How many Superbowls would the 80s Giants have won with Eli?

Game. Matt Millen said as much and I fully agree. Hoss was just the right change of pace at just the right time. Call it serendipity. It was fate. 1990 was just the Giants' year.

In comment 14008495 Optimus-NY said:

Quote:

Game. Matt Millen said as much and I fully agree. Hoss was just the right change of pace at just the right time. Call it serendipity. It was fate. 1990 was just the Giants' year.

Totally agree...

I do not recall any playoff losses etc ... because of bad play by Simms. If anything the strike year prevented the Giants from another shot at the title.

That year and Flipper Anderson (which was on the defense).

Not sure if having Eli on those teams would have changed anything.

Looking at the stats what a crazy different time we are in -- Simms was an All Pro in 86 with what would be considered a bad year by modern standards. 3.5K yards 21Tds/22Ints.

I think Simms was a better pure passer. His spirals we much more crisp than Eli. The game is so much different now than it was back then. The game was brutal. Would Eli have help up physically in that era? Im not so sure he would have the streak, sacks were much more physical. When an INT was thrown you sought out the QB to pop him.

I dont think you should take anything away from either guy. They both have good and bad. Would Parcells have put up with Eli's INTs or would he have benched him? We have been blessed with 2 very good QBs the last 40 years and a few clunkers. Most teams would love to have had the QBs we had. I prefer Simms to Eli but they both won us the big one.

Between 85-90. Not elite but one of the better QBs in the league during that time. When I look at Eli and examine his entire body of work. 3 things standout. The 2 playoff runs and the 2011 season as a whole. He reached a level that Phill only reached in his SB.
Otherwise, Eli really has been highly mediocre the rest of his career. Phil was really good, consistently during the stretch mentioned above, and also the 93 season (his last).

Phil fit what Parcell's wanted in a QB during that period. Eli is at heart a gunslinger, it would not have been a good fit.

Also, Simms' losses in 1984 and 1985 came against two of the greatest teams of the Super Bowl era, both of them who capped 15-1 seasons with dominant Super Bowl wins. Both of them also had much better defenses than Eli ever beat, and don t even think about giving me the 2011 Niners. They weren't close to the 84 Niners or the 85 Bears.

In comment 14008295 joeinpa said:

Quote:

To McConkey, Bobby Johnson, and company in windy Giants stadium, not sure he s be as effective as Simms. Simms had superior arm and better leadership skills. I disagree with the point of view that Eli is unquestionably the better quarterback.

It's speculative, but I agree. Simms was a fine QB. Bavaro was great, but Simms never had guys like Cruz, Nicks, or Burress. It's apples to oranges. I am not convinced they would have won any additional SBs with Eli. Simms was a tough QB. Great player.

Without question

A hundred eleven.

Eleventeen.

In that era Eli would not sniff the HOF....

NYG was lucky to have both.

He was maybe 8 years old when the decade ended. Okay, just 1 championship.

Read through this thread how many still remember and appreciate Phil Simms. Seems today we live in the moment,often praising today athletes as "the greatest ever" diminishing the greats of other eras.

I understand younger fans and what Eli has meant to their fandom. But to guys that have seen, Conerly, Tittle, Tarkington and Simms, stating matter of factly that Eli is the greatest Giants quarterback, has never gone down well.

In comment 14008703 joeinpa said:

Quote:

Read through this thread how many still remember and appreciate Phil Simms. Seems today we live in the moment,often praising today athletes as "the greatest ever" diminishing the greats of other eras. I understand younger fans and what Eli has meant to their fandom. But to guys that have seen, Conerly, Tittle, Tarkington and Simms, stating matter of factly that Eli is the greatest Giants quarterback, has never gone down well.

Joe, I saw Conerly when his backups were Heinrich and Bobby Clatterbuck. Until Eli turned it around (for me) during the season finale of 2007, I thought Tittle was our best ever QB, albeit for a brief period of time. Eli is clearly the best QB we’ve ever had, flaws and all, imv..If I were to subjectively rank the QBs during my time as a fan(1956), they would be, in order: Eli, Tittle, Conerly, Tarkenton(he carried us for 5 years), Simms, Collins. I won’t argue putting Simms ahead of Tarkenton..

There have been mitigating circumstances the last bunch of years pertaining to Eli. Physically sound. Mentally? We’ll see if the beating he had taken for years now has given him permanent gunshyness and happy feet. If not, you will see a terrific season out of Eli with a better OL (to be proven) and incredible tools. I will be one of the first to concede I was wrong if what I predict does not come to fruition.

bills with eli ,hell they would have lost it with simms
it was hostetlers mobility against that bills passrush
together with a master plan on defence to contain the bills and force them to run that won it better question would be how many they would have won with LT in eli's teams and i think that would be alot more

Would be difficult to make a definitive case against your ranking.

But I would go Tittle, Tarkington Simms Eli Conerly

But my rankings are also influenced by the romance of youth and being a fan through 64 to 80 which led to a love affair with those 80 Giants.

In comment 14008721 msh said:

Quote:

bills with eli ,hell they would have lost it with simms it was hostetlers mobility against that bills passrush together with a master plan on defence to contain the bills and force them to run that won it better question would be how many they would have won with LT in eli's teams and i think that would be alot more

Belichick was the reason the Giants won in 90/91. And I agree with the premise that Hostetler was the best QB for that particular situation.

SACKS: For reference, Eli averages 26 sacks per season, only one season with over 30.

Phil Simms - year, sacks
1979 39
1980 36
1981 38
1982 did not start / strike
1983 3 injured
1984 55
1985 52
1986 45
1987 35
1988 53
1989 40
1990 20
1991 14
1992 10
1992 37

In comment 14008752 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

SACKS: For reference, Eli averages 26 sacks per season, only one season with over 30. Phil Simms - year, sacks 1979 39 1980 36 1981 38 1982 did not start / strike 1983 3 injured 1984 55 1985 52 1986 45 1987 35 1988 53 1989 40 1990 20 1991 14 1992 10 1992 37

Interesting as Simms, generally speaking, had a much better OL than Eli has had for many of his years here. Phil held on to the ball until the very last second, when possible..

The line for the early part of his career was awful. That's why he kept getting hurt. The 1984-88 Suburbanite group was a decent pass blocking unit, but the later group of maulers with Jumbo Elliott, while powerful drive-blockers, were not the niftiest pass blockers.

In comment 14008759 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

The line for the early part of his career was awful. That's why he kept getting hurt. The 1984-88 Suburbanite group was a decent pass blocking unit, but the later group of maulers with Jumbo Elliott, while powerful drive-blockers, were not the niftiest pass blockers.

Talking about from 1985 on..Prior to that it was generally shit

Simms didn't have them, I don't think Eli would've fared much differently.

...toward the end of his career, his INT numbers went way down. Shitty, shitty receivers caused many of the sacks - Simms would often hold the ball instead of risking a pick.

Over the same period, Joe Montana was enjoying an EXCELLENT pass-blocking line, half the sacks Simms dealt with. Simms would have been first ballot HOF if he'd played in SF, Montana wouldn't have lasted 3 years with that Giant line.

In comment 14008766 JonC said:

Quote:

Simms didn't have them, I don't think Eli would've fared much differently.

I disagree with this. I believe that throughout his career, Eli consistently made his receivers into better players. Was it 2010 when street walk-on's were coming in and posting 100-yard games? (Hagan)

Would Victor Cruz really have risen from Practice Squad to all pro? Would Plax Burress have matured so well without him? Would Ballard and Boss have been as productive? I think not without Eli.

Both Eli and Simms made weak receivers produce. Only difference - Eli has ALWAYS had AT LEAST one elite wideout.

but I don't think Eli has the gift to the level where he would've gotten that much more out of the 80s players. Does not compute.

In comment 14008816 JonC said:

Quote:

but I don't think Eli has the gift to the level where he would've gotten that much more out of the 80s players. Does not compute.

We’ll never know, but Eli with one of the top 3-5 defenses all-time, would be fun to contemplate

When he doesn't, it's all "Poor Eli played like garbage because he has no help from anyone!" This notion that the likes of Burress, Smith, Cruz, and Nicks were just a bunch of palookas who were elevated to lofty heights by Eli Manning is beyond silly.

In comment 14008833 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

When he doesn't, it's all "Poor Eli played like garbage because he has no help from anyone!" This notion that the likes of Burress, Smith, Cruz, and Nicks were just a bunch of palookas who were elevated to lofty heights by Eli Manning is beyond silly.

When Eli had a half-decent to great OL, he'd deliver, period. Yeah, when it went to hell and he was dealing with jailbreak pass rushes, that changed, but in the first half of his career, it was a truth.

That said, I don't think Eli would have done well with the 1980's Giant teams. He would have been hit MUCH more - Simms was sacked far more than Eli, even in his worst years. Manning does not perform well when consistently hit, as Simms was.

but what has consistently happened to them?

Plax shoots himself and goes to jail.
Smith career shortening injury.
Nicks career shortening injury.
Cruz career shortening injury.

He has not had a consistent reliable tight end. He did enjoy a solid run with Jacobs and Bradshaw. Eli has had some talent around him, no question. But it's been anything but normal, especially at WR, as it's been a revolving door.

In comparison to Simms, of course the answer is that Simms faced the tougher defenses (in what was a more defensive focused era). But the flip side for Eli has been having to contend with generating enough offense to contend with guys like Brady, Rodgers, Favre, Romo and Brees throughout his career.

Phil also played his career for and with the greatest HC, defensive coordinator and defensive player in NFL history and also a guy named Bill Parcells. Not a bad time to be the starting QB in NYG history!

Were the OT win against philly where he was sacked 8 times and the 2011 NFC championship game where he was pummeled constantly.

The notion Eli couldn’t play well with being hit is just silly. No QB likes to get hit and most don’t play well when hit consistently. But he has proven he can play well when getting hit.

In comment 14008900 dep026 said:

Quote:

Were the OT win against philly where he was sacked 8 times and the 2011 NFC championship game where he was pummeled constantly. The notion Eli couldn’t play well with being hit is just silly. No QB likes to get hit and most don’t play well when hit consistently. But he has proven he can play well when getting hit.

Agreed of course, but No one can perform when being hit consistently over a period of YEARS

That seems to me to be rather an overstatement.

The only year that came to my mind was '89. Simms didn't have a great year, and he played pretty poorly in the horrible playoff loss to the Rams.

One consideration may be Eli's durability vs. Simms's...but that was really only an issue during Simms's first four seasons. Were any of the '79-'83 teams good enough to win the title? Probably not. One interesting question is if the '90 team won the title with Eli (assuming he wouldn't have sustained the same injury Simms did), would the whole Handley/Hostetler saga have occurred? Maybe not, but the '91-'93 teams may not have been good enough outside the QB position to compete for the Super Bowl.

We're probably only talking about '84, '85, and '89 as seasons where the team was in a position to be elevated to a Super Bowl. But in all three of those seasons the eventual Super Bowl winner was an all time great team.

defenses not once, but twice, in the biggest game in the world.

As far as defense and game-planning/preparation is concerned, I'll stack the mind of BB up against anything or anyone you can give me that Simms went up against.

In comment 14008923 Chris684 said:

Quote:

defenses not once, but twice, in the biggest game in the world. As far as defense and game-planning/preparation is concerned, I'll stack the mind of BB up against anything or anyone you can give me that Simms went up against.

Belichick is the greatest coach of his generation, but 1)you simply aren't allowed to play the kind of defense in the 2000s that Simms had to navigate 2)the Patriots defense was merely good in 2007 even by the standards of the era, and was really kind of bad in 2011. They didn't have remotely the kind of talent that the 1980s Bears and Niners had.

They lost in Candlestick 34-24, yeah, but that game was tied in the 4th quarter and the Niner drives that won the game were against a defense without LT, who had to leave the game after that scumbag Wesley Walls took out his knee. Had that not happened, who knows? The Giants certainly were never intimidated by the Niners, unlike the team that tended to have the Giants' number, the Rams. I don't get it to this day, but the Rams just gave them fits.

in that there are 2 sides of the coin.

The other being playing in a league where it's nearly a shootout every other week, no lead is safe, and points are scored all over the place.

Better QB play was also not going to be the difference in getting by the 9ers in 89. That was as good of a team as the NFL has seen. They curb stomped the playoffs to the tune of 126–26. Montana was basically perfect in the playoffs. Losing to the Rams was a gut punch, but the Giants were going to get worked over by the 9ers just the same.

In comment 14009441 christian said:

Quote:

Better QB play was also not going to be the difference in getting by the 9ers in 89. That was as good of a team as the NFL has seen. They curb stomped the playoffs to the tune of 126–26. Montana was basically perfect in the playoffs. Losing to the Rams was a gut punch, but the Giants were going to get worked over by the 9ers just the same.

I don't know if the 49ers would have worked the Giants over...they had played a tight game earlier in the season as Greg said above. They'd also played a tight game in 1988, as well as two tight games in 1990. A blowout for either team would have been out of character for that time period. That said, I do think the 49ers would have won. The '89 49ers are still the best team I've ever seen, with Montana and Rice that year (and in those playoffs) playing the as well as they could possibly be played.

As an aside, I'm of the belief that Montana is the best player I've ever seen, but the back of Jerry Rice's football card is insane - especially considering the era in which he played. See the link.
Link - ( New Window )

But the Giants always played them tough. Joe Montana only lost five playoff games as the 49er QB. Three of them came against the Giants.

The other two were to the Redskins in 1983 and the Vikings in 1987. The 1987 Viking game was his only home playoff loss before the 1990 NFC title game.

The Giants IMO kept the 9ers from 2 more rings -- and definitely always played them tough. But come the playoffs in 89 they were playing at another level.

The Rams split the regular and were up big on them late in the season and lost, and then 49ers absolutely spat on them in the NFCC.

Not saying it would be a blowout, but it wasn't going to be better QB play to get by them. It would've needed to be out of this world defense.

But the Niners never worried about the Rams at all. If they had the choice, they would have chosen to play the Rams rather than the Giants 10 times out of 10.

even though Simms was lights out in that game. Our defense was dominant and we were running the ball too.

No way Eli wins in '91. Simms may not have won either. We needed Hostetler's legs to win that game.

The Giants passed on him in the 1984 Supplemental Draft. Parcells wanted him. They drafted a Guard who went to the hall of fame for the Vikings. He told the Giants not to draft him since he did not want to play in New York. Sat out a year and the Giants traded him for 2 second round picks. One was Mark Collins who started at CB for both superbowls and one was another corner who was out of the league in 4 years.

People make excuses because the guard that was picked went to the HoF. He was never playing for the Giants management and told them that.

If the Giants had Reggie White, the Giants would have the 2 best Defensive players I ever saw on Defense. There was an interview with Parcells about this. He said he would move White around between DE and Nose Tackle. Probably would have used him like LT.

There was no salary cap in the 1980s or free agency. I think the giants would have won 4 superbowls in 5 years between 1986-1990. Phil Simms would be in the HoF because
he has too many rings not to be.

Those defenses would have been better than the 1985 Bears. Both LT and Reggie White command constant double teams. What about everybody? Imagine what Bellicheck would have done?

.

did as GM of the Giants and I loved GY when he was the Giants GM for drafting Simms and LT among others. If he would have retired when Parcells left he probably would be in the NFL HOF. There's not enough time to describe how bad a job GY did from the day after Parcells left until he retired which is why he's not in the HOF.

But the top of the list was passing on Reggie White. That's not a second guess either. Every Giant fan who was paying attention knew it. It's almost as dumb as Bum Phillips passing on LT. Pretty close. Everyone knew Zimmerman was an excellent player and the Giants had much much more defense than offense in those days. Simms almost had his career ended behind the OL's the Giants had from 79-83. The Giants knew Zimmerman would never play for them when they picked him.

But GY was old school and hated players pushing back against the system and the NFLPA. See 1987 strike & 1993 plan B for more on that. There was some spite of not letting a player tell him where he would play in that pick. GY was going to force him to play in NY. It definitely cost the Giants a historic team.

was the single biggest fatal flaw we ever had if he was truly a target of ours.

The scenarios of winning with that type of talent on defense are mind numbing.