he had known he was getting that close, he probably wouldn't have run out of bounds on some plays. Because he was only a 1st down away from breaking it, should the league go ahead and award the rushing title to him?

Re: Peyton Manning mark under review
 

I classify myself as an old timer...(44yrs) Records were being set before "defenses were not allowed to play". Also, "rule changes have allowed many wr to become starts that would have gotten eaten alive in the old days". Who would have eaten them alive? There were star WR back in the old days, right? So how did they become stars?

The depth of the talent pool in today's game makes the "old days" talent pool look like a shallow carp pond in the middle of your local shopping mall. Let's not down play today's players because of the rules they have to play by. One of the reasons the rules have been put into place is because of their talents. They have become too fast, too big, too strong...so fast! NFL is just trying to protect their product. Although, I agree that it is overboard most of the time. We have to get away from this "Roman-Coliseum Gladiator" way of thinking. We are not watching the game to see guys get decapitated, with blood gushing out of their necks, eyes gouged out, and limbs hanging on by a 1" piece of flesh. We are watching for pure entertainment. Let's not let our thirst for blood and gore ruin these guys lives. Just because they have mascots of lions, tigers, and bears (oh my"), does not mean we should expect those type of results.

Like everyone has said before "records are made to be broken". We have to stop thinking that our childhood heroes were the only real men around. Remember they were "your" heroes, and that's all. I remember seeing pics in old football books in the library with guys playing in just the leather helmets and rarely any gear. What happened to that? I'll tell you, they realized that it was stupid to keep doing so due to the way the game was evolving. It was becoming a more physical/punishing game. And that was when some of the biggest guys on the field were around 220-240lbs. Laughable now, huh?

The game has to change, and along with that so do the rules. Because if every Sunday that you tuned into your favorite team you realized that the starting QB, WR, RB, TE, etc was out of the game again for an extended period of time, you would tune in less and less. You may think "that's what i'm doing now anyway"...yeah right! Everyone's always lying about how they are not watching the NFL and NBA much anymore. Stop your damn lying. So why is it that they are always the ones coming into work asking "did you see the game last night?". And can give you every stat from every game for the last 10 yrs.

Again, I'm an old timer and miss the days when I was younger and my favorite players were playing on Sunday and I thought that there was no way it could get any better than this. Guess what, there are kids today who watch football on Sundays now and are thinking the same thing. The only b-eye-tea-see-h'ing you get are from us "old timers". Let just sit back let the young guys play the game that we all love and stop getting mad at the world because were are now the "old timers".