Russillo had Mike Sando of The Athletic on his pod earlier talking about Sando's QB tiers article. Both of them took complete pot shots @ Eli, with both of them agreeing that Romo was more talented than Eli. Cool, but who fucking won? Romo won two-TWO-playoff games. Eli won 2 Lombardis. GTFO with that comparison. Both also agreed that Phillip Rivers was better than Eli...again, are we not factoring playoffs into this? Phillip Rivers never had one signature playoffs moment, absent playing with a torn ACL vs. the Pats where they lost. He never even made a Super Bowl. They both also would take Stafford over Eli presumably at their prime. Sando also said Eli was never a top 5 QB in the NFL, proving to me that Mike slept through the '11 season. @ this point, I stopped listening to the pod lest I have a stroke on the treadmill.
I'm not arguing Eli is his brother or Montana or TB12. But it is infuriating to me how people just downplay the guy's career & act as if he was along for the ride on two epic postseason runs. We don't win in 2007 or 2011 without him. And in 2011, I'd argue he should have gotten MVP consideration.
He ranks #10 all time in TD passes & passing yards. That has to account for something.
Rant over. Just sick of the Eli hate. And I hope he gives the middle finger to the hater when he slips on that gold jacket. But he's too classy to do that so I'll do it to the Russillos and Sandos of the world.
But I don't think it's a stretch to say Rivers and Romo were more consistent regular season QBs.
Taking Stafford over Eli in their primes isn't absurd. Stafford was more gifted physically. He unfortunately got stuck for most of his career playing for a horrible organization.
If you like QBs who elevate their game in the playoffs, Eli is your guy.
But hey, Super Bowls are overrated.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
Sorry but this is horse shit. The entire point of professional sports is to try and win championships. Not personal accolades.
The QB is the most important person on an entire pro football team, and honestly probably the most important position in all of pro sports.
Romo personally contributed to his teams' failures. 2006 vs Seattle. 2007 vs NYG. 2008 vs Philly. 2011 vs NYG in the finale.
There are more, but he could NEVER put together a run, with teams that were arguably way more talented than the eventual SB winners those years.
Sorry, but homerisms aside, saying that Eli's playoff runs dont ROCKET him beyond guys like Romo is absolutely laughable.
But I don't think it's a stretch to say Rivers and Romo were more consistent regular season QBs.
Taking Stafford over Eli in their primes isn't absurd. Stafford was more gifted physically. He unfortunately got stuck for most of his career playing for a horrible organization.
Just imagine if you actually watched those two SB runs instead of hiding under a rock!
Quote:
vis-a-vis the players you mentioned - Rivers and Romo. And that will lead to his induction in Canton before either. I'm not sure Romo gets in, but Rivers should eventually.
But I don't think it's a stretch to say Rivers and Romo were more consistent regular season QBs.
Taking Stafford over Eli in their primes isn't absurd. Stafford was more gifted physically. He unfortunately got stuck for most of his career playing for a horrible organization.
Just imagine if you actually watched those two SB runs instead of hiding under a rock!
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
It's almost as if you didn't see the playoff games when Eli went 8-0.
They only won a play off game in 2 of his 15 seasons.
You can argue it was a poorly run organization the back half of his career , Giants fans know that.
But in NFL circles, which includes pundits and fans, the quarterback gets too much credit and too much blame. Given this, it s not surprising outside of Giants nation, Eli is viewed in a lesser light.
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
Sorry but this is horse shit. The entire point of professional sports is to try and win championships. Not personal accolades.
The QB is the most important person on an entire pro football team, and honestly probably the most important position in all of pro sports.
Romo personally contributed to his teams' failures. 2006 vs Seattle. 2007 vs NYG. 2008 vs Philly. 2011 vs NYG in the finale.
There are more, but he could NEVER put together a run, with teams that were arguably way more talented than the eventual SB winners those years.
Sorry, but homerisms aside, saying that Eli's playoff runs dont ROCKET him beyond guys like Romo is absolutely laughable.
as usual you completely misunderstand the point.
But even with your lack of grasping there are two distinct sides to a football team, one which your QB has ZERO influence over - not to mention special teams....
Romo post-season quarterback rating: 93.7
Eli post-season quarterback rating: 87.4
I'm an Eli fan, and I do think he should probably be in the HOF, but fans get so stupid with discussions like this.
I'll let you all shout out the voices of reason and make an Eli echo chamber.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
Really short answer? YES. He played far better with far less than those two HoFers.
I asked my Pat fans cousins who they would take in one game other than TB and they both admitted that Eli was a bastard to play against and would take him over Rodgers.
Eli was a special kind of killer.
Many of Eli's greatest moments came in the most important games at the most important times. Going back to the Tampa game in 2007 all the way to the second Super Bowl.
His greatest game of his career was in Green Bay in 2007. His greatest throw was in the second Super Bowl. His greatest moment was in the first Super Bowl.
What about the drive before halftime in Dallas? Or the throw on 3rd-and-15 against the 49ers when he was getting the shit kicked out of hm.
Tony Romo?
Fuck off.
Many of Eli's greatest moments came in the most important games at the most important times. Going back to the Tampa game in 2007 all the way to the second Super Bowl.
His greatest game of his career was in Green Bay in 2007. His greatest throw was in the second Super Bowl. His greatest moment was in the first Super Bowl.
What about the drive before halftime in Dallas? Or the throw on 3rd-and-15 against the 49ers when he was getting the shit kicked out of hm.
Tony Romo?
Fuck off.
Eli may only have won in the post season in those 2 years, but they are 2 of the finest playoff runs by any QB ever.
I also think it is too easily overlooked outside of Giants fans how royally Reese and Gettleman screwed half of Eli's career. Likewise, or maybe even more, it is too easily overlooked how difficult an offense Eli was charged with commanding pretty much from day one. That system was not conducive to elite stats. But, show me one other QB from his era who could have run it.
The offensive line got old and they couldn't replace them and Nicks getting hurt killed the team.
Many of Eli's greatest moments came in the most important games at the most important times. Going back to the Tampa game in 2007 all the way to the second Super Bowl.
His greatest game of his career was in Green Bay in 2007. His greatest throw was in the second Super Bowl. His greatest moment was in the first Super Bowl.
What about the drive before halftime in Dallas? Or the throw on 3rd-and-15 against the 49ers when he was getting the shit kicked out of hm.
Tony Romo?
Fuck off.
Agree, making a case for Romo as the better quarterback is disingenuous.
Eli is better than them both but who cares. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. This has been going on for almost twenty years.
Eli was a great QB who raised the level of his game in the biggest spots.
If you want to talk about regular season stats or his .500 record as a check against him, that’s fine.
His entire career was faced with a revolving door at WR and TE due to injury. Starting with the gunshot to Plax every single major WR threat who emerged as his number 1 dealt with a career threatening/ending injury prematurely. Smith, Nicks, Cruz, Beckham, Boss, Ballard, etc. Tiki retired early, Wilson was forced to retire. He had very little stability in terms of the skill positions around him.
On top of this he played the majority of his career in a highly complex, highly aggressive offensive system.
I always wonder why if Eli’s success can be chalked up to a couple of really hot playoff runs why there aren’t more multiple SB winning QBs?
That is true - yes.
Yes, the organization around Eli was poor late in his career, but also do think the last couple of years of Eli's career he was sliding back to mediocrity. Both can be true. I think he got the jitters from years with poor offensive line play.
Though in Eli's last playoff game vs Green Bay I remember him balling out and throwing well.
QB careers are odd. Just look at someone like Kurt Warner or Tom Brady at the start of his career. Random thought - David Carr is a QB who I thought had a lot of talent and just ended up in a crappy situation and then came a backup QB.
Overall, Romo was a very good player who had a tendency to choke in big games. He dropped the snap on a gimme field goal. Lost at home in the divisional round as a 1 seed when he was hanging in Cabo the week before. He missed a wide open Miles Austin against us in a huge playoff game at home in December for the division and then no showed against us a few weeks later.
More than anything the guy was a China doll who broke it the defense sneezed on him. How many games missed due to injury? That’s all part of it.
I would love to hear some of you guys talk about Romo if his career played out the same way as Giant.
Please.
This loss was unreal...
True. But I think there was still enough time left in the game for Rodgers to work his magic if that TD stood.
But beyond that, he was part of perhaps the greatest play in football history, and that play came on the game-winning drive against an undefeated football team. That's Cinderella stuff.
Romo? Never had a whiff of anything like that. Or any other play on Eli's top 10 playoff moments.
[quote] fans up there with the dumbest in the league.
What an odd take.
Its gotten really boring.
[quote] fans up there with the dumbest in the league.
What an odd take.
That wasn’t directed at you.
The story of Manning's wasted career is in large part due to the comically short careers at the pass catching positions.
Imagine if Burress, Smith, Nicks and Cruz don't have career altering injuries.
I was ecstatic Rivers wasn't the QB for NYG because I couldn't stand his rag arm. But he was a very good QB.
When did Rivers do all of this choking? I do grant that the entire team laid an egg in 2006 when they lost at home in the divisional round to the Pats. They were the better team and gave that game away. Of course, that could also be classified as another game where Marty Schottenheimer was cursed in the playoffs. He lost some unreal games in big moments.
It is honestly sad how they threw away all of those years of a QB in his prime. Reese failed to rebuild the aging line (not because he ignored it, just didn’t draft anyone good) and then the scapegoating of Gilbride and Coughlin was icing on the cake.
I’ll still take our two SB’s with Eli (and should have been a third in 2008) over all of those consistently “good” statistical years from the likes of Romo, Rivers, etc.
Who cares about the Eli takes. My spiel when it comes up is he beat the greatest team, with the greatest QB and the greatest coach in one of the most epic super bowl upsets. Then if you thought it was a fluke he did it again 4 years later against the same damn team, qb, and coach. Mic drop.
Quote:
In comment 16163889 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
Sorry but this is horse shit. The entire point of professional sports is to try and win championships. Not personal accolades.
The QB is the most important person on an entire pro football team, and honestly probably the most important position in all of pro sports.
Romo personally contributed to his teams' failures. 2006 vs Seattle. 2007 vs NYG. 2008 vs Philly. 2011 vs NYG in the finale.
There are more, but he could NEVER put together a run, with teams that were arguably way more talented than the eventual SB winners those years.
Sorry, but homerisms aside, saying that Eli's playoff runs dont ROCKET him beyond guys like Romo is absolutely laughable.
as usual you completely misunderstand the point.
But even with your lack of grasping there are two distinct sides to a football team, one which your QB has ZERO influence over - not to mention special teams....
Romo post-season quarterback rating: 93.7
Eli post-season quarterback rating: 87.4
I'm an Eli fan, and I do think he should probably be in the HOF, but fans get so stupid with discussions like this.
I'll let you all shout out the voices of reason and make an Eli echo chamber.
Now you want to bring up QB rating???!?!
You are an absolute clown.
“8-0 in two remarkable Super Bowl runs!”
vs.
“Six playoff appearances. One-and-done in four of them.”
“Cold-blooded assassin in the clutch!”
vs.
“Bone-headed turnovers in crucial situations.”
Etc., etc. All true, which is why I think most takes on Eli’s career exaggerate in one direction or the other.
“8-0 in two remarkable Super Bowl runs!”
vs.
“Six playoff appearances. One-and-done in four of them.”
“Cold-blooded assassin in the clutch!”
vs.
“Bone-headed turnovers in crucial situations.”
Etc., etc. All true, which is why I think most takes on Eli’s career exaggerate in one direction or the other.
True.
But what can you say about Romo's career?
Marino's?
Hell, even Peyton's?
All lost in almost every single big momemt with the exception of Peyton.
I would actually give the benefit of the doubt to Rivers in '07 because he played on a torn ACL didnt he?
Eli did it is all. He did it twice. Comparing him to Romo only has validation because their careers were connected chronologically and it is still a laughable comparison.
What do you think Eli does with TO?
How about, Eli was really clutch in those two Super Bowl runs. He made amazing plays and really rose to the occasion. Unfortunately, he also had frequent stretches of poor play and didn’t necessarily elevate his team. He had an unusual coolness and was probably important to have in a NY market. Nevertheless, the numbers those other qbs put up aren’t nothing. And those qbs frequently got their team to the playoffs. Outside of a couple seasons, Eli really struggled to do that. Luckily, he was able to do it in the most important spots. But to say the point of football is to win a championship somehow being the sole measuring stick of a player is really weak.
Eli, Romo, and Rivers were all excellent qbs. Romo would get the yips and rivers was unorthodox and an asshole.
The amount of synergy, opportunity, and luck, that is required to win a Super Bowl is bananas, unless your talent is just night and day. Even then, it can dal short. That’s why it’s amazing to do it. Heck, the patriots were a way better team than the giants for the first super bowl. It would be outrageous to say otherwise. But I feel like every time this type of conversation comes up, I have to remind people how odds, statistics, and probability work. A team like that year’s patriots might win 95% of the time. You always bet on that. However, 5 percent of the time, they don’t. That doesn’t mean the prognosticators were wrong. That’s not how odds work. That’s not what they mean. Same for weather forecasts. So “the better qb won”, or “the team that won is better”, is typically a great sound bite, but not how probability works. Better players give you better odds. It gives you more dice that have the 1s and 2s removed for extra 5s and 6s.
Eli needed more to fall in place than Brady did for that first Super Bowl. He had an extra die in his pocket. But if winning is all that matters as far as who is better, is he better than Brady? Furthermore, the giants were the better team the second team, but not infinitely better. It is well within reason that they could have lost, even though they were the better team.
Better soccer player? No doubt.
Better Quarterback? GTFO.
How about, Eli was really clutch in those two Super Bowl runs. He made amazing plays and really rose to the occasion. Unfortunately, he also had frequent stretches of poor play and didn’t necessarily elevate his team. He had an unusual coolness and was probably important to have in a NY market. Nevertheless, the numbers those other qbs put up aren’t nothing. And those qbs frequently got their team to the playoffs. Outside of a couple seasons, Eli really struggled to do that. Luckily, he was able to do it in the most important spots. But to say the point of football is to win a championship somehow being the sole measuring stick of a player is really weak.
Eli, Romo, and Rivers were all excellent qbs. Romo would get the yips and rivers was unorthodox and an asshole.
The amount of synergy, opportunity, and luck, that is required to win a Super Bowl is bananas, unless your talent is just night and day. Even then, it can dal short. That’s why it’s amazing to do it. Heck, the patriots were a way better team than the giants for the first super bowl. It would be outrageous to say otherwise. But I feel like every time this type of conversation comes up, I have to remind people how odds, statistics, and probability work. A team like that year’s patriots might win 95% of the time. You always bet on that. However, 5 percent of the time, they don’t. That doesn’t mean the prognosticators were wrong. That’s not how odds work. That’s not what they mean. Same for weather forecasts. So “the better qb won”, or “the team that won is better”, is typically a great sound bite, but not how probability works. Better players give you better odds. It gives you more dice that have the 1s and 2s removed for extra 5s and 6s.
Eli needed more to fall in place than Brady did for that first Super Bowl. He had an extra die in his pocket. But if winning is all that matters as far as who is better, is he better than Brady? Furthermore, the giants were the better team the second team, but not infinitely better. It is well within reason that they could have lost, even though they were the better team.
The 2011 New York Giants were terrible on defense and rushing the football. Eli Manning, Victor Cruz, and Hakeem Nicks carried that team to the playoffs. Once there, the defense and running attack finally started to contribute.
In other words, Eli elevated that team to a Super Bowl. He had an MVP caliber year.
I also agree with what Eric said about the 2nd half of his career and how poorly the team was run first with Jerry Reese and then Gettleman. I also believe that when Tom Coughlin was fired and went over to Eli on that day he was fired and said to Eli he was never the problem. That the problem was actually Reese and that he should have been the one fired his how Tom Coughlin felt but that his just me reading between the lines. But I do believe I am right.
Tony Romo, Good QB. That's it. I can see Rivers in the HOF.
Eli will and should be in.
Eli came up MASSIVE in the most MASSIVE of spots in NFL history. The dude had ice in his veins. When nothing was on the line in week 8 of an NFL season when the Giants were 6-2 or 5-3, I’d be terrified when he would drop back on 2nd and 7 in the first quarter. With nothing on the line he could come up with some real head scratcher plays/throws. Fast forward to Week 14 with the season on the line, 2 minutes left down by 5 and it’s 3rd and 15;; I would actually be excited to see the magic that was about to be presented to us fans momentarily.
It was such a pleasure to have him as our QB. He was so clutch it was amazing. And it all started with the 2005 game against Denver. I remember thinking when we were down like 17 points with minimal time left. I was sitting there at Baileys in Ballston Mall, thinking ok he just needs to do this that this that this and that, and we can win this thing with a little help from the defense. And it was like I was watching a movie i had already seen, because Eli literally did every single thing I had willed to happen in my head. When we took the lead with the touchdown to Amani, me and like 5 Giants fans at the bar, all of us drinking alone, jumped up and down and hugged each other as if we were life long friends.
It was that moment I knew we had ourselves a quarterback until about 2019 or so. Dudes going to the HOF. Whether or not on first ballot is moot. He’s getting in based on those two Super Bowl runs. Not too mention he is in or around top ten in a shit ton of passing categories.
Let’s recap the wins in those Super Bowl runs. Most teams end up beating a bunch of so so teams.
2007:
Tampa Bay Bucs - 9 and 7
Dallas Cowboys - 13 and 3
Green Bay Packers - 13 and 3
New England Patriots - 18 and ZERO
2011:
Atlanta Falcons - 9 and 7
Green Bay Packers - 15 and ONE
San Francisco 49ers - 13 and 3
New England Patriots - 12 and 4
Those runs alone say it all. And he won both super bowls with last minute, everything on the line, zero chances left, drives where he was passing the ball to win it all.
Anyone that shits on him is a moron. The only thing they can say is he was inconsistent during the regular season. But even then a lot had to do with him never having great continuity in OL or WR. So there is that. And the years he had a great OL were during his rookie contract years. Right when he really needed a good OL. Imagine if he had had a stud OL from 2012-2019. The Giants failed him in that regard
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
It's almost as if you didn't see the playoff games when Eli went 8-0.
PJs post earns points...but only to a certain extent.
Let's face facts, Romo usually choked when the chips were down.
Relatively speaking when he played he was in the Top 10 QBs in the league. But he repeatedly came up small.
Meanwhile, Eli wasn't just around for the ride. He drove the car.
Quote:
The entire second half of Eli's career was stuck with one of the worst-run franchises in the NFL.
It is honestly sad how they threw away all of those years of a QB in his prime. Reese failed to rebuild the aging line (not because he ignored it, just didn’t draft anyone good) and then the scapegoating of Gilbride and Coughlin was icing on the cake.
I’ll still take our two SB’s with Eli (and should have been a third in 2008) over all of those consistently “good” statistical years from the likes of Romo, Rivers, etc.
Could make an argument for 4 super bowls. 2010 team was primed. Matt Dodge’s kick to Jackson destroyed that chance. And TC was very aware of it. I always wondered if TC black listed Dodge after that to the rest of the league.
Quote:
In comment 16163937 Chris684 said:
[quote] fans up there with the dumbest in the league.
What an odd take.
That wasn’t directed at you.
Calling a take different from yours stupid, is not a very good way to make your point.; it might be common practice around here, but that doesn’t make it effective.
It is possible that despite Eli s elite performance twice in the play offs, the teams ‘ overall performance over his career, has skewed the view of others as to his career.
If you like QBs who elevate their game in the playoffs, Eli is your guy.
But hey, Super Bowls are overrated.
This is not true. Romo does not choke in the playoffs. The biggest moment of his career was overturned on a horrible call by the ref. He had the cowboys in the championship game in 2014 on a stacked team. Romo also didn’t choke Vs the giants in 2007. If Patrick Crayton holds onto a ball they are in the nfc championship game that year as well. I don’t like romo but people love to hate on a guy who was great.
Romo is a better QB than Eli if you take homerism out of it. Rivers, not so much.
He played what I consider one of the greatest games a QB can play in SF. Getting the shit kicked out of him, on the road, against the best defense and hit 30 something times and zero turnovers and the win
His drive in the 1st SB was TD or lose - no pressure. They got the TD and won the game
His throw in the 2nd SB was a throw 99.9% of QBs don’t even try
Rivers played his entire career in a city where no one cares about football, in great weather with a team who many considered the most talented team in the league for years at the time
Romo was a pain in the ass to play against but was another QB who played on teams that were considered the most talented in the NFL.
The defense fell apart in 2012, his 2015 was really good but the defense blew 7 last possession games. He was ready to play the playoffs in 2016 but the WR were not
Was he frustrating and did we want more .. absolutely but It is funny how SB are so important except when judging Eli
Quote:
like QBs who choke in the playoffs, Romo is your guy.
If you like QBs who elevate their game in the playoffs, Eli is your guy.
But hey, Super Bowls are overrated.
This is not true. Romo does not choke in the playoffs. The biggest moment of his career was overturned on a horrible call by the ref. He had the cowboys in the championship game in 2014 on a stacked team. Romo also didn’t choke Vs the giants in 2007. If Patrick Crayton holds onto a ball they are in the nfc championship game that year as well. I don’t like romo but people love to hate on a guy who was great.
Romo is a better QB than Eli if you take homerism out of it. Rivers, not so much.
I think you’re the one that is misconstruing things. Better quarterbacks throw a ball that crayton catches. Romo was definitely more athletic. But at the end of the day, the accolades speak for themselves. Eli never had a loaded team like Romo did. Jerruh went out and bought Romo all the toys he needed and he still couldn’t get it done. Had Eli been at the helm of that 07 cowboys team, they roll the Giants. And that goes for if Romo had been QBing that 2007 Giants team. He could NEVER drop those passes in that Eli did on the toe tap plays for toomer and smith. Romo was great at buying time and extending plays with his athleticism. From a pure passer standpoint, Eli was better.
Eli was also better at reading defenses and changing plays. Eli was also better under the gun. The only thing Romo was better then Eli at was being athletic. NOT at being a Quarterback. That’s the truth. And this isn’t homerism. And this is coming from someone that actually liked Romo. The story of him changing that old couples tire after a game was awesome. I think he’s a stand up dude. But the reality is, Eli was drafted where he was compared to Romo
For a reason. It was the full body of work it takes to be a QB. Not the ability to scramble and extend plays.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
Yeah, you're a dolt
Quote:
like QBs who choke in the playoffs, Romo is your guy.
If you like QBs who elevate their game in the playoffs, Eli is your guy.
But hey, Super Bowls are overrated.
This is not true. Romo does not choke in the playoffs. The biggest moment of his career was overturned on a horrible call by the ref. He had the cowboys in the championship game in 2014 on a stacked team. Romo also didn’t choke Vs the giants in 2007. If Patrick Crayton holds onto a ball they are in the nfc championship game that year as well. I don’t like romo but people love to hate on a guy who was great.
Romo is a better QB than Eli if you take homerism out of it. Rivers, not so much.
Your first two sentences are hysterical, I got my laugh for the day. Thanks.
Quote:
like QBs who choke in the playoffs, Romo is your guy.
If you like QBs who elevate their game in the playoffs, Eli is your guy.
But hey, Super Bowls are overrated.
This is not true. Romo does not choke in the playoffs. The biggest moment of his career was overturned on a horrible call by the ref. He had the cowboys in the championship game in 2014 on a stacked team. Romo also didn’t choke Vs the giants in 2007. If Patrick Crayton holds onto a ball they are in the nfc championship game that year as well. I don’t like romo but people love to hate on a guy who was great.
Romo is a better QB than Eli if you take homerism out of it. Rivers, not so much.
He's a choker.
I think it is possible that the 2007 and 2011 Giants were two of the least talented teams to ever win a Super Bowl. I do think the 2011 team was absolutely the worst team to win a Super Bowl. Not a single Hall of Famer (except Eli, I would hope). We may all remember the players fondly, but is there a single player on either team that any non-Giant fan would have cause to remember (other than Strahan in 07). I love Kareem Mckenzie, but was he ever a top 5 RT? I doubt it. Justin Tuck is one of my all time favorites, but he would not make the top 100 players of either decade, and maybe not the top 500. Eli and Couglin took mediocre to bad talent to two SB wins. Amazing.
You can think Romo is better but there’s nothing definitive to back that up. He doesn’t have the aggregate stats, he doesn’t have the hardware, and he doesn’t have the big, monumental moments in the sport. He’s got the better record though, that’s cool.
I think it is possible that the 2007 and 2011 Giants were two of the least talented teams to ever win a Super Bowl. I do think the 2011 team was absolutely the worst team to win a Super Bowl. Not a single Hall of Famer (except Eli, I would hope). We may all remember the players fondly, but is there a single player on either team that any non-Giant fan would have cause to remember (other than Strahan in 07). I love Kareem Mckenzie, but was he ever a top 5 RT? I doubt it. Justin Tuck is one of my all time favorites, but he would not make the top 100 players of either decade, and maybe not the top 500. Eli and Couglin took mediocre to bad talent to two SB wins. Amazing.
I've come to believe that 2007 was a big underrated, but that 2011 team was not good. Again, statistically terrible as a rushing team and on defense. Eli and his receivers carried that team.
Both championship teams had outstanding skill players. The 2007 championship team was loaded with defensive talent as well.
Eli Manning was a very good quarterback and will deservedly be a HOF soon enough.
But there's no need for this fantasy poor Eli stuff.
Romo and his entourage before a pretty big game.
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
It's almost as if you didn't see the playoff games when Eli went 8-0.
lol, this is exactly my point. "Eli went 8-0"
Not the Giants, but Eli.
Again for the slow among us, I never said Romo is better than Eli, but I said using wins to make the case is not the right way to demonstrate it. By that logic Eli is better than Marino, as good as Mahomes (today), as good as Peyton, Ben, etc. and that is not something I agree with and the method of determination is horrible and illogical.
I saw every snap Eli Manning has ever taken. And he was wildly inconsistent. During the two post-season runs when the Giants won a game during his career, he was great, but his career was not 8 games.
If you are going to compare QB's it has to be done in a manner that does as much to remove other factors as possible. Otherwise you are really comparing teams, not QBs.
I don't expect most of you to understand this.
Bleacher report had an article a few years back about how to compare QBs, winning percentage was near the bottom.
Pros
The better a quarterback plays, the higher his chances are of winning games. That applies to every player at every position, but quarterbacks undoubtedly control the outcome more than anyone else on the field.
Cons
"Win-loss record is at the bottom of the hierarchy," said Schottey. "Unless you can make a pretty compelling case that the quarterback 'put the team on his back' and 'willed them to victory' those end up just being platitudes that Skip Bayless can't get enough of."
The quarterback is one of 53 on an active roster and one of 11 on the field at any given time. He only plays half of the game, and when he is in the game, he hands the ball off more than 40 percent of the time. That means he's only a factor about 30 percent of the time. And while that number is higher than anyone else on his team, it doesn't mean he should be credited with the wins and lassoed with the losses....
this is what I'm saying. Especially the bold part. It's like some of you are brainwashed cultists. I even said Eli should probably be in the HOF and people still insult me because you disagree with my opinion and I don't subscribe to your same group think. lol it's like a political thread but about Eli.
Quote:
In comment 16163889 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
It's almost as if you didn't see the playoff games when Eli went 8-0.
lol, this is exactly my point. "Eli went 8-0"
Not the Giants, but Eli.
Again for the slow among us, I never said Romo is better than Eli, but I said using wins to make the case is not the right way to demonstrate it. By that logic Eli is better than Marino, as good as Mahomes (today), as good as Peyton, Ben, etc. and that is not something I agree with and the method of determination is horrible and illogical.
I saw every snap Eli Manning has ever taken. And he was wildly inconsistent. During the two post-season runs when the Giants won a game during his career, he was great, but his career was not 8 games.
If you are going to compare QB's it has to be done in a manner that does as much to remove other factors as possible. Otherwise you are really comparing teams, not QBs.
I don't expect most of you to understand this.
Bleacher report had an article a few years back about how to compare QBs, winning percentage was near the bottom.
Quote:
....Winning percentage
Pros
The better a quarterback plays, the higher his chances are of winning games. That applies to every player at every position, but quarterbacks undoubtedly control the outcome more than anyone else on the field.
Cons
"Win-loss record is at the bottom of the hierarchy," said Schottey. "Unless you can make a pretty compelling case that the quarterback 'put the team on his back' and 'willed them to victory' those end up just being platitudes that Skip Bayless can't get enough of."
The quarterback is one of 53 on an active roster and one of 11 on the field at any given time. He only plays half of the game, and when he is in the game, he hands the ball off more than 40 percent of the time. That means he's only a factor about 30 percent of the time. And while that number is higher than anyone else on his team, it doesn't mean he should be credited with the wins and lassoed with the losses....
this is what I'm saying. Especially the bold part. It's like some of you are brainwashed cultists. I even said Eli should probably be in the HOF and people still insult me because you disagree with my opinion and I don't subscribe to your same group think. lol it's like a political thread but about Eli.
PJ,
People understand the point you’re making. But the flip side to that coin is, the teams Romo and those other guys played for were loaded with talent. Eli lead a wild card team that defied all odds in 2007. Nobody on that team other than Strahan and Plax were ever looked at as world beaters. And even then, Strahan was looong in the tooth. Albeit still doing his thing. But Jerry went out and got Romo every weapon he could possibly get for him. That wasn’t the case with the Giants. Yet Eli led them to the ring, and did it on a last minute drive against all odds.
They say you make your own luck. As Eli said, he didn’t even know the receiver he was throwing to, he just saw a white Jersey and fucking went for it, trusting that his arm would put the ball in the spot that the white jersey needed to catch it. And sure enough, he did.
This is what everyone is trying to drive home. Romo had the type of luck that Harrison probably picks that ball off, IF he even made the throw, and runs it back for 6.
Quote:
In comment 16163911 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
In comment 16163889 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
It's almost as if you didn't see the playoff games when Eli went 8-0.
lol, this is exactly my point. "Eli went 8-0"
Not the Giants, but Eli.
Again for the slow among us, I never said Romo is better than Eli, but I said using wins to make the case is not the right way to demonstrate it. By that logic Eli is better than Marino, as good as Mahomes (today), as good as Peyton, Ben, etc. and that is not something I agree with and the method of determination is horrible and illogical.
I saw every snap Eli Manning has ever taken. And he was wildly inconsistent. During the two post-season runs when the Giants won a game during his career, he was great, but his career was not 8 games.
If you are going to compare QB's it has to be done in a manner that does as much to remove other factors as possible. Otherwise you are really comparing teams, not QBs.
I don't expect most of you to understand this.
Bleacher report had an article a few years back about how to compare QBs, winning percentage was near the bottom.
Quote:
....Winning percentage
Pros
The better a quarterback plays, the higher his chances are of winning games. That applies to every player at every position, but quarterbacks undoubtedly control the outcome more than anyone else on the field.
Cons
"Win-loss record is at the bottom of the hierarchy," said Schottey. "Unless you can make a pretty compelling case that the quarterback 'put the team on his back' and 'willed them to victory' those end up just being platitudes that Skip Bayless can't get enough of."
The quarterback is one of 53 on an active roster and one of 11 on the field at any given time. He only plays half of the game, and when he is in the game, he hands the ball off more than 40 percent of the time. That means he's only a factor about 30 percent of the time. And while that number is higher than anyone else on his team, it doesn't mean he should be credited with the wins and lassoed with the losses....
this is what I'm saying. Especially the bold part. It's like some of you are brainwashed cultists. I even said Eli should probably be in the HOF and people still insult me because you disagree with my opinion and I don't subscribe to your same group think. lol it's like a political thread but about Eli.
PJ,
People understand the point you’re making. But the flip side to that coin is, the teams Romo and those other guys played for were loaded with talent. Eli lead a wild card team that defied all odds in 2007. Nobody on that team other than Strahan and Plax were ever looked at as world beaters. And even then, Strahan was looong in the tooth. Albeit still doing his thing. But Jerry went out and got Romo every weapon he could possibly get for him. That wasn’t the case with the Giants. Yet Eli led them to the ring, and did it on a last minute drive against all odds.
They say you make your own luck. As Eli said, he didn’t even know the receiver he was throwing to, he just saw a white Jersey and fucking went for it, trusting that his arm would put the ball in the spot that the white jersey needed to catch it. And sure enough, he did.
This is what everyone is trying to drive home. Romo had the type of luck that Harrison probably picks that ball off, IF he even made the throw, and runs it back for 6.
Fair points, and I'm not taking away from anything Eli has accomplished.
Just pointing out the reverse side of the Tyree play was a ridiculous circus catch. Maybe the most unlikely catch in SB history.
There are a lot of factors that go in to a win. Including coaching. I'd expect Giants fans, especially seeing the difference between Judge and Daboll in one season to at least see how much influence coaching has on outcomes.
Wade Phillips (HC of the 2007 Cowboys) coached for 12 years and his teams won one playoff game.
Anyway, like most things in life, I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but as people start realizing they could be wrong on something like this they get defensive and lash out with insults and ad hominems so I expect it and it's why I ignored this thread after against my better judgment posting on it.
But I fully understand your position. And at the end of the day, as is constantly pointed out even on BBI, the QB, while arguably the most important player on a team; is NOT the ONLY reason for every win and loss. The rest of the team is doing their part during that 60 minute fight, and they are very much responsible for the outcome of the game as well.
This is well said.
When Eli doesn't do well, "he didn't elevate the team..." When other QB's don't do well, the "team" didn't do enough to help him...They'll say the owners need to get better players.
If our memories of Donovan McNabb included that much failure, whether it was his fault or not, imagine the contempt we would heap on him, even if he had overcome nausea to beat the Patriots in SB XXXIX.
When Eli doesn't do well, "he didn't elevate the team..." When other QB's don't do well, the "team" didn't do enough to help him...They'll say the owners need to get better players.
Quote:
If you talk about SB wins, people will say it's a team game, while in the same breath saying the team was .500 when he was the QB.
When Eli doesn't do well, "he didn't elevate the team..." When other QB's don't do well, the "team" didn't do enough to help him...They'll say the owners need to get better players.
Not a strawman at all, the first argument was made on this very thread. The second was more BBI themed or arguments I've read on BBI over the years.
The big difference between the two was Eli one of the special ones who could take it to a different level in the playoffs. Some posted Rolle talking about this on the site.
The reason why you have people even having these discussions is you had JR/MR drafting what was arguably the worst drafting record of any team from 2011-17. Especially on the lines. Not one upper tier OL as added in 11 years and you are playing in a division whose reputation was built on the fronts.
The one WR that did really hurt losing was Nicks. If they had the OL/running game that they had 2005-2010 Eli would have been fine with a complimentary skill group though one upper tier/elite weapon was needed.
Nicks versus OBJ? Sorry, give me the WR who makes the big catches in Green Bay when it counts.
I struggle on how much weight should be given to the QB on the team's W/L. The QB touches the ball the most and has the ability to adjust plays at the LOS pre-snap or make a play off-script. That clearly gives them enormous opportunity to impact a game.
At the same time, coaching, management, talent, culture also impact the game. And those variables directly impact the play of the QB.
Under the current rules of the game, it's even easier for the QB to make plays. Passing and catching the ball have never been easier. So, the QB would seem to have more direct impact on the outcome of the game than ever before...
People want to live vicariously through professional athletes and most people want to imagine they are the fun athlete with the million dollar smile dating Jessica Simpson. They can see themselves having a beer with that guy. Most people don't want to pretend they are the introverted, nerdy guy with a dad bod, and they don't like or respect that kind of person.
The fact that the former is a proven, multi-time loser as a favorite and the latter won two Super Bowl MVPs as an underdog quietly leading with his actions is lost on them. They like Romo and others whose testicles shrank in the moment like they were dipped in an ice bath because it reminds them of someone.
/rant
In essense, Cosell said "sure, Eli makes some decisions that leave us scratching our head, but he has also pulled the trigger on tight window throws in big spots that most QBs would never have attempted."
Romo extended plays and created, but he was a poster boy for that 'never' group.
People want to live vicariously through professional athletes and most people want to imagine they are the fun athlete with the million dollar smile dating Jessica Simpson. They can see themselves having a beer with that guy. Most people don't want to pretend they are the introverted, nerdy guy with a dad bod, and they don't like or respect that kind of person.
The fact that the former is a proven, multi-time loser as a favorite and the latter won two Super Bowl MVPs as an underdog quietly leading with his actions is lost on them. They like Romo and others whose testicles shrank in the moment like they were dipped in an ice bath because it reminds them of someone.
/rant
Heroes don't choke.
Quote:
In comment 16164129 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 16163911 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
In comment 16163889 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
It's almost as if you didn't see the playoff games when Eli went 8-0.
lol, this is exactly my point. "Eli went 8-0"
Not the Giants, but Eli.
Again for the slow among us, I never said Romo is better than Eli, but I said using wins to make the case is not the right way to demonstrate it. By that logic Eli is better than Marino, as good as Mahomes (today), as good as Peyton, Ben, etc. and that is not something I agree with and the method of determination is horrible and illogical.
I saw every snap Eli Manning has ever taken. And he was wildly inconsistent. During the two post-season runs when the Giants won a game during his career, he was great, but his career was not 8 games.
If you are going to compare QB's it has to be done in a manner that does as much to remove other factors as possible. Otherwise you are really comparing teams, not QBs.
I don't expect most of you to understand this.
Bleacher report had an article a few years back about how to compare QBs, winning percentage was near the bottom.
Quote:
....Winning percentage
Pros
The better a quarterback plays, the higher his chances are of winning games. That applies to every player at every position, but quarterbacks undoubtedly control the outcome more than anyone else on the field.
Cons
"Win-loss record is at the bottom of the hierarchy," said Schottey. "Unless you can make a pretty compelling case that the quarterback 'put the team on his back' and 'willed them to victory' those end up just being platitudes that Skip Bayless can't get enough of."
The quarterback is one of 53 on an active roster and one of 11 on the field at any given time. He only plays half of the game, and when he is in the game, he hands the ball off more than 40 percent of the time. That means he's only a factor about 30 percent of the time. And while that number is higher than anyone else on his team, it doesn't mean he should be credited with the wins and lassoed with the losses....
this is what I'm saying. Especially the bold part. It's like some of you are brainwashed cultists. I even said Eli should probably be in the HOF and people still insult me because you disagree with my opinion and I don't subscribe to your same group think. lol it's like a political thread but about Eli.
PJ,
People understand the point you’re making. But the flip side to that coin is, the teams Romo and those other guys played for were loaded with talent. Eli lead a wild card team that defied all odds in 2007. Nobody on that team other than Strahan and Plax were ever looked at as world beaters. And even then, Strahan was looong in the tooth. Albeit still doing his thing. But Jerry went out and got Romo every weapon he could possibly get for him. That wasn’t the case with the Giants. Yet Eli led them to the ring, and did it on a last minute drive against all odds.
They say you make your own luck. As Eli said, he didn’t even know the receiver he was throwing to, he just saw a white Jersey and fucking went for it, trusting that his arm would put the ball in the spot that the white jersey needed to catch it. And sure enough, he did.
This is what everyone is trying to drive home. Romo had the type of luck that Harrison probably picks that ball off, IF he even made the throw, and runs it back for 6.
Fair points, and I'm not taking away from anything Eli has accomplished.
Just pointing out the reverse side of the Tyree play was a ridiculous circus catch. Maybe the most unlikely catch in SB history.
There are a lot of factors that go in to a win. Including coaching. I'd expect Giants fans, especially seeing the difference between Judge and Daboll in one season to at least see how much influence coaching has on outcomes.
Wade Phillips (HC of the 2007 Cowboys) coached for 12 years and his teams won one playoff game.
Anyway, like most things in life, I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but as people start realizing they could be wrong on something like this they get defensive and lash out with insults and ad hominems so I expect it and it's why I ignored this thread after against my better judgment posting on it.
Rodney Harrison himself said that play involved some form of divine intervention, and I really can't disagree. Or some sort of glitch in he matrix as the kids today would say.
Quote:
In comment 16163889 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
is a team game.
When your rationale for why Eli is better than Romo is because the Giants won 2 SB's with Eli as QB you are giving Eli too much credit for the SB wins and Romo too much blame for the lack of SB wins.
It's kind of like evaluating a pitcher in baseball based on wins. It just kind of shows a very limited grasp of talent evaluation. No offense.
Yes, a QB has the most influential position in terms of wins and losses, but still can't do it all.
Was Eli better than Aaron Rodgers? Dan Marino? No, he wasn't and he has more rings than both. So why is that the measure vs Romo (who I don't put in Rodgers or Marinos class but I name them to make a point).
It's almost as if you didn't see the playoff games when Eli went 8-0.
lol, this is exactly my point. "Eli went 8-0"
Not the Giants, but Eli.
Again for the slow among us, I never said Romo is better than Eli, but I said using wins to make the case is not the right way to demonstrate it. By that logic Eli is better than Marino, as good as Mahomes (today), as good as Peyton, Ben, etc. and that is not something I agree with and the method of determination is horrible and illogical.
I saw every snap Eli Manning has ever taken. And he was wildly inconsistent. During the two post-season runs when the Giants won a game during his career, he was great, but his career was not 8 games.
If you are going to compare QB's it has to be done in a manner that does as much to remove other factors as possible. Otherwise you are really comparing teams, not QBs.
I don't expect most of you to understand this.
Bleacher report had an article a few years back about how to compare QBs, winning percentage was near the bottom.
Quote:
....Winning percentage
Pros
The better a quarterback plays, the higher his chances are of winning games. That applies to every player at every position, but quarterbacks undoubtedly control the outcome more than anyone else on the field.
Cons
"Win-loss record is at the bottom of the hierarchy," said Schottey. "Unless you can make a pretty compelling case that the quarterback 'put the team on his back' and 'willed them to victory' those end up just being platitudes that Skip Bayless can't get enough of."
The quarterback is one of 53 on an active roster and one of 11 on the field at any given time. He only plays half of the game, and when he is in the game, he hands the ball off more than 40 percent of the time. That means he's only a factor about 30 percent of the time. And while that number is higher than anyone else on his team, it doesn't mean he should be credited with the wins and lassoed with the losses....
this is what I'm saying. Especially the bold part. It's like some of you are brainwashed cultists. I even said Eli should probably be in the HOF and people still insult me because you disagree with my opinion and I don't subscribe to your same group think. lol it's like a political thread but about Eli.
Just your point he should "probably" be in the HOF.
Can't you definitively say he is a HOF'er?
I mean, 2 rings, 2 MVPs, and whole bunch of top 10 stats, never missed a game (until benched of course).
I mean...WTF.
It was not a accident what happened to Eli the back half of his career. Simply gross negligence.
The answers are in the draft. Reese should have started the rebuild on the OL in 2008. He added WB in 2009. Osi tried to toughen him up and the OL was actually better after he was hurt in 2011.
Gross negligence by the GM and then when it was already too late he had to "reach" for OL starting with Pugh.
All the 2nd/3rd round picks he used on DT's/WR's from 2009-2013 could have had a good OL in place 2013. He also had to play the FA game on the OL and that failed as well. That was just the OL. Don't forget the scat back who couldn't pass block.
Nicks was a great addition. Once he went down and the OL faded further it was over. That is why you always build from the inside out.
One might also consider that the other first round OL that was selected during The Great Destruction was from the head coach's alma mater, but that's neither here nor there.
We’ll never know. But we do know this: Pugh had the perfect answer for the first question Giants coach Tom Coughlin asked him at the scouting combine in February.
“’Who is the Syracuse alum that you are most familiar with?’” Coughlin said in a team-issued press release. “He didn’t say Jim Brown; he said ‘Coughlin.’ He passed the IQ test right away at the combine.”
Link - ( New Window )
So the HC who actually got the most production out of the Flowers Jerry "Reach" pick at LT acquires him to help the team and then lets him go after the season. Not a lot of options when you are looking for a third LT with injures at another OL spot as well.
But keep hammering that point. It fits your pet name.
Caring too much about what anyone else thinks of Eli is not worth the effort. Been there, done that.
In this case for Eli for Canton, his SB wins enhance his "worth" and get him the Hall. Without them, his regular season performance just isn't good enough.
In essence, Eli's HoF candidacy boils down to 8 weeks in his career.
Look at Marino. He was a transcendent player who changed the game in an era where passing was a real challenge. But he didn't have the post-season success. Yet, no one in their right mind would consider taking Eli over him. So, Marino's worth was built on his regular season greatness.
In other words, the value of the post season should be on a case-by-case basis.
Name-calling tends to be a sign of low intelligence, LoS. And it's very much indicative of low self-esteem. I'm sure you knew that already, but I hope you find the happiness you've been lacking, in whatever time you have left.
I'm sure you read somewhere in one of those books you read that good leaders address problems before they become a problem. When you are at the point where the problem is in crisis mode you are much more likely to make mistakes which Reese did.
0-4 playoff record outside of '07 + '11
- 0 All Pros
- Led League in INTs 3x
- Top 5 in INTs more often than in Yds/TDs
- Only in '11 was he in the Top 5 "elite" QB mix
But...
- 2 epic SB runs capped off by 2 legendary SB MVPs
That last bullet means a lot. But it's also fair to see why Eli is considered so "unique" in terms of historical standing.
Jack Morris in baseball is probably the most similar athlete I can think of to him. Similar "good but not truly great usually" pitcher but that '91 World Series MVP of his cemented his status in that era and was the backbone of his HOF case. Eli's like that but with 2 of those.
- Only in '11 was he in the Top 5 "elite" QB mix
Pretty damn accurate on that conclusion. Eli was right on the edge at 5.
From 2005-2008, the roster building and coaching was great, and only 2006 was riddled with injuries. but Eli hadn't matured yet until the 2007 postseason, had to deal with tough alpha WR personalities like Shockey, Amani, and Plax, and again had no natural no.3 WR until Steve Smith emerged. Still, his 2005 and 2006 seasons are underrated, ranking in top 12/13 in the DYAR advanced stats. His numbers fell off toward the end of both seasons - which really hurt public perception - but they were against top pass defenses and his WR core was absolutely destroyed by injury at the end of 2006 and had little depth to begin with.
From 2009-2012, Eli enters his true prime, but at this point both the coaching and roster building starts to slip. Reese can still spot receivers and pass rushers, but fails to identify talent on the rest of the roster. Coughlin also starts collecting bad no-show losses in late-season games that can't just be hand-waved away by talent either (41-9 to the Panthers). Thankfully Cruz's 99 yard touchdown against the Jets gets them into the 2011 postseason, where the defense steps up and the Coughlin/Eli postseason magic carries them. Nevertheless, that run papers over what could've been a real lost era that would've wasted several top-10 Eli seasons.
2013-2017: The talent truly drops off a cliff which only exacerbates Coughlin's penchant for shaky regular season performances. The timing starts to become truly cursed: The defense is decent in 2013 but the offense is terrible. Eli bounces back in 2014 and 15 but then the defense is awful. By the time the defense recovers in 2016, Eli's entered the washed phase of his career and it's barely worth rehashing 2017-2019.
I think this all hurts the public perception. If Eli had reached his 2009-2012 form a little earlier, and if the 2009-2012 era had a few more playoff runs, he wouldn't face this uphill perception battle. But because he demanded a trade in the 2004 draft and stumbled a bit out of the gate, a lot of pundits remember him as worse then he was.
He had horrible WR depth even accounting for the more run-heavy NFL of the 00s. If you even took 1995 Chris Calloway and paired him with Plax and Amani I would bet Eli's early career efficiency would like a good bit better.
0-4 playoff record outside of '07 + '11
- 0 All Pros
- Led League in INTs 3x
- Top 5 in INTs more often than in Yds/TDs
- Only in '11 was he in the Top 5 "elite" QB mix
But...
- 2 epic SB runs capped off by 2 legendary SB MVPs
That last bullet means a lot. But it's also fair to see why Eli is considered so "unique" in terms of historical standing.
Jack Morris in baseball is probably the most similar athlete I can think of to him. Similar "good but not truly great usually" pitcher but that '91 World Series MVP of his cemented his status in that era and was the backbone of his HOF case. Eli's like that but with 2 of those.
Perfectly said. I have always said that Eli's career is unlike any other I've ever seen in football, with two incredible postseason runs ending in championships that tower above his far more erratic regular season track record. I can't think of another QB like him.
Was Brady truly outplayed or just matched up well? It's an honest question. I mean Aaron Rodgers has essentially been outplayed by every big time NFC team QB over the last decade by this logic....Eli, Kaepernick x2, young Russell Wilson, Carson Palmer, Garoppolo x2, old Brady....
Did Nick Foles outplay Brady in the Bowl too?
Eli deserves a ton of respect for delivering Super Bowls under tough scenarios, absolutely (and some other playoff wins).
I think what makes Eli so polarizing is that for all his highs (and they were quite high), he has some low lows too. Overall the floor of many of his peers were better (Rivers, Roethlisberger, even Romo, Ryan, etc.). The stats and winning percentage were also greater, as nobody else was ever in danger retiring sub .500. Even Alex Smith finished 31 1/2 games over .500 and all he did was lose the first half of his career.
But in those postseason games since 2008, he was effectively 1.000 until that Green Bay debacle in 2016.
It was truly an anomaly career for an NFL QB.
We'll probably never see anything quite like it ever again.
Richburg and Pugh turned into decent players, they got big contracts elsewhere. Beatty was a pretty good player for a few years as well (although that began in 2009, not the back half).
I kind of hate to bring up PFF, but it's the only objective source I can find. They had our OL ranked:
2011: 31st (32nd pass blocking)
2012: 11th (20th pass blocking) - said Beatty deserved Pro Bowl consideration
2013: 28th (31st pass blocking)
2014: 20th (13th pass blocking)
2015: 20th (24th pass blocking) - they also commented Richburg had a great year
2016: 20th - said the tackles were the worst pair in the league
Outside of 2013 and 2017, the offense wasn't the main culprit - we made the playoffs in 2016 with a bad offense.
The defense sucked during these years. 22nd in PA in 2014, 30th in 2015 - we had pretty good offenses those years. We kind of had different issues each year - 2013 the OL for sure, but 2014 and 2015 was the defense. And my view is Eli started declining in 2016.
Offensive points for
2012: 6th
2013: 28th
2014: 13th
2015: 6th
2016: 26th
2017: 31st
Blaming the OL by itself is easy but I don't think it's entirely accurate. We had some years it was the OL, but others where it was the D. OL play across the league - IMO - began to tank post 2011 lockout. But we had some great offenses with mediocre lines.
They only won a play off game in 2 of his 15 seasons.
You can argue it was a poorly run organization the back half of his career , Giants fans know that.
But in NFL circles, which includes pundits and fans, the quarterback gets too much credit and too much blame. Given this, it s not surprising outside of Giants nation, Eli is viewed in a lesser light.
Intelligent post. Nothing annoys me more than giving goalies, pitchers and QBs too much credit/blame for wins/losses.
As I've posted a number of times when this riveting topic comes up, the Giants offensive line rebounded nicely in 2012.
The Giants suffered from an avalanche of injuries and under performance from their high draft picks in the ensuing years.
Coughlin's staff simply just doesn't get a pass for not being able to develop a lineman after Beatty.
[quote] In comment 16163902 CTGiants said:
Quote:
Outplayed Tom Brady in two superbowls and Brett Favre in an NFC Championship game at Lambeau
Was Brady truly outplayed or just matched up well? It's an honest question. I mean Aaron Rodgers has essentially been outplayed by every big time NFC team QB over the last decade by this logic....Eli, Kaepernick x2, young Russell Wilson, Carson Palmer, Garoppolo x2, old Brady....
Did Nick Foles outplay Brady in the Bowl too?
Eli deserves a ton of respect for delivering Super Bowls under tough scenarios, absolutely (and some other playoff wins).
I think what makes Eli so polarizing is that for all his highs (and they were quite high), he has some low lows too. Overall the floor of many of his peers were better (Rivers, Roethlisberger, even Romo, Ryan, etc.). The stats and winning percentage were also greater, as nobody else was ever in danger retiring sub .500. Even Alex Smith finished 31 1/2 games over .500 and all he did was lose the first half of his career.
But in those postseason games since 2008, he was effectively 1.000 until that Green Bay debacle in 2016.
It was truly an anomaly career for an NFL QB.
We'll probably never see anything quite like it ever again. [/quote The GIANTS DEF. That's Who.
In 2017, both Philly and Dallas had three and WFT had two PB's.
Philly and Dallas both had over 10 PB's on the OL from 2011-17. Giants one.
Sure, the Giants OL wasn't a problem lol.
Good luck playing in the NFCE without high quality fronts.
In contrast, I think the majority of Eli’s playoff wins he was the better QB that day and often played with inferior talent around him.
Who ever said the OL wasn't a problem during the down years?
The TEAM sucked after that. How do you discount the horrible offenses he played on when you’re evaluating him or comparing him to his peers?
Evaluate him in context. These comparisons are pretty ridiculous, considering the crazy talent mismatches we’re looking at.
Eli was insanely clutch. Case closed.
In 2009, I wish they had taken Max Unger instead of Sintim or T.J. Lang instead of Barden or Beckum, but that’s more a function of the actual picks being terrible than the alternatives having been obvious at the time.
What Eli did tend to do was elevate his play in some of the most important situations. Guys like Romo and Rivers could never do that. They always failed to make the critical read, call, play...call it whatever you wish. Eli made those same plays those guys left on the field. He also happened to do it on the NFLs biggest and most visible stages. No one is going to remember Romo throwing a billion TDs in one game against a shitty Redskins team in 2000 whatever, but they will never forget Eli against the Patriots. That's where the divide is and my guess is that's the thing that puts Eli in well before Romo and likely before Rivers.
Giants had 3 winning seasons and one championship
Eagles had 3 winning seasons and one championship
Cowboys had 3 winnings seasons and zero championships
Washington had 3 winning seasons and zero championships
See how just listing numbers is kind of boring?
Quote:
Sure, the Giants OL wasn't a problem lol.
Who ever said the OL wasn't a problem during the down years?
It was a problem during the 2011 regular season.
He had horrible WR depth even accounting for the more run-heavy NFL of the 00s. If you even took 1995 Chris Calloway and paired him with Plax and Amani I would bet Eli's early career efficiency would like a good bit better.
Even with our not so murderous row of WRs this year, none of those guys even make this team.
As I've posted a number of times when this riveting topic comes up, the Giants offensive line rebounded nicely in 2012.
The Giants suffered from an avalanche of injuries and under performance from their high draft picks in the ensuing years.
Coughlin's staff simply just doesn't get a pass for not being able to develop a lineman after Beatty.
Right - and I'd add, Coughlin had massive influence on some of these selections. He was reportedly in love with Flowers - hell, my recollection was that Reese's comments at draft time were bizarrely cool on Flowers.
I tend to think elite talent papers over a lot of flaws, like we saw in 2011. The OL was certainly an issue - I just think it's a little more nuanced.
The 2011/12 drafts were terrible. Bold move could have landed them Pouncey by moving up just a few spots instead of Prince.
Good GM's who understand how critical the OL is (especially with a pocket passer) find ways. Good NFL OL are in every draft in different rounds/UDFA. Reese put Ross in his position to find those gems.
You don't wait till '13 when it became reach picks out of desperation. The OL should have already been rebuilt imv. WB never should have received a 2nd contract.
F'n A man. Well played sir, seriously. These last few years you totally got me.
Epic troll job man. What's your previous handle?
I respect your love for Reese. All the pictures you posted of him show how deep.
Can you tell me why in five years a owner has not hired Reese?
Mmmmm. Maybe the league knows the truth.
There's no chance you're serious. Coming off a season where Beatty gave up the fewest sacks + hits of any tackle in the league, the Giants shouldn't have kept Beatty.
Again, hats off to you. One of the truly impressive long troll games in the history of BBI.
This Bud's for you my man.
Most often you get yourself. Like when you said you think Daboll sees Jones as the problem and not the WR's. How did that beauty age for you?
You actually think a lot like Reese.
Most often you get yourself. Like when you said you think Daboll sees Jones as the problem and not the WR's. How did that beauty age for you?
You actually think a lot like Reese.
Point me to where I said that.
He was a pretty good player for a few seasons before injuries caught up to him.
We frequently had a guy or two who was good but then had a bunch of dogshit.
(Sort of like now but hopefully that's fixed)
The 2011/12 drafts were terrible. Bold move could have landed them Pouncey by moving up just a few spots instead of Prince.
Good GM's who understand how critical the OL is (especially with a pocket passer) find ways. Good NFL OL are in every draft in different rounds/UDFA. Reese put Ross in his position to find those gems.
You don't wait till '13 when it became reach picks out of desperation. The OL should have already been rebuilt imv. WB never should have received a 2nd contract.
You might want to look at Jacksonville's drafts under Coughlin. Apart from Boselli (much like Snee), there's a lot more chaff than wheat.
Keep telling yourself that Coughlin had nothing to do with the OL failures. No one else cares.
Link - ( New Window )
2009 he draft Beatty 2nd. After Barden in the 3rd there was not another OL taken until 23 picks later in the 4th - he played 8 NFL games. Go look at the OL drafted after A. Brown
2010 after Linval Joseph, 1st OL taken was V. Ducasse. Reese really fucked that up. After C. Jones in the 3rd who had a tragic accident JD Walton, S. Luavalo & M. Johnson. P Dillard was not a good player in the 4th - neither were any OL picked after him
2011 - M. Austin was not a good pick but the debate was vs Paea. Jernigan was not a good pick but the next OL was J. Reid- really. He drafted J. brewer in the 4th, on,y other OL taken after him was C. Hairston- criminy
2012 - They choose Wilson. Schwartz and Glenn were good while Martin, silotalu, Allen were not. P. Konz & M. Adams picked way later were not while Osemele was. Look at OL picked after Ramdle & Holsey- they didn’t miss
You can certainly argue about bad draft choices but neglecting the OL for players who did just as little is weak. Yes they missed on Glen - as did every NFL team and 12 twice, because no one thought he could actually play LT
2009 he drafted the LT of the future and had 25yr old Boothe and 24yo Keats while still having a 29 yr old pro bowl LT
2010 you had Beatty, Koepka, Petrus, S. andrews
Same goes for 2011
When you have good young OL players you can’t use high picks on the same positions while in a salary cap era, especially G
Over a long enough period of time, you can dissect any number of should haves.
But the simple fact is the 2012 line was good. The 2012 offense was good.
Reese and Coughlin were gradually turning the line over. The two remaining players from the 2008 group were Diehl and Snee.
The career ending injuries to Snee and Baas the next year sunk things.
A healthy group of Beatty, Boothe, Baas, Snee, Pugh would have been a good group.
TC shares some of the blame. Round 3-UDFA is on your GM and particularly your Dir. of college scouting to me. Not a lot in those rounds from 2008-2017.
2003-2007 drafts/FA had more impact players overall especially on the lines than 2008-2017. Six years versus 10.
I think what likely evolved over time is a difference of opinion of prioritizing what wins in the league. A inside/out building HC versus a outside/in GM/DOCS.
Not a great marriage over time imv.
Or Shaun Williams over Alan Faneca in 1998. I was mad about it the day it happened and only got angrier about it as time progressed.
The o-line wasn't great in the second half of 2012, but as someone who watched and remembered those games, Eli also wasn't so hot the last 8-9 games either. Nicks also hit his inexplicable terminal decline midway through this season.
I guess you can say the 2012 loss @Skins that cost them the division was due to the oline (Eli got sacked to oblivion in the 2nd half), but they also lost to the dogshit 4-12 Eagles earlier in the season and choked a 20-10 lead to the Steelers in the 4th. The late season blowouts against the Falcons and Ravens were also total team meltdowns. Weird season.
2014 and the 2015 the offense was pretty good. It was the defense - and in 2015, poor game/situational management - that tanked those seasons.
The 2016-2019 seasons are such a gigantic organizational mess it's hard to blame one unit, but it's all water under the bridge anyway because Eli is on his decline period here and it would've taken a really good team to go on a run.
Also, I know Reese didn't serve Coughlin well for the last half-decade, but TC was an inconsistent regular season coach even during the best of times.
In contrast, I think the majority of Eli’s playoff wins he was the better QB that day and often played with inferior talent around him.
I was naming the winners to show that none of those guys were better than Rodgers to illustrate this QB vs QB thing is silly.
Eli last played in an era where having a really good defense was an equalizer. Hell, he didn't even have the #1 defense in the league and still had the defense doing more than recent #1s....
Becomes more and more apparent each year.
Eli was clutch, yes. But if those games were in the 20s or 30s for each team, only would've benefitted Brady.