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

Go with a total of 4...

.

In comment 14008253 Phatbrew said:

Quote:

Go with a total of 4...

Seems realistic.

Either in 88 or 89.

So Eli's 30, with a championship behind him?

I understand the question, and peak Eli was better than peak Simms (I loved Simms at QB.), but maybe one more, at most. If you really wanted to think about who would have taken those 80s teams to another level, try giving them OBJ. Simms to Eli isn't a big upgrade. OBJ would be a big upgrade at any WR position.

For that matter peak Victor Cruz and peak Hakeem Nicks would have been great additions to those teams.

T. Brady and Big Ben don't win shit in the 80's.

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.

with Simms...

In comment 14008280 Optimus-NY said:

Quote:

Either in 88 or 89.

Agreed. Or both..Also, Eli would have given the Bears a much better clutch showing in Soldiers Field in ‘85..We lost 21-0, but were only down 7-0 going into the 4th and only then because of a Shaun Gayle TD return of the Landeta whiffed “punt.”.

Maybe one more. What comes to my mind is the Flipper Andersen Rams playoff loss. The Giants were ahead , I believe, 7-3 and had the ball with less than 2 minutes to go before half time. Instead of running the clock out to half time Phil thought he saw an opportunity to throw a pass toward the sidelines to perhaps give the Giants an opportunity for a FG before half time to go up 10-3. The pass was intercepted and the heavily favored Rams scored and took the lead at half time 10-7. Had that pass not been thrown and the clock run out there would have been no Flipper Andersen game winner. The Giants would have won. I am not sure who made that call or if it was Phil's fault or the receiver's fault. But it was uncharacteristic of Bill Parcells to throw a sideline pass under those circumstances so I do not believe he did not call that Play or wanted to throw the ball then. Whether Eli would have made the same decision or not can never be proven. Besides Eli has thrown his own share of interceptions also. But that pass at that point in a close game against a great Rams team was STUPID. That is the only game that might have turned out differently Because Eli is 6'5" tall compared to the 6' 1" Simms and would have had a better view of the field. But this is really a silly question ... its hard to win games in the NFL and even harder to make it through the playoffs. The competition in pro-football is at a very high level and fierce. So it is what it is.

period!!!

because his brother would have played for the Skins....

In comment 14008303 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

with Simms...

This..some of you younger guys don't realize how good Simms was in his prime! Phil continues to be underrated as a QB. Remember, he played in an Offense that was based on run first,ball control. Turn Phil loose and he would have excelled in a pass first offense!

First Simms was playing at a pro-bowl level from 1985-1990.

Second some of those years things were out of their control. For instance in the 1987 season they were the favorites and looking to repeat, but the player strike killed that (the Giants had the worst scab team).

So in 1985 they lost to a buzz saw Bears team (not sure Eli could have done anything there).
1986 - win
1987 - strike
1988 - This is the one possibility, although LT was suspended for 4 games
1989 - lost in the NFC Championship game in OT to the Rams (who had the lucky horseshoe that year)
1990 - won the Super Bowl

So maybe 1 in 1988

one of my all-time favorite Giants. That said, give Eli THAT Defense? In the playoffs where Eli is mostly clutch? Sorry, Simms was no Eli. We win another bowl or 2, imo..

Of course, this is nothing more than speculative opinion, so there’s no right or wrong. It’s simply how I “see it.”

against the 85 Bears, Eli could. And he would have rolled the pats.

What makes everyone think that having Eli rather than Simms/Hoss would have lead to more SB wins in the 80s?

Eli does not have a great regular season record (119-107 all time).

Eli's career playoff record is 8-4 with two SB wins, but he was also "one and done" in 4 of his 6 playoff years.

It took a super-human performance by Simms for the Giants to win their first SB. Do the Giants even win that SB if the QB has a good, but not great game?

And how well does Eli perform when he has to trade in OBJ, Nicks, Plaxico and Cruz, for Gray, Manuel, Johnson and McConkey?

I guess it's fun to talk about and we'll obviously never have an answer, but it seems like most people who seriously answered this question are suggesting that Eli was a significantly better QB than Simms and Hoss and I just don't think that's the case.

In comment 14008329 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

one of my all-time favorite Giants. That said, give Eli THAT Defense? In the playoffs where Eli is mostly clutch? Sorry, Simms was no Eli. We win another bowl or 2, imo.. Of course, this is nothing more than speculative opinion, so there’s no right or wrong. It’s simply how I “see it.”

Not taking anything away from Eli (Super Bowl XXLII was an extraordinary comeback), but down 10-9 at half,the first Super Bowl ever for the Giants & Simms goes out & throws 22-25 for 268 yards & 3 TDs-seems pretty clutch to me. I don't think we have to demean Phil's accomplishments to highlight Eli's. Both can stand on their own merits!

In comment 14008329 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In the playoffs where Eli is mostly clutch?

Eli was "one and done" in four of his six playoff years. How is that "mostly clutch"?

In 2006, all we had was Tiki Barber. 2008, shit the bed..2016, he was terrific, OBJ and the D failed him big time..

In comment 14008343 TheMick7 said:

Quote:

In comment 14008329 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: one of my all-time favorite Giants. That said, give Eli THAT Defense? In the playoffs where Eli is mostly clutch? Sorry, Simms was no Eli. We win another bowl or 2, imo.. Of course, this is nothing more than speculative opinion, so there’s no right or wrong. It’s simply how I “see it.” Not taking anything away from Eli (Super Bowl XXLII was an extraordinary comeback), but down 10-9 at half,the first Super Bowl ever for the Giants & Simms goes out & throws 22-25 for 268 yards & 3 TDs-seems pretty clutch to me. I don't think we have to demean Phil's accomplishments to highlight Eli's. Both can stand on their own merits!

Could be the best performance ever

Where the Giants lost in the first round:

10-18 for 133 yds. TD-0 INT-3 (Panthers 23 Giants-0)

16-27 for 161 yds. TD-2 INT 1 (Eagles 23 Giants 20)

15-29 for 169 yds. TD-0 INT-2 (Eagles 23 Giants 16)

23-44 for 299 yds. TD-1 INT-1 (Packers 38 Giants 13)

I know there are a lot of variables in a given game and these stats don't PROVE that Eli was "not clutch" in the playoffs. But those stats also don't exactly show a superstar QB putting the team on his back and willing them to victory either. (49 points in 4 playoff losses, avg. 12.25 pts. per game.)

In comment 14008355 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

Where the Giants lost in the first round: 10-18 for 133 yds. TD-0 INT-3 (Panthers 23 Giants-0) 16-27 for 161 yds. TD-2 INT 1 (Eagles 23 Giants 20) 15-29 for 169 yds. TD-0 INT-2 (Eagles 23 Giants 16) 23-44 for 299 yds. TD-1 INT-1 (Packers 38 Giants 13) I know there are a lot of variables in a given game and these stats don't PROVE that Eli was "not clutch" in the playoffs. But those stats also don't exactly show a superstar QB putting the team on his back and willing them to victory either. (49 points in 4 playoff losses, avg. 12.25 pts. per game.)

Our posts crossed. Yes there are variables. All clutch QBs have clunkers. Montana had 3 against us in the playoffs

In comment 14008356 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

In comment 14008355 Jim in Tampa said: Quote: Where the Giants lost in the first round: 10-18 for 133 yds. TD-0 INT-3 (Panthers 23 Giants-0) 16-27 for 161 yds. TD-2 INT 1 (Eagles 23 Giants 20) 15-29 for 169 yds. TD-0 INT-2 (Eagles 23 Giants 16) 23-44 for 299 yds. TD-1 INT-1 (Packers 38 Giants 13) I know there are a lot of variables in a given game and these stats don't PROVE that Eli was "not clutch" in the playoffs. But those stats also don't exactly show a superstar QB putting the team on his back and willing them to victory either. (49 points in 4 playoff losses, avg. 12.25 pts. per game.) Our posts crossed. Yes there are variables. All clutch QBs have clunkers. Montana had 3 against us in the playoffs

Yes, but Eli put up "clunkers" that resulted in 4 first round exits in 6 years. In other words...2 out of every 3 years that the Giants have made the playoffs in the Eli era.

If Eli has just an average game in the "Simms" SB, the Giants lose.

The thought that Eli was so much better than Simms that Eli would have won two additional SB is just foolish.

Of course there's no way to prove anything, but if you could simply admit you're wrong so that I can attend to some chores, I would appreciate it.

;>)

“variable.” If saying I was wrong will make you complete your chores, you got it.😎

In comment 14008303 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

with Simms...

exactly

He completed 50% or less of his passes 6 times. His last 3 playoff games were awful.

I don’t know who wins more on the others respective teams but to knock Eli’s bad games to prop Simms up seems odd.

Manning's playoff success has been totally on par with his career, a lot of average and then streaks of brilliance where he rivals anyone in the league.

The Parcells era Giants played in the golden age of the NFC. Getting 2 rings in that stretch was absolute attrition.

The Giants had plenty fine QB play in the era and pound for pound maybe the best defense in a stretch of football ever.

There were 3 dynasties playing out in the NFC at the same time (Skins, 9ers, Giants), and then followed up by the Cowboys. The AFC didn't win a Super Bowl for 13 years.

Maybe, maybe 85 great QB gets them closer. Which of course requires beating the best of defense of all time.

and I don't recall ever thinking the games that were lost were because Simms wasn't good enough.

Further, many here on BBI underestimate how good the NFC was back in the 80s. There were some real powerhouse teams each year that made even getting into the playoffs a challenge for a very strong team like the Giants.

my view...

In comment 14008368 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

and I don't recall ever thinking the games that were lost were because Simms wasn't good enough. Further, many here on BBI underestimate how good the NFC was back in the 80s. There were some real powerhouse teams each year that made even getting into the playoffs a challenge for a very strong team like the Giants. my view...

Been following this since ‘56. The NFC division in the ‘80s was clearly the best I ever saw

In comment 14008327 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

First Simms was playing at a pro-bowl level from 1985-1990. Second some of those years things were out of their control. For instance in the 1987 season they were the favorites and looking to repeat, but the player strike killed that (the Giants had the worst scab team). So in 1985 they lost to a buzz saw Bears team (not sure Eli could have done anything there). 1986 - win 1987 - strike 1988 - This is the one possibility, although LT was suspended for 4 games 1989 - lost in the NFC Championship game in OT to the Rams (who had the lucky horseshoe that year) 1990 - won the Super Bowl So maybe 1 in 1988

In 1988 Giants didnt even qualify for the playoffs. And Simms had a pretty good year so not sure he was the crutch.

In 1989 Giants lost to the Rams in the divisional playoff game, not the NFC Championship. The Rams got the asses whipped by the Niners in the NFCC.

just sayin...

With the rules allowing pounding on QB and those monsters pass rushers in the division back in the 80's its hard to imagine Eli being successful. IMV

And btw no way Eli is beating the Bears in Soldier Field with those receivers. Everybody likes to think that game was close but they had no chance. Bears would have turned it on if the game got closer. The Giant scheme was not well suited at all to beating that 46, we saw it time after time after that with the Eagles in the 80s.

Not a knock on Eli. But it’s underestimating Simms who was a pro bowl caliber q.v. then if anything.

The Bears gave up 10 points total in the playoffs, and didn't give up a touchdown until the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl up by 30+ points.

The Giants defense was really good as well, and the reason the game was close late. But the Giants weren't scoring in that game if Tom Brady was the QB.

In comment 14008396 JerseyCityJoe said:

Quote:

With the rules allowing pounding on QB and those monsters pass rushers in the division back in the 80's its hard to imagine Eli being successful. IMV

The counter argument of a great run game and a great defense... Eli wouldn’t be asked to do as much either.

but a few incomplete passes didn't get it done (possible drop by a WR too).

Worst was when we missed the chip-shot FG as well (probably wind blown), the Bears had all the momentum going into halftime.

And that was all she wrote...

Simms threw 2 TDs in 7 games.

So if we are nitpicking Eli’s bad playoff games, nitpicking Simms would make Simms look a lot worse.

Several of us already indicated that NFC competition was brutal back then, and that Simms was not a primary reason holding us back. This isn't an Eli thing...

But Giants fans overrate him somewhat. Outside of a few stretches, he is merely a good QB who generally can't elevate the team as much as other more elite QBs. Not sure he gets them past SF in 91 and Simms performance in 87 against Denver was amazing.

In comment 14008408 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

Several of us already indicated that NFC competition was brutal back then, and that Simms was not a primary reason holding us back. This isn't an Eli thing...

I was referring to the other jimmy pointing out Eli’s struggles in his non SB years as a reason why he couldn’t have success in the 80s. All I did was point out that Simms wasn’t lights out either based on his non SB year either.

In comment 14008409 AnnapolisMike said:

Quote:

But Giants fans overrate him somewhat. Outside of a few stretches, he is merely a good QB who generally can't elevate the team as much as other more elite QBs. Not sure he gets them past SF in 91 and Simms performance in 87 against Denver was amazing.

We didn’t score a TD against 91’ SF. It’s not outrageous to think eli couldn’t lead us to 1 TD, right?

He indicated in his opinion that Eli wouldn't likely have had any more Superbowl wins than Simms did.

And I agree with that view.

I think Phil Simms is arguably better than Eli. Different game back then though.

Dumb post.

In comment 14008412 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 14008409 AnnapolisMike said: Quote: But Giants fans overrate him somewhat. Outside of a few stretches, he is merely a good QB who generally can't elevate the team as much as other more elite QBs. Not sure he gets them past SF in 91 and Simms performance in 87 against Denver was amazing. We didn’t score a TD against 91’ SF. It’s not outrageous to think eli couldn’t lead us to 1 TD, right?

Hoss played that game...not Simms. And I think Hoss played very nicely...

In comment 14008412 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 14008409 AnnapolisMike said: Quote: But Giants fans overrate him somewhat. Outside of a few stretches, he is merely a good QB who generally can't elevate the team as much as other more elite QBs. Not sure he gets them past SF in 91 and Simms performance in 87 against Denver was amazing. We didn’t score a TD against 91’ SF. It’s not outrageous to think eli couldn’t lead us to 1 TD, right?

It's also not outrageous that Manning would have turned the ball over against a really crafty secondary. Playing that game conservatively and absolutely trusting the 9ers would get beat down over 60 mins was the right call. The offensive game plan was OJ burning clock and Hoss not turning it over.

But Simms was a damn good QB.

nailing it this thread

Because both sides can absolutely be right.

I just don’t like diminishing the accomplishments of either Simms or Eli. Simms 86’ was just as magical as Eli’s 07’ and 11’. And sims probably would have won in 91’ as well.

They are both are very good QBs.

He's not in the HOF because of injuries. Eli is a HOF QB too. Hard to compare their eras the rules and the CBA make it impossible to to do anything but guess.

Cause Simms would have started ahead of him.

The one undisputable factor is QBs were allowed to get mugged in Simm's era. Manning has been an incredibly tough and durable QB, but I give a little more credit to guys who won then.

It just wasn't the late hits or hits to the head, but you could just get after a QBs legs.

2018, AL Championship series, Yankees vs Red Sox, Tied 3 games a piece...

Chris Sale is pitching the 7th game....I WONDER HOW RUTH WOULD DO AGAINST HIM?

Both could bat righty vs LHP Sale. Lol.

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.