The fallacy that Darnold was a turnover machine, and Eli Manning wasn't in college is simply an untruth.
Here are Sam Darnold's numbers in college, when he was 19 years old
Year 2016 67% cmp 3086 yards 31 TD 9 Int 161 QB Rating,
Year 2017 63% cmp 4143 yards 26 TD 13 Int 148 QB Rating
Eli Mannings's college stats from his 2002 year, he threw 15 interceptions in 13 games. So people calling Darnold a turnover machine, are the same people that justify Manning's turnover ratio in college, which was worse than Darnold's.
Furthermore, Manning was 23 years old when he entered the NFL, Darnold is only 21 years old. In other words, Eli wasn't good enough at 21 to be in the league, he had to wait two more years. And after waiting till he was 23 his rookie year was still horrific. Here are his stats, and I'm an Eli fan...
2004 48% 1048 yards 6 TD 9 Int 55 QB Rating.
Eli lost his first 6 games, and didn't win one until the very last game in the season. So no, in my opinion Darnold was rated very high, and even with the bad game he had, I'll still take him right now.
Give him Beckham, Engram and Shepard, compared to his bottom five receiving core, and its a different story. He's light years ahead of Eli when Eli was a rookie, and I was an Eli fan, even though it took him years to finally develop.
Spread offense vs. Pro Style offense is very different. Who doesn't put up monster numbers in college anymore?
The turnover machine label didn't have to do with accumulated statistics.
A lot has changed since prior to 2004 in college football.
He has played the Vikings in 30 mph winds, Bears in 30 mph winds and Dolphins in heavy winds on a field destroyed by the Duke/Miami washout the night before. Ebbs and flows, he was going to look bad during this stretch. He'll eventually play well vs. a shitty defense and everybody will go back to washing his balls.
RE: It's way too soon to definitively discount Darnold... Â
Eli put up a 0.0 rating, that everyone loves to toss out there, against a Baltimore Ravens defense that featured 3 Hall of Famers in Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs plus guys like Chris McAlister and Bart Scott. This was before the league fully neutered defenses like it has today. You think Darnold has faced a defense on the same planet as that one at any point this year? Go look at this Miami defense that the Jets just scored 6 points on.
There is pretty much no comparison to be made as far as defense in the league from then and now.
Also funny, I don't remember NYG fans being as patient with Eli as they are with Sam Darnold.
Eli's start was a lot rockier, on a team with a new coach but some established talent (Toomer, Shockey, Tiki). And I'm sure if Darnold was playing here, we'd be less patient, especially if we had given up resources to move up to draft him.
It's a bit too soon to make any definitive statements about what Darnold is or isn't.
Definitely too soon, however the 2004/5 NFL was infinitely more difficult to play in as a QB than the 2018 NFL, IMO. The struggles aren’t worrisome yet but if the trend continues in the 2H of the season I’d start getting concerned.
They definitely need a new coaching staff though. I don’t think that’s even debatable.
better than 5-4 and thoroughly mediocre in 9 games?
Let's not turn the 04 Giants into some all-star roster because it helps the argument for Darnold.
How old are you? Not a shot - just wondering if you're old enough to remember that time, or you're just going by what you've read.
You asked why people seem more patient with Darnold than they were with Eli. That's why - because people expected more out of a team that had been to the Super Bowl a few years prior, who were in the playoffs in 2002, and who had a pretty good offense not too long before. There was a lot of hope that Eli would bring that offense back and to the next level, and disappointment with his early returns.
There weren't a lot of people expecting Kurt Warner to light it up, because he looked like he was done. Despite being much younger than Manning is now, he had taken a beating, had been injured and concussed behind a Mike Martz offense and looked like a stop-gap until Manning was ready to take the helm. That's why plenty of people were surprised with the way his career ended up in Arizona.
Agreed, the landscape of the NFL was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY Â
Had a 0.0 QB rating against the Ravens his first season
I was at that game. Such a shitty day all around. I had a drunk idiot sitting right behind me and in my ear. After I got in his face, he wanted to be my best friend. I'm not sure which was better. Also, I bought the tickets months before expecting to go with my gf. Well, we had since broken up but she insisted on still coming to the game. I was young and stupid, not sure why I agreed to it, talk about awkward.
But it all worked out in the end. My worst enemy/best friend eventually "fell asleep" and was later escorted out, Eli brought us two Lombardis, and I am currently married to my then ex-gf.
The Jets also traded additional assets for Sam Darnold.
What you are describing in 2004 probably added another level of stress to Eli's maturation that Darnold doesn't necessarily have to deal with.
TC was starting over, but that was not an easy sell for guys like Tiki, Shockey, Strahan, Toomer, etc. In hindsight, some of those guys might not have been a great help as far as the maturation process of a young QB, Strahan basically admitted he was not on board with the decision. You think that was easy? Probably not.
In 2005 Eli won a division title in his first full season as a starter and you had a lot of people saying he was a failure because his first playoff game was a tough one.
Eli was not given any benefit of the doubt after his first playoff performance.
Your wonderful Beckham is put above any and all criticism and pointing out he under performed after chasing Justin Bieber around Miami the week of a playoff game is frowned upon here.
any rookie QB that played lights out his first season. Im really asking the question not being sarcastic. I cannot think of any. Was Foles a rookie that had a good first season
thanks
Dak Prescott
He joined a win now team with the best line in football, along with the best RB. He wasn't lighting it up in the passing game, more of a game manager, but he played well.
Jets have a terrible line, and no playmakers on offense. It's night and day.
Robby Anderson and Quincy Enunwa aren't bums and they've had success - definitely more than NYG have had - running the ball. Their line isn't Giants bad.
...a big time WR or two. They haven't had one since Keyshawn and that was 20 years ago. If anyone should've attempted a trade for OBJ it should've been the Jets
Only thing to worry about this season is Darnold’s development. He should be playing. Would not worry about these early returns, if it’s still going on next season then sure.
RE: Both of those guys have missed time recently Â
It is going to be a few years before with know with any reasonable certainty about Darnold. He has flashed promise and looked very much like a rookie QB most of the time. Exactly what we all should have expected of him based on the information we all had.
It is going to be a few years before with know with any reasonable certainty about Darnold. He has flashed promise and looked very much like a rookie QB most of the time. Exactly what we all should have expected of him based on the information we all had.
While I completely agree with you, you have to realize that these threads only exist because of the non stop daily threads for the past 6 months with the same posters screaming that the Giants certainly screwed up big time and now have absolutely no future because they passed on Darnold.
Those guys weren’t and aren’t willing to be patient and let the process play out before anointing Darnold a franchise QB that will haunt the Giants for the next 15 years, so it’s not surprising that others are watching Darnolds every move and waiting to respond in kind. No matter how much some here suggested to them that we should probably wait before freaking out, it didn’t stop them from cluttering this site with the doom and gloom of passing on Darnold. And so, here we are...
It's counter-productive to overreact to onfield results in a quarterback's rookie season.
I would not even flinch if he was mediocre or less than average next year.
By year 3 he should make a leap to at least be able to be an efficient game manager and not hurt your team.
Some QBs develop quicker, and some take longer, but when you commit to a high first-round draft pick at QB you need to commit for 3 years. After that, then evaluate where the player is at and if it's likely or unlikely he will pan out as a franchise QB. But give the kid a chance.
We'll need a little humor down the stretch of the season.
I wanted Darnold, but I'm not sure what to make of him yet. I don't see the WOW factor that Wentz and Mahomes had right away, but I certainly see him developing into a very good Eli-level player as long as they upgrade the coaching staff. Bowles and Bates are horrendous. The elephant in the room is whether the Jets can get out of their own way and build a consistent winner.
That's why - because people expected more out of a team that had been to the Super Bowl a few years prior, who were in the playoffs in 2002, and who had a pretty good offense not too long before.
In what world was this true? The 2004 team had four left overs from the 2000 team that went to the Super Bowl in Strahan, Toomer, Hilliard and Dayne. Only three were starters and only two made it to the next season. 2004 was a season of roster turnover after having high expectations going into 2003. Accorsi then had a great draft in 2005 picking up Jacobs, Webster and Tuck. Those players really set the tone of what was to come
That's why - because people expected more out of a team that had been to the Super Bowl a few years prior, who were in the playoffs in 2002, and who had a pretty good offense not too long before.
In what world was this true? The 2004 team had four left overs from the 2000 team that went to the Super Bowl in Strahan, Toomer, Hilliard and Dayne. Only three were starters and only two made it to the next season. 2004 was a season of roster turnover after having high expectations going into 2003. Accorsi then had a great draft in 2005 picking up Jacobs, Webster and Tuck. Those players really set the tone of what was to come
Along with the free agent signings of Pierce, Plaxico, and McKenzie same offseason.
It's counter-productive to overreact to onfield results in a quarterback's rookie season.
I would not even flinch if he was mediocre or less than average next year.
By year 3 he should make a leap to at least be able to be an efficient game manager and not hurt your team.
Some QBs develop quicker, and some take longer, but when you commit to a high first-round draft pick at QB you need to commit for 3 years. After that, then evaluate where the player is at and if it's likely or unlikely he will pan out as a franchise QB. But give the kid a chance.
And if he doesn't make that leap? Or if he is the same turnover prone guy from USC? It is not like some scouts didn't see this happening.
He isn't Peyton Manning. He isn't nearly as talented. Manning was one of the most celebrated QBs to enter the NFL so the Colts knew he would figure things out and he did his second season when he cut his interceptions to 15 and his completion % jumped up. Darnold doesn't have that talent or track record. So who knows? But just because he is a rookie QB doesn't mean you look away from the trainwreck and start wondering.
He's hitting a rookie wall. It was a little easier going at first when teams had no pro tape on him or the Jets' tendencies, but they seem very easy to defend now and Darnold literally can't throw the ball more than 15 yards down the field without getting picked off.
He's sailing throws, guys are dropping passes... their center couldn't even snap the fucking football yesterday and had to be benched.
Todd Bowles sucks, they need to fire him. Darnold won't develop if he stays there.
I still think Darnold will be pretty good when he has better weapons around him and more time to adjust to the pro game - but so far, color me unimpressed. Nothing is making me wish we drafted him right now. Not even our 1-7 record. I am confident we will be able to find someone at least as good down the road.
It's counter-productive to overreact to onfield results in a quarterback's rookie season.
I would not even flinch if he was mediocre or less than average next year.
By year 3 he should make a leap to at least be able to be an efficient game manager and not hurt your team.
Some QBs develop quicker, and some take longer, but when you commit to a high first-round draft pick at QB you need to commit for 3 years. After that, then evaluate where the player is at and if it's likely or unlikely he will pan out as a franchise QB. But give the kid a chance.
Peyton, with all his INTs and mistakes, looked far better than what Darnold looks like at present. Yes, way too early, but sometimes, as in this case, stats don’t indicate much of anything
is if the failings of the team around him are causing him to develop bad habits like staring down at the rush or trying to do too much on plays that aren't there. Even then, I would hesitate to sit him as opposed to trying to coach him through that.
It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Darnold and his future as an NFL QB. The job has to be his to lose, and the rookie year has to be a mulligan no matter how bad he looks.
Eli didn't stay in school because he wasn't good enough. He stayed in school because his family was financially stable and his parents put his education first.
The fallacy that Darnold was a turnover machine, and Eli Manning wasn't in college is simply an untruth.
Here are Sam Darnold's numbers in college, when he was 19 years old
Year 2016 67% cmp 3086 yards 31 TD 9 Int 161 QB Rating,
Year 2017 63% cmp 4143 yards 26 TD 13 Int 148 QB Rating
Eli Mannings's college stats from his 2002 year, he threw 15 interceptions in 13 games. So people calling Darnold a turnover machine, are the same people that justify Manning's turnover ratio in college, which was worse than Darnold's.
Furthermore, Manning was 23 years old when he entered the NFL, Darnold is only 21 years old. In other words, Eli wasn't good enough at 21 to be in the league, he had to wait two more years. And after waiting till he was 23 his rookie year was still horrific. Here are his stats, and I'm an Eli fan...
2004 48% 1048 yards 6 TD 9 Int 55 QB Rating.
Eli lost his first 6 games, and didn't win one until the very last game in the season. So no, in my opinion Darnold was rated very high, and even with the bad game he had, I'll still take him right now.
Give him Beckham, Engram and Shepard, compared to his bottom five receiving core, and its a different story. He's light years ahead of Eli when Eli was a rookie, and I was an Eli fan, even though it took him years to finally develop.
RE: It's way too soon to definitively discount Darnold... Â
Eli put up a 0.0 rating, that everyone loves to toss out there, against a Baltimore Ravens defense that featured 3 Hall of Famers in Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs plus guys like Chris McAlister and Bart Scott. This was before the league fully neutered defenses like it has today. You think Darnold has faced a defense on the same planet as that one at any point this year? Go look at this Miami defense that the Jets just scored 6 points on.
There is pretty much no comparison to be made as far as defense in the league from then and now.
Also funny, I don't remember NYG fans being as patient with Eli as they are with Sam Darnold.
Eli is the ultimate polarizing figure, even among Giants fans. Yet, when discussing almost any other player on this team or another, fans are more objective.
Here are Sam Darnold's numbers in college, when he was 19 years old
Year 2016 67% cmp 3086 yards 31 TD 9 Int 161 QB Rating,
Year 2017 63% cmp 4143 yards 26 TD 13 Int 148 QB Rating
Eli Mannings's college stats from his 2002 year, he threw 15 interceptions in 13 games. So people calling Darnold a turnover machine, are the same people that justify Manning's turnover ratio in college, which was worse than Darnold's.
Furthermore, Manning was 23 years old when he entered the NFL, Darnold is only 21 years old. In other words, Eli wasn't good enough at 21 to be in the league, he had to wait two more years. And after waiting till he was 23 his rookie year was still horrific. Here are his stats, and I'm an Eli fan...
2004 48% 1048 yards 6 TD 9 Int 55 QB Rating.
Eli lost his first 6 games, and didn't win one until the very last game in the season. So no, in my opinion Darnold was rated very high, and even with the bad game he had, I'll still take him right now.
Give him Beckham, Engram and Shepard, compared to his bottom five receiving core, and its a different story. He's light years ahead of Eli when Eli was a rookie, and I was an Eli fan, even though it took him years to finally develop.
Spread offense vs. Pro Style offense is very different. Who doesn't put up monster numbers in college anymore?
The turnover machine label didn't have to do with accumulated statistics.
A lot has changed since prior to 2004 in college football.
Eli put up a 0.0 rating, that everyone loves to toss out there, against a Baltimore Ravens defense that featured 3 Hall of Famers in Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs plus guys like Chris McAlister and Bart Scott. This was before the league fully neutered defenses like it has today. You think Darnold has faced a defense on the same planet as that one at any point this year? Go look at this Miami defense that the Jets just scored 6 points on.
There is pretty much no comparison to be made as far as defense in the league from then and now.
Also funny, I don't remember NYG fans being as patient with Eli as they are with Sam Darnold.
Eli's start was a lot rockier, on a team with a new coach but some established talent (Toomer, Shockey, Tiki). And I'm sure if Darnold was playing here, we'd be less patient, especially if we had given up resources to move up to draft him.
Bowles should have been canned the moment they knew they were going to grab a QB. They set Bowles, and Sam up for failure.
Bowles, because he was a dead man walking to begin with.
Sam, because Bowles is going to get fired pretty soon, and he's going to have to learn a whole new offense again.
Let's not turn the 04 Giants into some all-star roster because it helps the argument for Darnold.
Definitely too soon, however the 2004/5 NFL was infinitely more difficult to play in as a QB than the 2018 NFL, IMO. The struggles aren’t worrisome yet but if the trend continues in the 2H of the season I’d start getting concerned.
They definitely need a new coaching staff though. I don’t think that’s even debatable.
Let's not turn the 04 Giants into some all-star roster because it helps the argument for Darnold.
How old are you? Not a shot - just wondering if you're old enough to remember that time, or you're just going by what you've read.
You asked why people seem more patient with Darnold than they were with Eli. That's why - because people expected more out of a team that had been to the Super Bowl a few years prior, who were in the playoffs in 2002, and who had a pretty good offense not too long before. There was a lot of hope that Eli would bring that offense back and to the next level, and disappointment with his early returns.
There weren't a lot of people expecting Kurt Warner to light it up, because he looked like he was done. Despite being much younger than Manning is now, he had taken a beating, had been injured and concussed behind a Mike Martz offense and looked like a stop-gap until Manning was ready to take the helm. That's why plenty of people were surprised with the way his career ended up in Arizona.
I was at that game. Such a shitty day all around. I had a drunk idiot sitting right behind me and in my ear. After I got in his face, he wanted to be my best friend. I'm not sure which was better. Also, I bought the tickets months before expecting to go with my gf. Well, we had since broken up but she insisted on still coming to the game. I was young and stupid, not sure why I agreed to it, talk about awkward.
But it all worked out in the end. My worst enemy/best friend eventually "fell asleep" and was later escorted out, Eli brought us two Lombardis, and I am currently married to my then ex-gf.
The Jets also traded additional assets for Sam Darnold.
What you are describing in 2004 probably added another level of stress to Eli's maturation that Darnold doesn't necessarily have to deal with.
TC was starting over, but that was not an easy sell for guys like Tiki, Shockey, Strahan, Toomer, etc. In hindsight, some of those guys might not have been a great help as far as the maturation process of a young QB, Strahan basically admitted he was not on board with the decision. You think that was easy? Probably not.
In 2005 Eli won a division title in his first full season as a starter and you had a lot of people saying he was a failure because his first playoff game was a tough one.
In a way, Eli's lucky that playoff success eluded Peyton for as long as it did, because the comparisons would have become off the charts annoying.
Eli was not given any benefit of the doubt after his first playoff performance.
Your wonderful Beckham is put above any and all criticism and pointing out he under performed after chasing Justin Bieber around Miami the week of a playoff game is frowned upon here.
So yea, it is ironic, isn't it?
Doesn't mean anything for Darnold long-term, but he's probably the worst QB in the league right now.
Quote:
In comment 14165086 RobThailand said:
Quote:
any rookie QB that played lights out his first season. Im really asking the question not being sarcastic. I cannot think of any. Was Foles a rookie that had a good first season
thanks
Dak Prescott
He joined a win now team with the best line in football, along with the best RB. He wasn't lighting it up in the passing game, more of a game manager, but he played well.
Jets have a terrible line, and no playmakers on offense. It's night and day.
Robby Anderson and Quincy Enunwa aren't bums and they've had success - definitely more than NYG have had - running the ball. Their line isn't Giants bad.
And they have a terrific defense.
Yeah, the Jets terrific Defense is about to get Bowles fired.
Most of the scouting reports on him said he needed to sit a year to learn the NFL game.
Those of you here that have been starting weekly threads declaring him a bonafied franchise QB that has the "it factor" need to slow your roll.
He was always going to be a work in progress.
The Jets need to tread carefully here. You want him to continue to grow, you don't want to stunt it.
They won't, first pick he throws everyone will be yelling WE'RE SORRY ELI! :(
Most of the scouting reports on him said he needed to sit a year to learn the NFL game.
Those of you here that have been starting weekly threads declaring him a bonafied franchise QB that has the "it factor" need to slow your roll.
He was always going to be a work in progress.
The Jets need to tread carefully here. You want him to continue to grow, you don't want to stunt it.
Agree with all of this.
While I completely agree with you, you have to realize that these threads only exist because of the non stop daily threads for the past 6 months with the same posters screaming that the Giants certainly screwed up big time and now have absolutely no future because they passed on Darnold.
Those guys weren’t and aren’t willing to be patient and let the process play out before anointing Darnold a franchise QB that will haunt the Giants for the next 15 years, so it’s not surprising that others are watching Darnolds every move and waiting to respond in kind. No matter how much some here suggested to them that we should probably wait before freaking out, it didn’t stop them from cluttering this site with the doom and gloom of passing on Darnold. And so, here we are...
Quote:
at 1-7 Dave does not get to laugh at anyone
My thoughts exactly!
Talk about ruining a guy.
This should end the thread but it probably won't.
It's counter-productive to overreact to onfield results in a quarterback's rookie season.
I would not even flinch if he was mediocre or less than average next year.
By year 3 he should make a leap to at least be able to be an efficient game manager and not hurt your team.
Some QBs develop quicker, and some take longer, but when you commit to a high first-round draft pick at QB you need to commit for 3 years. After that, then evaluate where the player is at and if it's likely or unlikely he will pan out as a franchise QB. But give the kid a chance.
I wanted Darnold, but I'm not sure what to make of him yet. I don't see the WOW factor that Wentz and Mahomes had right away, but I certainly see him developing into a very good Eli-level player as long as they upgrade the coaching staff. Bowles and Bates are horrendous. The elephant in the room is whether the Jets can get out of their own way and build a consistent winner.
Quote:
That's why - because people expected more out of a team that had been to the Super Bowl a few years prior, who were in the playoffs in 2002, and who had a pretty good offense not too long before.
In what world was this true? The 2004 team had four left overs from the 2000 team that went to the Super Bowl in Strahan, Toomer, Hilliard and Dayne. Only three were starters and only two made it to the next season. 2004 was a season of roster turnover after having high expectations going into 2003. Accorsi then had a great draft in 2005 picking up Jacobs, Webster and Tuck. Those players really set the tone of what was to come
Quote:
In comment 14165356 Chris684 said:
Quote:
That's why - because people expected more out of a team that had been to the Super Bowl a few years prior, who were in the playoffs in 2002, and who had a pretty good offense not too long before.
In what world was this true? The 2004 team had four left overs from the 2000 team that went to the Super Bowl in Strahan, Toomer, Hilliard and Dayne. Only three were starters and only two made it to the next season. 2004 was a season of roster turnover after having high expectations going into 2003. Accorsi then had a great draft in 2005 picking up Jacobs, Webster and Tuck. Those players really set the tone of what was to come
Along with the free agent signings of Pierce, Plaxico, and McKenzie same offseason.
This should end the thread but it probably won't.
It's counter-productive to overreact to onfield results in a quarterback's rookie season.
I would not even flinch if he was mediocre or less than average next year.
By year 3 he should make a leap to at least be able to be an efficient game manager and not hurt your team.
Some QBs develop quicker, and some take longer, but when you commit to a high first-round draft pick at QB you need to commit for 3 years. After that, then evaluate where the player is at and if it's likely or unlikely he will pan out as a franchise QB. But give the kid a chance.
He isn't Peyton Manning. He isn't nearly as talented. Manning was one of the most celebrated QBs to enter the NFL so the Colts knew he would figure things out and he did his second season when he cut his interceptions to 15 and his completion % jumped up. Darnold doesn't have that talent or track record. So who knows? But just because he is a rookie QB doesn't mean you look away from the trainwreck and start wondering.
As if there weren't enough already.
He's hitting a rookie wall. It was a little easier going at first when teams had no pro tape on him or the Jets' tendencies, but they seem very easy to defend now and Darnold literally can't throw the ball more than 15 yards down the field without getting picked off.
He's sailing throws, guys are dropping passes... their center couldn't even snap the fucking football yesterday and had to be benched.
Todd Bowles sucks, they need to fire him. Darnold won't develop if he stays there.
I still think Darnold will be pretty good when he has better weapons around him and more time to adjust to the pro game - but so far, color me unimpressed. Nothing is making me wish we drafted him right now. Not even our 1-7 record. I am confident we will be able to find someone at least as good down the road.
This should end the thread but it probably won't.
It's counter-productive to overreact to onfield results in a quarterback's rookie season.
I would not even flinch if he was mediocre or less than average next year.
By year 3 he should make a leap to at least be able to be an efficient game manager and not hurt your team.
Some QBs develop quicker, and some take longer, but when you commit to a high first-round draft pick at QB you need to commit for 3 years. After that, then evaluate where the player is at and if it's likely or unlikely he will pan out as a franchise QB. But give the kid a chance.
Peyton, with all his INTs and mistakes, looked far better than what Darnold looks like at present. Yes, way too early, but sometimes, as in this case, stats don’t indicate much of anything
A rookie leading the entire NFL in pass attempts is a pretty sure recipe for a high INT season like that.
Peyton was a much better prospect than Darnold and he did still throw for nearly 4k yards and added 26 TD's his first year.
Not sure Darnold will even hit 20 this year.
It is way too early to draw any conclusions about Darnold and his future as an NFL QB. The job has to be his to lose, and the rookie year has to be a mulligan no matter how bad he looks.
They were in a different league of prospects than Darnold.
Haven't seen anybody like either of those two come out since Luck.
Doesn't mean anything for Darnold long-term, but he's probably the worst QB in the league right now.
Nathan Peterman says hi.
Geez!
In comment 14165328 sxdxca said:
Here are Sam Darnold's numbers in college, when he was 19 years old
Year 2016 67% cmp 3086 yards 31 TD 9 Int 161 QB Rating,
Year 2017 63% cmp 4143 yards 26 TD 13 Int 148 QB Rating
Eli Mannings's college stats from his 2002 year, he threw 15 interceptions in 13 games. So people calling Darnold a turnover machine, are the same people that justify Manning's turnover ratio in college, which was worse than Darnold's.
Furthermore, Manning was 23 years old when he entered the NFL, Darnold is only 21 years old. In other words, Eli wasn't good enough at 21 to be in the league, he had to wait two more years. And after waiting till he was 23 his rookie year was still horrific. Here are his stats, and I'm an Eli fan...
2004 48% 1048 yards 6 TD 9 Int 55 QB Rating.
Eli lost his first 6 games, and didn't win one until the very last game in the season. So no, in my opinion Darnold was rated very high, and even with the bad game he had, I'll still take him right now.
Give him Beckham, Engram and Shepard, compared to his bottom five receiving core, and its a different story. He's light years ahead of Eli when Eli was a rookie, and I was an Eli fan, even though it took him years to finally develop.
Eli put up a 0.0 rating, that everyone loves to toss out there, against a Baltimore Ravens defense that featured 3 Hall of Famers in Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs plus guys like Chris McAlister and Bart Scott. This was before the league fully neutered defenses like it has today. You think Darnold has faced a defense on the same planet as that one at any point this year? Go look at this Miami defense that the Jets just scored 6 points on.
There is pretty much no comparison to be made as far as defense in the league from then and now.
Also funny, I don't remember NYG fans being as patient with Eli as they are with Sam Darnold.
Eli is the ultimate polarizing figure, even among Giants fans. Yet, when discussing almost any other player on this team or another, fans are more objective.
In a way, Eli's lucky that playoff success eluded Peyton for as long as it did, because the comparisons would have become off the charts annoying.
Are you kidding? They've been off the charts annoying since he was drafted.