listening to Sirius/XM NFL radio on way home from work yesterday - Moving the Chains with Jim Miller and Pat Kirwan.
They were talking about the Firing of McCarthy and Kirwan said Rodgers has become a piece of work in Green Bay and then said "I will leave it at that".
It was a very interesting comment especially now that Rodgers has been paid the money and his play has not been good. Now, if that was no. 10, man, we'd be hearing it from the beat writers and so forth.
But I see the same situation in Green Bay that I have in New York. The Packers have not built or given Rodgers help. Based purely on observation, the Packers should be scoring 30 pts a game but they are not. So for those who may watch Green Bay more than I do...what's the issue there?
There is no blame to assign this generational QB, his franchise has failed him.
This is the opposite of the Giants situation where it is old, obsolete and immobile Eli who has been an anchor on the Giants success.
Or, football might be a team game and it is hard to keep a winner going.
😎😎
It's the same boring narrative from the haters.
Excuses all around for the other guys, throw our guy under the bus.
It's the same boring narrative from the haters.
Excuses all around for the other guys, throw our guy under the bus.
Duh, ya think? :)
😎😎
Yeah, it is always like this. Football is the ultimate team sport, by nature of the position QB gets a lot of blame or credit. Some in my view, get way more blame than others. Every game is a referendum on Eli's career and always has been. Rodgers on the other hand has the excuse parade marched out over and over.
As Ive said since 2011, Rodgers would have zero titles if not for our 2010 31-10 meltdown in the Philly game.
Again, I give two shitz whether they are better QBs. Give me my titles, angst and all
The grass isn't always greener, you know?
👍
Prior to this year, Rodgers consistently won when he stayed the starter for the team.
The lack of context is a little alarming in the comparisons.
It is a team game, but the appropriate amount of blame the qbs should have is very different between gb and nyg.
Big Blue '56 : 8:20 am : link : reply
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
Big Blue '56 : 8:20 am : link : reply
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
You forgot to bold even if they are/were better QBs over a career.
There are Eli hater there, but seeing his limitations this stage of his career does not put one in that club.
There are Eli hater there, but seeing his limitations this stage of his career does not put one in that club.
Absolutely not. But he has more championships which is ALL this fan cares about
But who the better player is and who's had a better career is a far different story and should be measured by different criteria.
Winning 2 rings isn't a career measurement. No one thinks Jim Punket had better career than Steve Young, right?
It is a team game, but the appropriate amount of blame the qbs should have is very different between gb and nyg.
Youre right about context. Comparing Rodgers and Eli has always been apples and oranges. And Rodgers stats have been pretty good this season. Elis? No. But Rodgers has always been an imprtovisational player. Elis a pocket passer, where the line play is critical. Hed actually be playing considerably better with GBs line. (The last time I checked anyway, it had a decent rating.)
Listen, Im an Eli homer, but Ive never thought hes been on par with Rodgers. The end results, though, are the same. 4 wins.
But who the better player is and who's had a better career is a far different story and should be measured by different criteria.
Winning 2 rings isn't a career measurement. No one thinks Jim Punket had better career than Steve Young, right?
Morning buddy. No sane fan would ever argue that Eli is or has been better or comparable to Rodgers over their respective careers. You cant. I dont know of anyone who would
Quote:
The cumulative satisfaction of the 2 championships makes being a Giants fan over the span of Manning's career more enjoyable than being a Packers fan over the span of Rodgers. I don't think anyone can honestly argue against that.
But who the better player is and who's had a better career is a far different story and should be measured by different criteria.
Winning 2 rings isn't a career measurement. No one thinks Jim Punket had better career than Steve Young, right?
Morning buddy. No sane fan would ever argue that Eli is or has been better or comparable to Rodgers over their respective careers. You cant. I dont know of anyone who would
Completely agree. Tangent, but I feel like some fans feel like they need to be hyperbolic about Manning, as if his career and achievements alone don't make him great. He is a great quarterback, who's achieved so much.
He's just had the misfortune, reputation wise of playing through 2 eras of fantastic QB play. But who's played at the same time is just background noise to me.
The undisputed quality he should be remembered for is being the toughest QB of his era. He doesn't get nearly enough praise for that.
Also Chris and yes I will take shit for this,
Big Blue '56 : 8:20 am : link : reply
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
You are correct! That is much better!
So you basically took a packer caller who called into boomer and carton and regurgitated it as your own thoughts. You even used hero ball and the big shot down field. Exactly how the caller said it. Man I wish people would either give credit or not post others peoples shit as their own.
lol that so laughably untrue
outside of Jordy Nelson, Rodgers has had a rotating cast of nobodies at WR/TE/RB, not to mention horrible defenses
that statement doesnt put Eli in a better light, it puts guys like Cruz, Burress, Beckham, Nicks, Steve Smith, and Jacobs/Bradshaw in a worse light
Eli's not as good as Rodgers. He's also not as good as Brady. So what? Does that somehow take away from his career or accomplishments, that he doesn't directly measure up against two of the best to ever play the position?
Strahan was no Reggie White either, but I'm still glad he played in a Giants uniform.
But here is where you have your cake and want to eat it too. If Rodgers got them to the playoffs so many year, 9 I believe, and he only has one superbowl win and Eli has been there 6 times and has 2 superbowl victories wouldnt that make him a better quarterback? Or are we going to pick and choose when its an organizational issue, a team effort, the competition, or all just on the QB?
Rogers is a great quarterback no doubt. But you have to give Eli credit where its due as well. Even his two SB teams were not world beaters in the regular season. He made some average receivers and TE's better players.
The year he actually won the Superbowl, they had the 2nd ranked defense in the NFL.
drivel nonsense.
And as far as two championships go, perhaps if Rodgers had defenses that held NE to 14 and 17 points, respectively, things would be different for him.
Instead -- they gave up 51 to Arizona, 37 to NYG, 45 to SF, 44 to ATL. Green Bay has averaged giving up 26.5 points per game in 16 Rodgers playoff games. But by all means, lets pretend Rodgers isnt clutch.
The year he actually won the Superbowl, they had the 2nd ranked defense in the NFL.
In 2011, the Packers defense averaged giving up 19 points per game during their superbowl run. The following year, the NYG defense averaged giving up 14 points per game.
The year he actually won the Superbowl, they had the 2nd ranked defense in the NFL.
So you're making the same damn argument you make for Eli--that he needs help to succeed. Moreover, Rodgers does make his receivers better. Rodgers has largely enjoyed pretty good offensive lines, but his accuracy and mobility have allowed him to make his offensive cast better than the sum of its parts.
Nearly every football claim you make about other QBs is some shadow claim about Eli or is inconsistent with your own previous defenses of Eli.
It's all bullsh-t. All QB's need help. Nobody does it on their own.
You act like that's some kind of universal opinion here, it's not.
Quote:
Meaning they won a playoff game that year too.
But here is where you have your cake and want to eat it too. If Rodgers got them to the playoffs so many year, 9 I believe, and he only has one superbowl win and Eli has been there 6 times and has 2 superbowl victories wouldnt that make him a better quarterback? Or are we going to pick and choose when its an organizational issue, a team effort, the competition, or all just on the QB?
Rogers is a great quarterback no doubt. But you have to give Eli credit where its due as well. Even his two SB teams were not world beaters in the regular season. He made some average receivers and TE's better players.
A lot has gone wrong here.
Eli Needs more help around him than Rodgers does, but suffice it to say Eli hasnt gotten it from NY and Rodgers certainly hasnt gotten it from GB.
You will take shit for it because you will deserve to take shit for it. If you fire up the time machine and put prime Dan Marino on those Giants teams, do you really mean to suggest that they DON'T win with him? Utterly ludicrous.
I've pointed this out before and I'll do so again now: when Marino took over as starter in 1983, the Dolphins still had a great defense, ranked 1st in points allowed and 7th in yards allowed. In year two, when they went to the Super Bowl, they slipped a bit to 7th and 12th. After that? 12/23, 26/26, 16/26, 24/26, 22/24, 4/7, 24/25, 11/10, 24/20, 17/19, 10/16, 17/17, 16/26, 1/3, 19/5. He played almost his entire career with awful defenses, and even when their defense was good in 1990, they allowed 44 points to Buffalo in their playoff loss. Additionally, here are the leading rushers he had over the course of his career: Andra Franklin, Woody Bennett, Tony Nathan, Troy Stradford, Lorenzo Hampton, Sammy Smith, Mark Higgs, Bernie Parmalee, Karim Abdul-Jabbar, JJ Johnson. Abdul-Jabbar in 1996 was the only 1000 yard rusher he ever had. And he never had great receivers, either. Duper and Clayton were good, but hardly Hall of Fame caliber players. Same with Irving Fryar in his later career.
Dan Marino is the poster boy for a franchise wasting its QB with a subpar roster.
Quote:
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career.
You will take shit for it because you will deserve to take shit for it. If you fire up the time machine and put prime Dan Marino on those Giants teams, do you really mean to suggest that they DON'T win with him? Utterly ludicrous.
I've pointed this out before and I'll do so again now: when Marino took over as starter in 1983, the Dolphins still had a great defense, ranked 1st in points allowed and 7th in yards allowed. In year two, when they went to the Super Bowl, they slipped a bit to 7th and 12th. After that? 12/23, 26/26, 16/26, 24/26, 22/24, 4/7, 24/25, 11/10, 24/20, 17/19, 10/16, 17/17, 16/26, 1/3, 19/5. He played almost his entire career with awful defenses, and even when their defense was good in 1990, they allowed 44 points to Buffalo in their playoff loss. Additionally, here are the leading rushers he had over the course of his career: Andra Franklin, Woody Bennett, Tony Nathan, Troy Stradford, Lorenzo Hampton, Sammy Smith, Mark Higgs, Bernie Parmalee, Karim Abdul-Jabbar, JJ Johnson. Abdul-Jabbar in 1996 was the only 1000 yard rusher he ever had. And he never had great receivers, either. Duper and Clayton were good, but hardly Hall of Fame caliber players. Same with Irving Fryar in his later career.
Dan Marino is the poster boy for a franchise wasting its QB with a subpar roster.
This is a pretty good post but I think Duper and Clayton were really good. Simms would have given his left nut for them.
When Marino was in the prime of his career in 1986-89, the Dolphins couldn't even get into the playoffs in a weakass AFC. That's how bad the team around him was.
I'm comparing Rodgers to manning. Rodgers is one of the most talented Qb's to ever play.
It's just a simple philosophy that I believe in and have seen it in action countless times. I've seen it regarding 2011 giving a Eli too much credit for that season. Just as I've seen him take too much blame.
Rodgers is taking heat right now because the team isn't winning. Too much heat. There also have been plenty of times where he was given too much credit for the success of his team.
Yes, Rodgers is more talented than Eli. Hes more talented than pretty much every single QB out there. But Eli is tougher, classier and much more resilient. Hes also a better leader. He embodies the spirit of the Giants too. Give me an Eli Manning and his 2SBMVPS that were won btw by beating Favre AND Rodgers in Lambeau. Hes not as flashy nor as talented, but hes a hell of a lot tougher and so in my mind, better.
As Ive said since 2011, Rodgers would have zero titles if not for our 2010 31-10 meltdown in the Philly game.
Again, I give two shitz whether they are better QBs. Give me my titles, angst and all
That's my thoughts as well. The bottom line is each team sets out with the goal of winning a Super Bowl championship. And while everyone respects talent and enjoys aspects of exciting games played, championships is ultimately how they should be judged.
I think where people get annoyed is that, as WillVAB has said on a couple of threads, Rodgers is given god like status among QB's, that he can overcome every deficiency and is solely responsible for the team's success. That's he's just that good.
Where Eli comes in, is that when you say Eli can't function behind the horrible offensive line we've had for 6 years, you are bombared with "Eli needs perfect conditions to be a good QB, Aaron Rodgers would elevate his team, he would have this same roster winning no problem at all, etc..."
So it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's not Eli vs. Rodgers per se. It's having it thrown in your face in every argument that Rodgers could have this team a winner as constructed, merely because he's Aaron Rodgers.
Frankly, Aaron Rodgers is a lot of flash. He has all the numbers the stats geeks love. But just for instance, against the Giants in 2011, at home in Lambeau, the reigning League MVP, a 15-1 record, 45 TD's and 6 INT's... couldn't put up more than 20 points on the Giants 25th ranked defense. And yeah, his receivers dropped some passes, but he missed some too. Including a wide open, nobody around him within 10 yards, Jordy Nelson on the first drive which would have been a TD. A throw that if Eli missed, would still be talked about today as costing us the Superbowl (even though it was the first playoff game) years later.
The comparison is the optics on both, not directly to each other.
I think where people get annoyed is that, as WillVAB has said on a couple of threads, Rodgers is given god like status among QB's, that he can overcome every deficiency and is solely responsible for the team's success. That's he's just that good.
Where Eli comes in, is that when you say Eli can't function behind the horrible offensive line we've had for 6 years, you are bombared with "Eli needs perfect conditions to be a good QB, Aaron Rodgers would elevate his team, he would have this same roster winning no problem at all, etc..."
So it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's not Eli vs. Rodgers per se. It's having it thrown in your face in every argument that Rodgers could have this team a winner as constructed, merely because he's Aaron Rodgers.
Frankly, Aaron Rodgers is a lot of flash. He has all the numbers the stats geeks love. But just for instance, against the Giants in 2011, at home in Lambeau, the reigning League MVP, a 15-1 record, 45 TD's and 6 INT's... couldn't put up more than 20 points on the Giants 25th ranked defense. And yeah, his receivers dropped some passes, but he missed some too. Including a wide open, nobody around him within 10 yards, Jordy Nelson on the first drive which would have been a TD. A throw that if Eli missed, would still be talked about today as costing us the Superbowl (even though it was the first playoff game) years later.
The comparison is the optics on both, not directly to each other.
This pretty much sums it up.
Quote:
sure, but that still doesnt make comparing eli to rodgers rational.....
I'm comparing Rodgers to manning. Rodgers is one of the most talented Qb's to ever play.
It's just a simple philosophy that I believe in and have seen it in action countless times. I've seen it regarding 2011 giving a Eli too much credit for that season. Just as I've seen him take too much blame.
Rodgers is taking heat right now because the team isn't winning. Too much heat. There also have been plenty of times where he was given too much credit for the success of his team.
The 2011 passing game highlighted by Eli's clutch heroics carried the Giants too a title. Eli set season record for 4th quarter TD'S and passing yards in a playoff.
This is before the game winning Super Bowl drive. This is called delivering the goods. Giants went through Rodgers' best team like shit through a goose to boot. All time QB play and accomplishment 2011. Eli was the real MVP.
I think where people get annoyed is that, as WillVAB has said on a couple of threads, Rodgers is given god like status among QB's, that he can overcome every deficiency and is solely responsible for the team's success. That's he's just that good.
Where Eli comes in, is that when you say Eli can't function behind the horrible offensive line we've had for 6 years, you are bombared with "Eli needs perfect conditions to be a good QB, Aaron Rodgers would elevate his team, he would have this same roster winning no problem at all, etc..."
So it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's not Eli vs. Rodgers per se. It's having it thrown in your face in every argument that Rodgers could have this team a winner as constructed, merely because he's Aaron Rodgers.
Frankly, Aaron Rodgers is a lot of flash. He has all the numbers the stats geeks love. But just for instance, against the Giants in 2011, at home in Lambeau, the reigning League MVP, a 15-1 record, 45 TD's and 6 INT's... couldn't put up more than 20 points on the Giants 25th ranked defense. And yeah, his receivers dropped some passes, but he missed some too. Including a wide open, nobody around him within 10 yards, Jordy Nelson on the first drive which would have been a TD. A throw that if Eli missed, would still be talked about today as costing us the Superbowl (even though it was the first playoff game) years later.
The comparison is the optics on both, not directly to each other.
This is all bluster. QBs can be different types of players and still be compared. Eli and Michael Vick were completely different, but I'd take the former because his floor (because of his durability and greater consistency in making harder throws) is higher. Eli and Rodgers are closer in style than Eli and Vick. QBs are not incommensurables. Rodgers has categorically been a much better player than Eli his entire career. To even suggest otherwise (which you, unsurprisingly are doing) is ridiculous. It's the sort of thing that doesn't even have to be argued. It should be damn premise to any comparative conversation about the two.
Now reverse it. The Giants are 15-1 and lose at home in the playoffs to a 9-7 wildcard team with the 25th ranked defense in 2011. Eli misses a wide open Hakeem Nicks on the first drive and we get beat.
How do you think that's discussed, here?
But because it's Aaron Rodgers, it gets excused away.
I can claim that Adrian Beltre is slightly underrated and A-Rod slightly overrated, and still acknowledge that the latter is lightyears better.
Quote:
directly. They're not. Completely different skill sets, completely different QB's.
I think where people get annoyed is that, as WillVAB has said on a couple of threads, Rodgers is given god like status among QB's, that he can overcome every deficiency and is solely responsible for the team's success. That's he's just that good.
Where Eli comes in, is that when you say Eli can't function behind the horrible offensive line we've had for 6 years, you are bombared with "Eli needs perfect conditions to be a good QB, Aaron Rodgers would elevate his team, he would have this same roster winning no problem at all, etc..."
So it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's not Eli vs. Rodgers per se. It's having it thrown in your face in every argument that Rodgers could have this team a winner as constructed, merely because he's Aaron Rodgers.
Frankly, Aaron Rodgers is a lot of flash. He has all the numbers the stats geeks love. But just for instance, against the Giants in 2011, at home in Lambeau, the reigning League MVP, a 15-1 record, 45 TD's and 6 INT's... couldn't put up more than 20 points on the Giants 25th ranked defense. And yeah, his receivers dropped some passes, but he missed some too. Including a wide open, nobody around him within 10 yards, Jordy Nelson on the first drive which would have been a TD. A throw that if Eli missed, would still be talked about today as costing us the Superbowl (even though it was the first playoff game) years later.
The comparison is the optics on both, not directly to each other.
This is all bluster. QBs can be different types of players and still be compared. Eli and Michael Vick were completely different, but I'd take the former because his floor (because of his durability and greater consistency in making harder throws) is higher. Eli and Rodgers are closer in style than Eli and Vick. QBs are not incommensurables. Rodgers has categorically been a much better player than Eli his entire career. To even suggest otherwise (which you, unsurprisingly are doing) is ridiculous. It's the sort of thing that doesn't even have to be argued. It should be damn premise to any comparative conversation about the two.
I have never suggested that Eli Manning is a better Quarterback than Aaron Rodgers.
NO WAY!!!!!!!
I've pointed this out before and I'll do so again now: when Marino took over as starter in 1983, the Dolphins still had a great defense, ranked 1st in points allowed and 7th in yards allowed. In year two, when they went to the Super Bowl, they slipped a bit to 7th and 12th. After that? 12/23, 26/26, 16/26, 24/26, 22/24, 4/7, 24/25, 11/10, 24/20, 17/19, 10/16, 17/17, 16/26, 1/3, 19/5. He played almost his entire career with awful defenses
2007 Giants 17/7
2011 Giants 25/27
Maybe they don't win it all. Marino was a turnover machine too and was piss poor at play action over the course of 17 years.
It does take a team but it's hardly a shoe in swapping quarterbacks. Especially 2011.
Don't be too hard on the Pack that year, they lost to the best.
Quote:
course of his career than Eli...
lol that so laughably untrue
outside of Jordy Nelson, Rodgers has had a rotating cast of nobodies at WR/TE/RB, not to mention horrible defenses
that statement doesnt put Eli in a better light, it puts guys like Cruz, Burress, Beckham, Nicks, Steve Smith, and Jacobs/Bradshaw in a worse light
The difference is Rodgers has been consistently elite.
Eli not close to that.
Thats why Rodgers may not get the same abuse for a single loss or missing an open guy.
For example, Elis 2008 playoff performance vs PHI. 50% passing. 170 yards. 2 Ints including a 7 point gift on a terrible floater from his goal line that gave them the ball at our 2 yard line. We scored 9 points on offense that day. Runnng game was working. Defense played exceptional. ST had a 70 yard return. Eli? Awful all day.
Rodgers
2011, yeah, not a good defense on the whole, but somehow they were transformed in the postseason. Pitched a shutout in Atlanta (only points were on the safety), held the Packers to 20 which included the scoring drive kept alive by the horrendous roughing the passer on Osi, and 17 points in both the title game and the Super Bowl. I have no explanation for how they did that, but somehow it happened. If the defense played the way they did for most of the season, they don't win.
Quote:
comments
NO WAY!!!!!!!
WAY!!!!! Truth hurts :)
Quote:
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
As Ive said since 2011, Rodgers would have zero titles if not for our 2010 31-10 meltdown in the Philly game.
Again, I give two shitz whether they are better QBs. Give me my titles, angst and all
That's my thoughts as well. The bottom line is each team sets out with the goal of winning a Super Bowl championship. And while everyone respects talent and enjoys aspects of exciting games played, championships is ultimately how they should be judged.
So I guess you'll take Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles over Dan Marino and Dan Fouts.
There are fans such as myself, who care more about championships than great QB performances. Hence, Im more than happy to suffer through the shit thats happened to the team these last bunch of years to have 2 SB titles the last 10 years.
For THIS fan, its a no-brainer
Hence a lot of the points above because if Eli did the same people such as yourself would be the 1st to call him out...and the Giants failure has been far worse...
Quote:
In comment 14204920 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
I will always take an Eli over a Marino, Rodgers and Brees because he has as many SB wins than those QBs combined, even if they are/were better QBs over a career..
As Ive said since 2011, Rodgers would have zero titles if not for our 2010 31-10 meltdown in the Philly game.
Again, I give two shitz whether they are better QBs. Give me my titles, angst and all
That's my thoughts as well. The bottom line is each team sets out with the goal of winning a Super Bowl championship. And while everyone respects talent and enjoys aspects of exciting games played, championships is ultimately how they should be judged.
So I guess you'll take Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles over Dan Marino and Dan Fouts.
It depends on the discussion. If we are simply trying to say which was more skilled throughout his career, then no. But if you are asking if I would give up the Super Bowl the Giants won with Hoss in order to have had either of those guys then that would be hard to do. Kind of like taking points off the board when a coach can choose to accept a penalty on a FG in order for the chance at a TD. It's a risky move. Of course this is all hypothetical but as good as those guys were there are no guarantees the Giants ever get that second one if either of those two replace Hoss.
Hypothetically and knowing the Giants got the championship would you give up Hoss for Mariono for the chance of his not only also winning that one but more?
Along those lines I bet most great skilled QB's who never won a ring would trade some of their stats for a ring or two if they could. That is the goal they all strive for their entire careers.
Uh, yes. A million times over.
This concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl is simply ridiculous. Marino and Fouts were two of the greatest QBs ever. That they didn't win a super bowl doesn't detract from that.
Uh, yes. A million times over.
This concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl is simply ridiculous. Marino and Fouts were two of the greatest QBs ever. That they didn't win a super bowl doesn't detract from that.
Surprised, I don't think I ever heard a fan say he would trade in one of our Super Bowl wins before this.
Quote:
Hypothetically and knowing the Giants got the championship would you give up Hoss for Mariono for the chance of his not only also winning that one but more?
Uh, yes. A million times over.
This concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl is simply ridiculous. Marino and Fouts were two of the greatest QBs ever. That they didn't win a super bowl doesn't detract from that.
Surprised, I don't think I ever heard a fan say he would trade in one of our Super Bowl wins before this.
They would have won 4 with Marino.
Quote:
course of his career than Eli...
lol that so laughably untrue
outside of Jordy Nelson, Rodgers has had a rotating cast of nobodies at WR/TE/RB, not to mention horrible defenses
that statement doesnt put Eli in a better light, it puts guys like Cruz, Burress, Beckham, Nicks, Steve Smith, and Jacobs/Bradshaw in a worse light
Davante Adams and Randall Cobb are nobodies? Eddie Lacy had a couple 1100 yard seasons before he got fat. When he started out he still had Greg Jennings and Donald Driver putting up 1000 yards seasons. Ryan Grant had 1200 yards rushing in AR's first two years as starter. You don't have a lot of credibility in your argument when you dismiss that kind of production...
Uh, yes. A million times over.
This concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl is simply ridiculous. Marino and Fouts were two of the greatest QBs ever. That they didn't win a super bowl doesn't detract from that.
And yet the concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl was the exact foundation of the judgment of Marino and Peyton before he finally got over the hump...
Quote:
Hypothetically and knowing the Giants got the championship would you give up Hoss for Mariono for the chance of his not only also winning that one but more?
Uh, yes. A million times over.
This concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl is simply ridiculous. Marino and Fouts were two of the greatest QBs ever. That they didn't win a super bowl doesn't detract from that.
And yet the concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl was the exact foundation of the judgment of Marino and Peyton before he finally got over the hump...
By whom? Idiots at ESPN and talk radio?
There are fans such as myself, who care more about championships than great QB performances. Hence, Im more than happy to suffer through the shit thats happened to the team these last bunch of years to have 2 SB titles the last 10 years.
For THIS fan, its a no-brainer
I respect this but, man, it's been tough to go through the last 5-6 years watching Aaron Rodgers and others have yearly playoff games while the Giants have been out of it by mid November and winning meaningless games against backup QBs.
I loved the end result of 2011 and I think Eli had his truly elite season that year but while it's always great to win a SB, it directly set up these last 6 years of crappy football when management thought they could keep pushing for another title with the same cast.
Quote:
We recognize that Aaron Rodgers, career-wise, is the better QB, probably top 5 all-time.
There are fans such as myself, who care more about championships than great QB performances. Hence, Im more than happy to suffer through the shit thats happened to the team these last bunch of years to have 2 SB titles the last 10 years.
For THIS fan, its a no-brainer
I respect this but, man, it's been tough to go through the last 5-6 years watching Aaron Rodgers and others have yearly playoff games while the Giants have been out of it by mid November and winning meaningless games against backup QBs.
I loved the end result of 2011 and I think Eli had his truly elite season that year but while it's always great to win a SB, it directly set up these last 6 years of crappy football when management thought they could keep pushing for another title with the same cast.
Of course its tough going through this
Quote:
In comment 14205405 jeff57 said:
Quote:
Hypothetically and knowing the Giants got the championship would you give up Hoss for Mariono for the chance of his not only also winning that one but more?
Uh, yes. A million times over.
This concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl is simply ridiculous. Marino and Fouts were two of the greatest QBs ever. That they didn't win a super bowl doesn't detract from that.
And yet the concept of evaluating a QB based on whether he's won a super bowl was the exact foundation of the judgment of Marino and Peyton before he finally got over the hump...
By whom? Idiots at ESPN and talk radio?
Maybe you slept through the years of Brady vs Manning debates by everyone from the drunk at the corner bar to NFL execs...
Quote:
In comment 14204995 JCin332 said:
Quote:
course of his career than Eli...
lol that so laughably untrue
outside of Jordy Nelson, Rodgers has had a rotating cast of nobodies at WR/TE/RB, not to mention horrible defenses
that statement doesnt put Eli in a better light, it puts guys like Cruz, Burress, Beckham, Nicks, Steve Smith, and Jacobs/Bradshaw in a worse light
Davante Adams and Randall Cobb are nobodies?
Yes they are.
Put them on Tennessee and you would have no idea who they were.
Eli and Rodgers. There is no comparison. Eli isnt close. He doesnt do anything better and in most areas is far behind Rodgers. Its like comparing Jarvis Landry to Jerry Rice. Its a different league.
Rodgers is an all time great.
Eli has been good at times but inconsistent and limited. He has 2 SBs. You dont take him over Rodgers because his team won 1 more SB. Thats crazy talk.
I think where people get annoyed is that, as WillVAB has said on a couple of threads, Rodgers is given god like status among QB's, that he can overcome every deficiency and is solely responsible for the team's success. That's he's just that good.
Where Eli comes in, is that when you say Eli can't function behind the horrible offensive line we've had for 6 years, you are bombared with "Eli needs perfect conditions to be a good QB, Aaron Rodgers would elevate his team, he would have this same roster winning no problem at all, etc..."
So it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's not Eli vs. Rodgers per se. It's having it thrown in your face in every argument that Rodgers could have this team a winner as constructed, merely because he's Aaron Rodgers.
Frankly, Aaron Rodgers is a lot of flash. He has all the numbers the stats geeks love. But just for instance, against the Giants in 2011, at home in Lambeau, the reigning League MVP, a 15-1 record, 45 TD's and 6 INT's... couldn't put up more than 20 points on the Giants 25th ranked defense. And yeah, his receivers dropped some passes, but he missed some too. Including a wide open, nobody around him within 10 yards, Jordy Nelson on the first drive which would have been a TD. A throw that if Eli missed, would still be talked about today as costing us the Superbowl (even though it was the first playoff game) years later.
The comparison is the optics on both, not directly to each other.
Well said
Sports are funny. Nothing is black and white.
And no Barkley or tiki in that backfield. And those defenses on the whole were worse than what Giants have had over last decade.
As usual, certain members of the pro Eli mob thinks they can discredit the entire Giants org in propping him up. No surprise there.
the original premise is fine. Arod is a dick. Turning this into an opportunity to compare Eli and him and justify Eli not being successful by pointing out Arod is where this thread went bad.
Davante Adams is a flat out stud.
And Greg Jennings was a damn fine WR. And sterling shepard hasnt been nearly as good as Cobb either.
I mean Greg Jennings was a machine for Rodgers when he get the job.
Davante Adams is a flat out stud.
And Greg Jennings was a damn fine WR. And sterling shepard hasnt been nearly as good as Cobb either.
I doubt either Greg Jennings or Davante Adams have anywhere near the success they have had with Eli. See GJ after he left Minny. And I feel comfortable arguing that SS would be a better WR with Rodgers. I like Eli as a person much better than Rodgers. Eli is my favorite Giant ever. But Eli is not Rodgers and never will be. And it's not close.
But to say he has one good skilled player is just not true.
Quote:
Then Steve Smith, Hakeem Nicks, Sterling Shepard, Mario manningham and Amani toomer (Eli years) are nobodies.
Davante Adams is a flat out stud.
And Greg Jennings was a damn fine WR. And sterling shepard hasnt been nearly as good as Cobb either.
I doubt either Greg Jennings or Davante Adams have anywhere near the success they have had with Eli. See GJ after he left Minny. And I feel comfortable arguing that SS would be a better WR with Rodgers. I like Eli as a person much better than Rodgers. Eli is my favorite Giant ever. But Eli is not Rodgers and never will be. And it's not close.
After he left GB of course.
And yes, putting Shepard on GB and he has a big jump in production.
As someone else said, I'd put Jordy Nelson above these people and Odell way above everybody.
All these years later Toomer is still underrated, this time by a Giants fan smh.
Quote:
Then Steve Smith, Hakeem Nicks, Sterling Shepard, Mario manningham and Amani toomer (Eli years) are nobodies
All these years later Toomer is still underrated, this time by a Giants fan smh.
Lol... I would explain how my post went over your head... but Id be wasting my breath.
As someone else said, I'd put Jordy Nelson above these people and Odell way above everybody.
The problem is Nicks and Cruz has 2 1/2 peak years then they really bottomed out. So we have no clue how great they could have unfortunately. Together, they were lethal and unstoppable.
One thing to remember Adams is only 26 after this year. Hes a monster.
Yes, Rodgers is more talented than Eli. Hes more talented than pretty much every single QB out there. But Eli is tougher, classier and much more resilient. Hes also a better leader. He embodies the spirit of the Giants too. Give me an Eli Manning and his 2SBMVPS that were won btw by beating Favre AND Rodgers in Lambeau. Hes not as flashy nor as talented, but hes a hell of a lot tougher and so in my mind, better.
Wait, you wrote this with a straight face?
Eli is tougher? What exactly is this based on?
In 14 years as starter, Eli has been sacked 400X. In 11 years as starter, Rodgers has been sacked 398X. Rodgers has "led" the league in being sacked twice, and each of those year he was sacked 50X+. He's ben sacked over 30X in eight years. Eli has been sacked over 30X just four times in his career.
Rodgers hangs in the pocket as well as anyone we've ever seen (Roeth is very similar). He is willing to wait as long as possible to make a play. Yet, he still throws few interceptions and has a great completion percentage. He's not dropping into the fetal position when the rush is coming. He doesn't feel the ghosts. He doesn't feebly throw the ball away to avoid sacks.
So how the hell is that not a sign of toughness? How the hell can you conclude that Eli is somehow tougher?
i personally think adams is the result of no other better looks elsewhere. i think peak nicks was far better. he had to share balls in the giants o.
arguing about the o line in recent years is one think, saying in his career rodgers has had better skill talent is total bunk.
Quote:
In comment 14205784 dep026 said:
Quote:
Then Steve Smith, Hakeem Nicks, Sterling Shepard, Mario manningham and Amani toomer (Eli years) are nobodies
All these years later Toomer is still underrated, this time by a Giants fan smh.
Lol... I would explain how my post went over your head... but Id be wasting my breath.
By all means do.
Quote:
In comment 14205817 Default said:
Quote:
In comment 14205784 dep026 said:
Quote:
Then Steve Smith, Hakeem Nicks, Sterling Shepard, Mario manningham and Amani toomer (Eli years) are nobodies
All these years later Toomer is still underrated, this time by a Giants fan smh.
Lol... I would explain how my post went over your head... but Id be wasting my breath.
By all means do.
I am not discrediting our players... what I am saying is davante Adams is a really really good football player.
Quote:
Toughness and resiliency trumping talent.
Yes, Rodgers is more talented than Eli. Hes more talented than pretty much every single QB out there. But Eli is tougher, classier and much more resilient. Hes also a better leader. He embodies the spirit of the Giants too. Give me an Eli Manning and his 2SBMVPS that were won btw by beating Favre AND Rodgers in Lambeau. Hes not as flashy nor as talented, but hes a hell of a lot tougher and so in my mind, better.
Wait, you wrote this with a straight face?
Eli is tougher? What exactly is this based on?
In 14 years as starter, Eli has been sacked 400X. In 11 years as starter, Rodgers has been sacked 398X. Rodgers has "led" the league in being sacked twice, and each of those year he was sacked 50X+. He's ben sacked over 30X in eight years. Eli has been sacked over 30X just four times in his career.
Rodgers hangs in the pocket as well as anyone we've ever seen (Roeth is very similar). He is willing to wait as long as possible to make a play. Yet, he still throws few interceptions and has a great completion percentage. He's not dropping into the fetal position when the rush is coming. He doesn't feel the ghosts. He doesn't feebly throw the ball away to avoid sacks.
So how the hell is that not a sign of toughness? How the hell can you conclude that Eli is somehow tougher?
Basically, I can conclude it because I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. I not only wrote it with a straight face, I pumped my fist after I wrote it. Lol. Ok? Mental toughness is also a major part of toughness and something you completely overlooked. Eli has it in spades over sensitive Rodgers.
I have no doubt that Eli dropping into the fetal position on certain plays contributed to their SB seasons. Had he not (which btw, he NEVER does that with games on the line) its possible Eli gets seriously injured, OR sack fumbles the ball. When the game was on the line and it was a do or die moment, Eli, every damn time stood tall in the pocket and got crushed and delivered the ball. So excuse me, but screw you if you think he is cowardly.
Basically, I can conclude it because I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. I not only wrote it with a straight face, I pumped my fist after I wrote it. Lol. Ok? Mental toughness is also a major part of toughness and something you completely overlooked. Eli has it in spades over sensitive Rodgers.
I have no doubt that Eli dropping into the fetal position on certain plays contributed to their SB seasons. Had he not (which btw, he NEVER does that with games on the line) its possible Eli gets seriously injured, OR sack fumbles the ball. When the game was on the line and it was a do or die moment, Eli, every damn time stood tall in the pocket and got crushed and delivered the ball. So excuse me, but screw you if you think he is cowardly.
I guess fair enough...
But I didnt say Eli was cowardly, I challenged you that Rodgers wasnt tough. And I at least attempted to support that reasoning.
And just for the record, Eli has 120 career fumbles. Rodgers 77. So lets steer away from any attempt to suggest Eli is some great protector of the rock. In fact, that may be his biggest weakness.
If you dont think it takes mental toughness to hang in the pocket like Rodgers does, and then extend the play with his mobility (putting himself even more a risk), then Im even more dubious of your understanding of the game.
Comparing the optics on both, and how both are perceived/treated is the heart of this issue.
Quote:
In comment 14205005 Default said:
Quote:
In comment 14204995 JCin332 said:
Quote:
course of his career than Eli...
lol that so laughably untrue
outside of Jordy Nelson, Rodgers has had a rotating cast of nobodies at WR/TE/RB, not to mention horrible defenses
that statement doesnt put Eli in a better light, it puts guys like Cruz, Burress, Beckham, Nicks, Steve Smith, and Jacobs/Bradshaw in a worse light
Davante Adams and Randall Cobb are nobodies?
Yes they are.
Put them on Tennessee and you would have no idea who they were.
I see we've entered the stage of BBI "debate" where people just say bullshit to prop up their opinions. Have fun, kids...
O-line has always been the issue people have had where the front office failed.
Rodgers is 0-37 when trailing against teams with winning records in the 4th quarter. Don't shoot the messanger. Just passing what I heard.
Oh yeah right ... they were 0-0 back then so it doesn't count.
What a stupid, mindless stat
Oh yeah right ... they were 0-0 back then so it doesn't count.
What a stupid, mindless stat
Yeah dont shoot the messenger.... it didnt make sense then and it doesnt even make sense now.
Oh yeah right ... they were 0-0 back then so it doesn't count.
What a stupid, mindless stat
What makes it worse is they dont count if Rodgers takes the lead in the 4th and the defense gives it back.
Very stupid stat. I shouldnt have posted it.
Quote:
Didn't they come back from 21-3 down in 4q just this year against the bears??
Oh yeah right ... they were 0-0 back then so it doesn't count.
What a stupid, mindless stat
What makes it worse is they dont count if Rodgers takes the lead in the 4th and the defense gives it back.
Very stupid stat. I shouldnt have posted it.
That stat was ferociously repeated on twitter, but it's one of those "stats" that are a really bad lie. USA today had a field day ripping it to shreds.
Of course, if you feel like Rodgers gets too much praise, it's easy to spin it as truth.
Quote:
Didn't they come back from 21-3 down in 4q just this year against the bears??
Oh yeah right ... they were 0-0 back then so it doesn't count.
What a stupid, mindless stat
What makes it worse is they dont count if Rodgers takes the lead in the 4th and the defense gives it back.
Very stupid stat. I shouldnt have posted it.
Doesn't count playoffs in the stat either. It's mindless spin.