One guy part of a trade, arriving as a heralded first-rounder. The other, a $10,000 signing bonus undrafted kid.
Wiping the records clean, but knowing the ability levels, with no guarantees that everything plays out exactly the same way if you were to choose Eli again, which way do you go?
For this exercise, you must assume that they are both available in the same draft.
Do you ...
Stay the course and throw your confidence behind Manning, knowing that it's a pretty certain bet there will be as many painful outings as fantastic ones?
Or change it up and take Romo, with the thinking being that maybe a more accurate arm and a more mobile QB gets the Giants of this past era not only back to those two wins, but maybe another?
1. Perfect disposition for NY area QB.
2. Eli has never missed a game and will have the much longer career.
3. Eli has ALL the tools except for the ability to scrammble. He was much better suited for what the Giants were trying to do with Gilbride.
All records, injuries, blunders and successes wiped away. Just talent and bravado of player A vs player B who would you take.
I take Romo in a heartbeat. He would have quickly become NYs golden boy and be more beloved here than he was even in Dallas. His arm has always been equal to better than Eli, ++ mobility, and similarly good/bad decision making.
If you are basing this solely on their NFL play I still take Eli because of the big game performance in addition to the above.
Second, IMO Eli is somewhat underrated due to the Gilbride offense (not complaining as it brought us 2 SBs). It was an offense predicated on taking shots down the field and making big plays, which makes Eli's numbers look less "sexy".
Eli's average season:
Under McAdoo (age 33-35): 62.9% 4291 yds 30 TD 15 INT 90.6 passer rating 4.0% sack%
Under Gilbride (age 26-32): 60% 3899 yds 25 TD 18 INT 84.0 passer rating 4.7% sack%
*2007 was Eli's 4th season in the NFL so his Gilbride #s aren't dragged down by "rookie" struggles
Eli's numbers are better across the board with McAdoo's offensive style, with his TD:INT ratio being significantly higher despite Eli arguably playing his prime years under Gilbride. You're looking at 400 yds more, 5 TDs more, 3 INT less per season with McAdoo. Over the 7 years Gilbride was OC, that would equate to Eli having 2800 yds more, 35 TDs more, and 21 INT less for his career.
You take Eli.
All records, injuries, blunders and successes wiped away. Just talent and bravado of player A vs player B who would you take.
I take Romo in a heartbeat. He would have quickly become NYs golden boy and be more beloved here than he was even in Dallas. His arm has always been equal to better than Eli, ++ mobility, and similarly good/bad decision making.
Eli had more talent coming into the league, it isn't even a question that's worth debating. So you are going on Romo's athleticism if we aren't able to look at anything else. He obviously has the a big edge there, but that's really it.
With Romo I feel much safer about actually making the playoffs consistently.
I realize that my own answer would be impossible to make without the man-love I have for Eli, but wipe away history and everything we know, and it becomes tougher.
I think Eli is best in a tough spot, but I cannot help wonder what might be if Romo were in blue, as a young guy, with the running game we once had, and the receivers in place a handful of those earlier years, PLUS Romo's mobility.
I realize that my own answer would be impossible to make without the man-love I have for Eli, but wipe away history and everything we know, and it becomes tougher.
I think Eli is best in a tough spot, but I cannot help wonder what might be if Romo were in blue, as a young guy, with the running game we once had, and the receivers in place a handful of those earlier years, PLUS Romo's mobility.
The other side of that is what would Eli have done behind usually good-great OLine passing to a HoF TE his entire career as well as guys like TO and Dez Bryant?
What does Romo accomplish without Witten? Serious question.
I truly don't know. I just recall the Giants banging him up, and he wasn't running at the time, but was in the pocket, or at least a semblance of what had been a pocket. lol
Clearly, Romo without Witten is a much less accomplished career.
We have 2 SB's, and we have them with Eli - and he was a fairly significant part of why we have them.
Could we have 2 with other QB's? Possibly. Could we have 3 or 4? Probably not. The issue hasn't been at the QB position that's kept us from overachieving once again.
We have 2 SB's with Eli. That should be good enough. Not sure why it isn't.
With Romo I feel much safer about actually making the playoffs consistently.
Eli - 6 playoff appearances in 13 seasons (12 if you exclude his rookie year). So Eli made it 46% of the time
Romo - 4 playoff appearances in 9 seasons as a starter (2006-2014). Romo made it 44% of the time
And this is somewhat generous to Romo as it excludes the 2015/16 seasons when he got injured. Eli's durability is definitely a strength.
I truly don't know. I just recall the Giants banging him up, and he wasn't running at the time, but was in the pocket, or at least a semblance of what had been a pocket. lol
Mobility doesn't just impact whether you are in or out of the pocket. Romo tended to hold the ball longer, at least partly due to his mobility, which led to more hits (and sacks) both in and out of the pocket. Same thing with Big Ben who is even worse than Romo at getting rid of the ball.
Sometimes I wonder if some Giants fans would be happier with better numbers and making playoffs every year vs actually winning the SB
In 2009, the team's defense was extraordinarily bad.
In 2010, the team blew a game at home that cost them the playoffs.
Maybe you can point to 2012, but that's a year after a SB win and usually, that's a tough spot for any team.
2013 the team was terrible.
You can maybe make a case that in 2014 and 2015 the Giants make it with a better QB, but Eli's stats were actually his best ever..............
Second, IMO Eli is somewhat underrated due to the Gilbride offense (not complaining as it brought us 2 SBs). It was an offense predicated on taking shots down the field and making big plays, which makes Eli's numbers look less "sexy".
Eli's average season:
Under McAdoo (age 33-35): 62.9% 4291 yds 30 TD 15 INT 90.6 passer rating 4.0% sack%
Under Gilbride (age 26-32): 60% 3899 yds 25 TD 18 INT 84.0 passer rating 4.7% sack%
*2007 was Eli's 4th season in the NFL so his Gilbride #s aren't dragged down by "rookie" struggles
Eli's numbers are better across the board with McAdoo's offensive style, with his TD:INT ratio being significantly higher despite Eli arguably playing his prime years under Gilbride. You're looking at 400 yds more, 5 TDs more, 3 INT less per season with McAdoo. Over the 7 years Gilbride was OC, that would equate to Eli having 2800 yds more, 35 TDs more, and 21 INT less for his career.
Forget winning the game, does Romo even make it out of the 2012 NFC championship game in SF alive?
1. Perfect disposition for NY area QB.
2. Eli has never missed a game and will have the much longer career.
3. Eli has ALL the tools except for the ability to scrammble. He was much better suited for what the Giants were trying to do with Gilbride.
Number one gets overlooked A LOT. Eli plays the toughest position in sports, in the toughest sports town.
Forget winning the game, does Romo even make it out of the 2012 NFC championship game in SF alive?
That's a very good question, and i'd say there is a high probability that he doesn't. Even if he did, does he win the game?
Quote:
and I don't think it's as close as many believe. First, he has the perfect demeanor for NY like Jeter.
Second, IMO Eli is somewhat underrated due to the Gilbride offense (not complaining as it brought us 2 SBs). It was an offense predicated on taking shots down the field and making big plays, which makes Eli's numbers look less "sexy".
Eli's average season:
Under McAdoo (age 33-35): 62.9% 4291 yds 30 TD 15 INT 90.6 passer rating 4.0% sack%
Under Gilbride (age 26-32): 60% 3899 yds 25 TD 18 INT 84.0 passer rating 4.7% sack%
*2007 was Eli's 4th season in the NFL so his Gilbride #s aren't dragged down by "rookie" struggles
Eli's numbers are better across the board with McAdoo's offensive style, with his TD:INT ratio being significantly higher despite Eli arguably playing his prime years under Gilbride. You're looking at 400 yds more, 5 TDs more, 3 INT less per season with McAdoo. Over the 7 years Gilbride was OC, that would equate to Eli having 2800 yds more, 35 TDs more, and 21 INT less for his career.
Coincidence is not necessarily causation. Those are also the years Beckham was here. If you look back over his career, he had comparable stats in Gilbride years. One must ask what Gilbride's offense ("I can't cover no option routes all day") would have produced with a Beckham.
His OL and running game was also vastly superior under Gilbride, both of which help to open up the passing game.
It's not like his receiving options were garbage under Gilbride.
Cmon.
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)
two super bowl titles (mvps)two super bowl titles (mvps)
No.
I'm asking you to wipe all that clean and base your pick simply on ability that we saw over time.
Not necessarily accomplishments.
Question answered.
No.
Question answered.
That's not the question.
Answer it based on proven playing ability and not game results or trophies.
Maybe easy for some of you, but as much as I love Eli, it's a question for me worth considering.
Romo has the mobility factor by leaps and bounds, but that's it. Wasn't the better prospect coming in, and didn't have the better career. Not sure how else we can judge them.
I would still pick ELI because he is smarter and can run the TC/Gilbride system really well.. when given WR weapons he showed in 2011 that he can actually carry a team by just the passing game.. Romo may have better Passer Rating but he was never as good as Eli was in 2011.. Eli also has the advantage in mentally being able to block out everything else and focus on the task at hand.. and thats why he is even more clutch then Brady..
I meant to say "Anyhow you shouldn't look at team accomplishments in 2 post season play to pick the player."
+1
Eli - 6 playoff appearances in 13 seasons (12 if you exclude his rookie year). So Eli made it 46% of the time
Romo - 4 playoff appearances in 9 seasons as a starter (2006-2014). Romo made it 44% of the time
And this is somewhat generous to Romo as it excludes the 2015/16 seasons when he got injured. Eli's durability is definitely a strength.
Though you are counting Romo's 2010 in which he didn't even play half of a season. So discounting that and Eli's rookie year both QB's sit at a 50% playoff appearance rating. Still think we have missed out on a couple additional appearances.
But again, the playoff comfort I have with Eli and his durability, as you mentioned, are two reasons why he would be an easy choice for me.
And that's something no one (or few) has/have picked up on.
If you don't take Eli there - and presumably take another very strong player as your first - PLUS you keep the other picks, and then you sign Romo, who was undrafted, NOW what team do you have, potentially?
It's not just an either/or proposition, Eli or Romo. Think about it this way - if the Giants signed Romo after the 2003 draft, they likely would not have drafted Eli, and thus the dominoes begin to line up for other butterfly-effect differences.
... if the Giants think they're in good shape at QB, then maybe Roy Williams is the pick there, and see how that spins things off?
Quote:
giants#1 : 9:23 am : link : reply
Eli - 6 playoff appearances in 13 seasons (12 if you exclude his rookie year). So Eli made it 46% of the time
Romo - 4 playoff appearances in 9 seasons as a starter (2006-2014). Romo made it 44% of the time
And this is somewhat generous to Romo as it excludes the 2015/16 seasons when he got injured. Eli's durability is definitely a strength.
Though you are counting Romo's 2010 in which he didn't even play half of a season. So discounting that and Eli's rookie year both QB's sit at a 50% playoff appearance rating. Still think we have missed out on a couple additional appearances.
But again, the playoff comfort I have with Eli and his durability, as you mentioned, are two reasons why he would be an easy choice for me.
Discounting a rookie season as a player adjusts to the speed of the NFL is different than excluding a season during a player's prime because said player was injured, especially when durability is extremely important at the QB position.
Point is, the Giants made the postseason in 6 of 13 seasons since Eli was drafted. The Cowboys have made it in 4 of 11 seasons since Romo became the starter. I don't see any argument that Romo gives his team a better chance at reaching the postseason than Eli.
Eli 100 times over! Romo is nothing more than a average QB. His best attribute (avoiding the tacklers to keep plays alive) serves as his biggest weakness in that it makes him think he is Houdini and often ends holding the ball too long taking a loss. Also he's not good in the clutch.
I realize that my own answer would be impossible to make without the man-love I have for Eli, but wipe away history and everything we know, and it becomes tougher.
I think Eli is best in a tough spot, but I cannot help wonder what might be if Romo were in blue, as a young guy, with the running game we once had, and the receivers in place a handful of those earlier years, PLUS Romo's mobility.
Not trying to be argumentative here but everything we know is based on history so if we take that away, I'd have no idea who is better so I'd still have to go with Eli for his last name.
Thats all you need to know.
And Eli has had a much weaker supporting cast over the course of his career than Romo...
Listening to some, you'd swear that Reese took the Pats and ran them into the ground or that eli should have 6 rings instead of the 2 he can use to flip people off.
The way I see it, we were lucky to get 1 ring, let alone 2 in the past 10 years since we really weren't the best team in any season along the way (maybe 2008 if anytime).
It always amazes me that people can say they've watched years of the game and still not get how difficult it is to win a ring. I see it in Charlotte all the time. "Ahh, Cam didn't get one last year. Don't worry, they'll be back soon"...
Yeah, right.
Listening to some, you'd swear that Reese took the Pats and ran them into the ground or that eli should have 6 rings instead of the 2 he can use to flip people off.
The way I see it, we were lucky to get 1 ring, let alone 2 in the past 10 years since we really weren't the best team in any season along the way (maybe 2008 if anytime).
It always amazes me that people can say they've watched years of the game and still not get how difficult it is to win a ring. I see it in Charlotte all the time. "Ahh, Cam didn't get one last year. Don't worry, they'll be back soon"...
Yeah, right.
The farther removed we get from the '07-'11 time period, IMO the better it looks for Eli. The '11 team in particular probably wasn't even as good as the team we just had in 2016. I can't recall a team being carried like that by a single player to a title. That doesn't really happen in the NFL.
The '11 team is the worst team I've ever seen win a Super Bowl, and I've seen 31 Super Bowls of the 51 Super Bowls.
Thats all you need to know.
Amen, Brother!!! Eli has Balls of Steel!! I want him when the game is on the line!!
Then you don't have all of Plaxico, Pierce, and McKenzie, as not having to pay those picks in that era helped them be able to afford them all. Looking at these last 20 years, you really that high on the Giants' drafting to be so completely sure they'll get a better or more impactful than any one of them in the draft?
As far as the original question goes... you can't take away everything that needs to be in order to answer it the way it's apparently to be answered. It's just a failure of a premise.
Quote:
you are talking about fans who both routinely shit on player's who don't have titles and then wonder why people who "only" have 2 titles didn't have more.
Listening to some, you'd swear that Reese took the Pats and ran them into the ground or that eli should have 6 rings instead of the 2 he can use to flip people off.
The way I see it, we were lucky to get 1 ring, let alone 2 in the past 10 years since we really weren't the best team in any season along the way (maybe 2008 if anytime).
It always amazes me that people can say they've watched years of the game and still not get how difficult it is to win a ring. I see it in Charlotte all the time. "Ahh, Cam didn't get one last year. Don't worry, they'll be back soon"...
Yeah, right.
The farther removed we get from the '07-'11 time period, IMO the better it looks for Eli. The '11 team in particular probably wasn't even as good as the team we just had in 2016. I can't recall a team being carried like that by a single player to a title. That doesn't really happen in the NFL.
The '11 team is the worst team I've ever seen win a Super Bowl, and I've seen 31 Super Bowls of the 51 Super Bowls.
Yep. The question itself is idiotic. Romo is actually a miracle story.
And I remember back to Super Bowl 6. That Giants team is still the worst.
First year alone?
Did the same vs NE in the playoffs. They averaged close to 33/game only scored 17.
2011 wasn't about one player carrying the team to a title.
Did the same vs NE in the playoffs. They averaged close to 33/game only scored 17.
2011 wasn't about one player carrying the team to a title.
Yeah, they were so good that to even make the playoffs it required an NFL record 7 fourth quarter comebacks and breaking the all time 4th quarter TD record with 15.
We were lucky to get to 9-7 with that defense, which gave up 400 points good for 25th in the NFL.
Yes. Very true.
The 2011 defense blew. In the first three games after Thanksgiving they gave up 49, 38, and 34 points. Brutal.
Rodgers and Brady were the 2 best QBs that year. 2 of the best from the last 30 years. They lit up the league. Giants defense held them to 50% of their PPG for that year.
Cherry pick a play and call the defense lucky. When Eli completes a ball with Tyree or MM it's called "clutch". When the other guys don't do it our defense is "lucky".
LOL.
The defense was out there for 150 plays vs, IMO, the 2 best QBs ever, and they help to half their avg point total. All luck. Got it. Lucky for the defense they had one guy carrying the team.
Rodgers and Brady were the 2 best QBs that year. 2 of the best from the last 30 years. They lit up the league. Giants defense held them to 50% of their PPG for that year.
First off, Eli Manning led the Giants on yet another seemingly game winning drive in the regular season against Green Bay, leaving less than 1 minute on the clock. The defense promptly gave up like 50 yards in 3 plays and allowed Green Bay to routinely kick the game winner as time expired.
In the Superbowl, the fact that the Giants offense had the ball for nearly 40 minutes out of the 60 minute game might have had something to do with the Patriots point total being a little down.
Not to take anything away from the Giants defense, who played well in the playoffs, but exceptional is not how I would classify them.
All you can do is cherry pick plays, because a play here and there is the difference between winning the Super Bowl and not even making the playoffs.
2003:
Lets say we use one of our 7's on him that year to make sure he is actually a giant.
2004:
Instead of drafting a quarterback we keep our picks
1st: looks like DeAngelo Hall or Vince Wilfork
3rd: probably take Chris Cooley (Shocky was a beast in 2TE sets as a rookie before we let Campbell go)
2005: Here is where we make out money
1st: Aaron Rogers
5th: Trent Cole
In the mean time romo is, love him/hate him, one of the best looking throwers of the ball I have ever seen. So pretty. Good chance we can move him for at least a 3rd, possibly even a second depending on how well he shows out in his preseason games.
** This all assumes similar draft order moving forward from 2003 offseason.
***I'd still take eli
Not sure about that, but not worth haggling over.
Not sure about that, but not worth haggling over.
That is to say, I like how things went. Rewriting the past rewrites '07 and personally I am not trading that for anything.
Thats how you look at sports? You can do that in any sport and always claim the other guy was lucky.
In 2011, the defense improved and played strong down the stretch and throughout the playoffs. It wasn't one play here and there. In the last 8 games of the year including the playoffs they allowed 14ppg. That isn't lucky. That isn't about one missed pass out of the 600+ plays over that span.
Getting into the playoffs in the last month and winning every playoff game wasn't 1 guy carrying a team. Nobody thinks that except Elis biggest fans talking nonsense.
That team was bad at almost everything a team could be for most of the regular season, from their OL being a pressure sieve to the league-worst run game to a defense, that, at the time, was the worst ranked to win a title. It's not Eli fanboy nonsense to recognize that.
We'll, many things goi into that such as the NE with a 2.5 to 1 pass to run ratio. And things like a very low YPA. And the defense getting them off the field. Or better yet simply sacking them in the end zone for points and the ball back.
Vs Brady and Rodgers, the Giants defended 100 pass plays. They played these HOF QBs better than any other team all year. And that was the difference. It wasn't one missed catch by Welker. It was the play of he defame across 100 pass plays vs the 2 best offenses in the NFL (and 2 of the best of all time). They held them to well below their avgs in every category including points scored (50% lover in ppg).
Lucky play?
A team carried by one player?
Um...no. 2011 was a team effort wii exceptional play by the defense from last few games of regular season (games needed to get in) and the playoffs.
We also had outstanding play from several guys like Nicks, Cruz and JPP At the end of the year any ranking of players would have put JPP and Cruz at the top of the league. They were difference makers.
Eli threw 3 picks and we lost to Redskins. 7-7. Defense played a great game despite all of the TOs.
Next week in must win bs Jets the d gives up 14: 8-7
Next week vs Dal in its win. They give up 14. 9-7 and in.
In playoffs it was 4 great games in a row for he D.
Give me a break.
As someone who gets called an Eli hater on this board at times, it boggles my mind that there are still Giant fans that can't even give him the credit he deserves for that year.
If it wasn't largely for him playing out of his mind, they'd have been competing for the top draft pick, not having the opportunity for the defense to get improbably hot and make that team-wide run.
He wasn't a one man team. I can't believe anybody has these thoughts. There were several exceptional players on the team and the defensive unit made the difference late and throughout the playoffs. As you said "team effort".
Great point there about the defense.
I think the point is that Eli and the Giants have 2 SB rings without even being the best team in the league either years and yet, Eli and the team gets shit on a lot for not having more SB wins.
But then again, this is a board where a couple of people think Mark Sanchez was as important to the Jets postseason "success" than Eli was to the Giants, and that's even without the mental gymnastics needed to try and equate Championship game appearances with SB wins.
"I can't recall a team being carried like that by a single player to a title. That doesn't really happen in the NFL."
Points against: 25th
Yards against: 27th
First downs allowed: 26th
Passing yards against: 29th
Rushing yards against: 19th
That isn't exceptional by any measure. It's not even mediocre; it's poor. Add to that the Giants were 32nd in the NFL in rushing yardage, and what is left on the team that's any good?
7 fourth quarter comebacks led by Eli in a 9 win season. Then add in outclassing Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay, taking a billion hits in San Francisco, and AGAIN bailing the defense out in the Super Bowl with an all-time throw in a four minute drive.
Any plaudits Eli Manning gets for 2011, he deserves.
How were they exceptional at the end of the year?
Team was 7-6 and needed to win at least 2 and maybe all 3 vs WAS, NYJ and DAL.
Vs WAS. Defense was strong. 3 YPC. Only 180 yards passing allowed. 2 interceptions on the first 3 WAS drives. Only allowed 13 points outside of the drives after Eli's INTs (he had 2 in our end and one inside WAS 10).
Vs Jets (8-6 at the time) - 14 points allowed. 2 INT. 5 sacks. Eli completed 9 passes all day for 33%. Cruz with the 99 yard play. JPP had a big sack that pushed them back for a long FG miss.
Vs Dal (8-8) - 14 points allowed. 1 INT. 6 sacks. 3YPC. Held scoreless in first half. 3 consecutive drives ended by NYG sacks. Only 4 first downs in first half for Dallas. Gave up a TD in 3rd qtr. Next drive had INT on Dallas 40. The last TD allowed was after DAL started on NYG 25 yard line.
That's 3 exceptional defensive games to end the year.
Do you need a review of the playoffs starting with the 2 points they gave up to ATL?
Again, the defense was exceptional late and throughout the playoffs. And that is the story of the 2011 Giants. Defense got hot late and kept it going against the best offenses in the league. It was a team effort.
You call it the worst SB winner and a team that won it because of a one man show.
And it has to be said again: the team went 9-7. EVERY win and EVERY big play was the difference between a title and no playoffs. And in that season Eli made numerous enormous plays to save games...7 of the 9 wins were 4th quarter comebacks.
It is the worst team I've seen win the Super Bowl, by far. I would rate several of the Coughlin Giants teams as better, and I'd say last year's Giants were a better team.
And he didn't carry them to 9 wins.
Nobody thinks that outside of a few of his biggest fans.
Knowing what they did subsequent to the draft, Romo has more statistical talent and Eli has more rings still doesn't change it. You want the rings.
If you put their statistical ability on an average team, you take Romo, if that means anything....
bradshaw44 : 4/5/2017 8:02 pm : link : reply
How would romo have won with our teams that were arguably less talented then those mid/late 2000's cowboys teams. The ones romo never won with. Why would he have won with our team?
That's why I don't get these types of discussions.
In my opinion, we've won two Super Bowl's while never being the best team in the league. Does having Ben, Rivers, Romo, or anyone else where these discussions pop up make us the best team in the league in any year?
If not, then you either have to give a shitload of credit to whomever that we've won two SB's while being a mediocre team. The question shouldn't be "Should eli have more SB wins" or "Would Big Ben have more SB wins" it should be would we have won a single Super Bowl with anyone other than Eli at QB, or extend it out and ask if we'd have had any SB wins with anyone other than Coughlin.
Not having the best team but coming away with not 1, but 2 SB's speaks to a few people's greatness, yet somehow on BBI it is often looked at as a failure that we haven't done more.
I shake my head every time.
It took Romo 3 years to play a down for Dallas, and none of the Dallas QBs were better than Kerry Collins. To even suggest that signing him as a UDFA in 2003 could have impacted their thinking on the Eli trade is conmpletely idiotic. They made the trade despite having a pretty good QB under their control.