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?
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. He’s more talented than pretty much every single QB out there. But Eli is tougher, classier and much more resilient. He’s 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. He’s not as flashy nor as talented, but he’s a hell of a lot tougher and so in my mind, better.
As I’ve 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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.
That’s why Rodgers may not get the same abuse for a single loss or missing an open guy.
For example, Eli’s 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 I’ve 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, I’m more than happy to suffer through the shit that’s happened to the team these last bunch of years to have 2 SB titles the last 10 years.
For THIS fan, it’s 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 I’ve 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 doesn’t 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, I’m more than happy to suffer through the shit that’s happened to the team these last bunch of years to have 2 SB titles the last 10 years.
For THIS fan, it’s 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, I’m more than happy to suffer through the shit that’s happened to the team these last bunch of years to have 2 SB titles the last 10 years.
For THIS fan, it’s 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 it’s 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 doesn’t 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 isn’t close. He doesn’t do anything better and in most areas is far behind Rodgers. It’s like comparing Jarvis Landry to Jerry Rice. It’s a different league.
Rodgers is an all time great.
Eli has been good at times but inconsistent and limited. He has 2 SBs. You don’t take him over Rodgers because his team won 1 more SB. That’s 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.