Figured I'd come at it from a different angle. Granted, many of us have a bias, and believe he will be enshrined in the Hall of Fame.
But give me your best argument that shows specific reasons why Eli Manning would NOT ever receive induction at Canton.
Aaron Rodgers won the MVP, not Brady and Rodgers got 48 out of 50 first places votes with Brees getting the other 2.
Eli and Brady the other two finalists, but it doesn't sound like Eli was particularly close.
The thread is simple. It asks people's opinions if Eli does't get elected to the HOF, why do you think he doesn't get in?
So for you, it's simple, Eli gets in. Others (and IMO especially outside of Giants nation) people disagree - for many of the reasons mentioned.
Good catch on 2011. I remembered that wrong. However, I know what the thread is about and since it's an opinion forum, I gave my opinion. My opinion was questioned and I rebutted.
Are you suggesting that only the people that have an opinion as to why he shouldn't or wouldn't get in can post?
It isn't skewed just to QB's. Sometimes it goes to reputation. Ray Lewis was MVP against us. Sometimes it goes to a highlight play. Larry Brown and Desmond Howard were MVP's.
But let's not be disingenuous like Eli just sat back as the D did the work. He led game winning drives in both games. He was fully deserving.
I mean for fucks sake, we can't even have supposed Giants fans recognize that Eli is deserving
Out of the 53 SBs, the QB received the MVP 29X, or 55%.
The last 25 years? 15 out of 25 winners have been QBs. So 60%.
Basically, every 5 SBs a QB wins the award 3X. In my eyes, that's skewed.
Listen, I get the QB position is the most important position on the field. It draws the biggest spotlight.
But when you hold one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history to 14 points on a neutral field, the D needs to be recognized. No one saw that coming, not even Strahan.
Tuck was marvelous in both SB wins. But he had a much better case in '08 for the MVP. He was clearly the best player on the field that day. That DL knocked the living piss out of Brady all day, and Tuck was an absolute monster. Unblockable.
I'll listen to a case for Eli in 2012, but the football gods saved Eli twice in 2008 - the Samuel INT miss and, more critically, the miraculous catch by Tyree of Eli's wounded duck.
Quote:
Aaron Rodgers won the MVP, not Brady and Rodgers got 48 out of 50 first places votes with Brees getting the other 2.
Eli and Brady the other two finalists, but it doesn't sound like Eli was particularly close.
The thread is simple. It asks people's opinions if Eli does't get elected to the HOF, why do you think he doesn't get in?
So for you, it's simple, Eli gets in. Others (and IMO especially outside of Giants nation) people disagree - for many of the reasons mentioned.
Good catch on 2011. I remembered that wrong. However, I know what the thread is about and since it's an opinion forum, I gave my opinion. My opinion was questioned and I rebutted.
Are you suggesting that only the people that have an opinion as to why he shouldn't or wouldn't get in can post?
No, of course not, my apologies, I didn't read the entire exchange, so i wasn't sure you read the OP. It appears you did, so I will retract my patronizing comment.
Quote:
Best player twice? Well, Eli received the MVP award - true - but that award is way too biased towards the QB. I can make better cases for several of the Dlinemen over Eli in each SB.
It isn't skewed just to QB's. Sometimes it goes to reputation. Ray Lewis was MVP against us. Sometimes it goes to a highlight play. Larry Brown and Desmond Howard were MVP's.
But let's not be disingenuous like Eli just sat back as the D did the work. He led game winning drives in both games. He was fully deserving.
I mean for fucks sake, we can't even have supposed Giants fans recognize that Eli is deserving
It's absolutely skewed toward QBs. Just because there have been non-QBs who have won it doesn't change that. It's fairly obvious that in absence of a no-doubt MVP candidate at another position, the winning QB takes the MVP award. It happens with some degree of regularity, too.
In SB42, you could make a deserving argument for Tyree, or for Strahan, or for Tuck. But since you really couldn't make a case for any of those above the others, Eli certainly appeared to get the benefit of what looked like a crowded field of MVP options. SB46 is way less ambiguous - Eli deserved every shred of that MVP award, IMO.
Why is it a ding against one's fandom to be realistic about how QBs tend to be the default option when the press chooses the SB MVP? Am I seriously less of a fan because I genuinely believed that Tuck or Tyree deserved the MVP in SB42? Last I checked, they were Giants also.
Most HoF QBs lead the league in multiple categories throughout their career.
Not rated highly by most opposition players,
You've got to consider his career low QBR among his contemporaries especially Big Ben, Rivers, Brady, Brees and Rodgers.
Those are reasons to keep him out.
But his amazing longevity and iron man ability - no small feats - have led to what will likely be the 3rd guy to crack 60,000 career yards passing, along with two rings and two super bowl MVP awards.
I think he gets in, but it will take him awhile. Would be amazing, surprising, and fantastic if we could mount another SB run this year, and win a Lombardy.
Of course who knows i his career continues after 2019, although I think its unlikely as a Giant, I definitely can see him playing elsewhere. Maybe for Gruden, if the Carr blows up.
Not rated highly by most opposition players,
You've got to consider his career low QBR among his contemporaries especially Big Ben, Rivers, Brady, Brees and Rodgers.
Those are reasons to keep him out.
But his amazing longevity and iron man ability - no small feats - have led to what will likely be the 3rd guy to crack 60,000 career yards passing, along with two rings and two super bowl MVP awards.
I think he gets in, but it will take him awhile. Would be amazing, surprising, and fantastic if we could mount another SB run this year, and win a Lombardy.
Of course who knows if his career continues after 2019, although I think its unlikely as a Giant, I definitely can see him playing elsewhere. Maybe for Gruden, if the Carr blows up.
The Pats allowed 21 sacks ALL year in 2007. The most in a game was 3 by the four different teams. They averaged 37ppg. The fewest point they scored in a game was 20. After that 24.
Obviously we held them to 14 points. And our D that day registered 5 sacks and at least 15 hits on Brady. It was an absolute beat down. The Pats had NO answers for that DL. Zip.
So to suggest that Eli should have been this runaway winner of the SB trophy is absurd. He played well but the D played extraordinary. One of the great defensive efforts in SB history.
Eli is going to have a lot of competition amongst other QBs slated to retire pretty soon. I actually think if he doesn't get in first or second ballot he may never get in due to the competition from his soon to be retiring peers.
The Pats allowed 21 sacks ALL year in 2007. The most in a game was 3 by the four different teams. They averaged 37ppg. The fewest point they scored in a game was 20. After that 24.
Obviously we held them to 14 points. And our D that day registered 5 sacks and at least 15 hits on Brady. It was an absolute beat down. The Pats had NO answers for that DL. Zip.
So to suggest that Eli should have been this runaway winner of the SB trophy is absurd. He played well but the D played extraordinary. One of the great defensive efforts in SB history.
The defense walked off the field down 14-10 very late. They played well, but they still broke late in the game. They are champions because of what Eli did.
But Simms should be in...
Quote:
Phil Simms Isn’t In.
But Simms should be in...
In what?
Quote:
In comment 14451470 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Phil Simms Isn’t In.
But Simms should be in...
In what?
HOF
The defense walked off the field down 14-10 very late. They played well, but they still broke late in the game. They are champions because of what Eli did.
Serious question - what seemed more likely that day? The Giants scoring 17 points or the Pats scoring 14.
In XLVI the Giants had the ball 37 minutes to 22 for NE. The offense was part of the reason that NE scored only 17 points.
The defense deserves credit for both games, but let's not forget the efficiency of the offense which kept NE off the field.
Even in XLII, NE was sitting on the sideline for the first 10 minutes watching the game. That's one way to keep the score down.
One thing I've come to hate about stats is that they offer a simplified way to evaluate a player that isn't fair to the player. Eli played in a much more difficult offense than many of his counterparts for a long time. A vertical offense that did not emphasize short completions.
Furthermore all the passing stats don't account for the other things a QB must do, including identifying blitzes and calling out protections. They don't account for calm composure and clear communication or leadership in the huddle. They don't account for the defensive strategy faced.
They simply give less-knowledgable fans a way to feel like they really understand this very complicated game and like they are a fair judge of talent and ability. It's ridiculous.
Quote:
The defense walked off the field down 14-10 very late. They played well, but they still broke late in the game. They are champions because of what Eli did.
Serious question - what seemed more likely that day? The Giants scoring 17 points or the Pats scoring 14.
No one is saying the Giants defense did anything other than a great job. The fact remains, they walked off the field as certain losers until Eli turned it around with a historic drive. That is absolutely indisputable. Like I said above I'll listen to arguments on either side, but I can't abide anything that calls Eli's contribution in that game into question to even the slightest degree. If we're listing the people who are most responsible for winning that game, his name is at the top of the list. I can't even consider anyone else.
Quote:
In comment 14451474 adamg said:
Quote:
In comment 14451470 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Phil Simms Isn’t In.
But Simms should be in...
In what?
HOF
I'd love for Simms to be in, but he's got a worse case than Eli.
Just my opinion, but for serious HOF consideration you need three things:
1. Stats (need to be roughly top 10 in [b]most[b] stats for your position at time of retirement and should be a league leader in some stats many times) - part of this comes with longevity - aka the counting stats, but so what, this is the HOF durability/longevity should be a consideration
2. Rings
3. Accolades (MVP's, All-Pro's, Pro-Bowl, awards, etc).
You can be light in one of the three, but if you are you need to be heavy in the others.
Simms checks boxes, but less than Eli. I doubt you get any support for Simms to the HOF outside of NY.
Tiki has a better case.
Simms probably has a better chance as a broadcaster
2) His stats are a result of health, longevity, and the offensive explosion of the league during his career.
3) He's done nothing in his career in the playoff other than two amazing runs. Not counting his rookie season he's gotten the Giants into the playoffs 6 out of 14 seasons and to this point only 2 of his last 10 seasons (of course he won the SB in one of those.)
In XLVI the Giants had the ball 37 minutes to 22 for NE. The offense was part of the reason that NE scored only 17 points.
The defense deserves credit for both games, but let's not forget the efficiency of the offense which kept NE off the field.
Even in XLII, NE was sitting on the sideline for the first 10 minutes watching the game. That's one way to keep the score down.
One thing I've come to hate about stats is that they offer a simplified way to evaluate a player that isn't fair to the player. Eli played in a much more difficult offense than many of his counterparts for a long time. A vertical offense that did not emphasize short completions.
Furthermore all the passing stats don't account for the other things a QB must do, including identifying blitzes and calling out protections. They don't account for calm composure and clear communication or leadership in the huddle. They don't account for the defensive strategy faced.
They simply give less-knowledgable fans a way to feel like they really understand this very complicated game and like they are a fair judge of talent and ability. It's ridiculous.
I've brought this up before. Hell, in 2011, NYG kept the ball away from NE winning the TOP battle 37:05 to 22:55 !!!!!
In XLVI the Giants had the ball 37 minutes to 22 for NE. The offense was part of the reason that NE scored only 17 points.
The defense deserves credit for both games, but let's not forget the efficiency of the offense which kept NE off the field.
Even in XLII, NE was sitting on the sideline for the first 10 minutes watching the game. That's one way to keep the score down.
One thing I've come to hate about stats is that they offer a simplified way to evaluate a player that isn't fair to the player. Eli played in a much more difficult offense than many of his counterparts for a long time. A vertical offense that did not emphasize short completions.
Furthermore all the passing stats don't account for the other things a QB must do, including identifying blitzes and calling out protections. They don't account for calm composure and clear communication or leadership in the huddle. They don't account for the defensive strategy faced.
They simply give less-knowledgable fans a way to feel like they really understand this very complicated game and like they are a fair judge of talent and ability. It's ridiculous.
The TOP argument doesn't hold water. The Pats ran 15 more plays than us in that game.
It also wore down their defense.
I read somewhere, that in real time, Tom Brady sat watching on the sidelines for nearly 60 minutes before taking the field for the first time.
You don't think that has an affect on anything? It sets a tone. And it also limits the touches of the other offense.
So the Patriots had 15 more plays. That wasn't enough to get it done. How many more plays and opportunities would they have had if the TOP had been closer?
They were worn out by the fourth quarter.
That is Joe Montana/Tom Brady level achievement. No one gives Montana shit for only scoring 13 points against Cincinnati before the John Taylor drive. No one gives Brady shit for having a major hand in his team being down 28-3 to Atlanta.
Want to knock him for other aspects of his career, fine. But the level of difficulty, the stakes involved...what Eli did in that game ranks right there with anything any QB has ever done in a single game. There is no downplaying it, not even a little bit.
Because controlling the game isn't the be all end all to winning.
Here is the problem I see with all the negative talk. The Giants were 9-7 in 2012 and Eli was pretty good even as the team began the decline. The O-line really fell apart thereafter and hopefully by 2019 it is fixed.
Are we saying that Eli had a great 2011 and historical playoff run and within two years he fell apart?
Let's try this question. If Eli had a true quality line as he did his first half of his career what would his stats be the last seven years and win totals?
No one is saying the Giants defense did anything other than a great job. The fact remains, they walked off the field as certain losers until Eli turned it around with a historic drive. That is absolutely indisputable. Like I said above I'll listen to arguments on either side, but I can't abide anything that calls Eli's contribution in that game into question to even the slightest degree. If we're listing the people who are most responsible for winning that game, his name is at the top of the list. I can't even consider anyone else.
Pats got the ball back with 30 seconds left at their own 26 and one timeout. A FG ties.
Guess how many yards they got? Minus 10.
Just the exclamation point on a historic performance.
Let’s be honest. The football gods were on Eli’s side for the go ahead drive that day.There was some serious serendipity going around. Samuel had a near interception. And then the play to Tyree. It was a drive that epitomized the saying - “sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good...”
It sort of reminded me of Brady getting the MVP in 2002 versus the Rams. He didn’t deserve it. That Pats D threw an absolute gem that day. Ty Law got totally screwed out of the MVP.
The better case for Eli was 2012.
Quote:
this is misleading:
Quote:
no one with as many losses as him as in the HOF.
Favre has more losses and Brees likely will
Not only did Joe Namath have more losses than wins, but he had more interceptions than touchdowns.
Namath might be the single most overrated player in the history of sports. I'm not sure he's a good argument.
Seriously the ultimate team sport and it's his record .
I have no compelling reason why he should not be .
None !
They may have a problem that he’s overrated but that’s it. Nobody has a problem with Eli especially voters. Why would they?
The case against? Simply not a great player. Never top 5. Almost always out of the top 10. Above average QB but not close to elite. Lot of TOs and a lot of losing. 500 QB, TO machine, & inconsistent player. He shouldn’t get in.
If the national media and opposition players continually default to "Eli sucks", how is he overrated?
Yes, the conversation got a little heated:)
So I guess if we have all Giants fans voting for the HOF he is a shoo in. But without that, could be a challenge.
Namath might be the single most overrated player in the history of sports. I'm not sure he's a good argument.
The stats are certainly underwhelming, even for that much more difficult era.
I’m too young to have seen Namath play live. Only the highlights. My dad saw him a few times and said it was mesmerizing how Namath could throw the ball flat footed.
A few years NFL Films did a great piece on him. The throwing talent just jumped off the screen. When Namath was at Alabama he was a actually a terrific runner with the ball before he tore up his knee his senior year. And back then, joint surgery was not nearly as advanced as today. So Namath basically played his entire NFL career with only one good leg. I think that probably needs to be factored in. And that was an era when hitting the QB was the real deal...
When is the last time you watched SB 42? Because the notion that "the offense didn't do shit" until the last winning drive in the 4th qtr is a crock, flat out wrong.
It's true the offense didn't SCORE very much - only 10 points all game until the last drive. But from the very beginning they ate clock with long sustained drives that kept the Brady Bunch on the Bench, and THAT was as much a key to winning IMO as the great pressure defense and of course Eli's last TD drive that put them ahead.
Long drives through the first half especially, but IIRC also the second half, meant the Pat's D was winded by that drive - that's partly why they couldn't stop Jacobs on 4th and 1 or Steve Smith on third and 10; they were low on gas.
That game was to a fair extent a beat-down on both side of the LOS. Rewatch the very first methodical drive, and see how much time it ate up. Recheck the TOP at halftime.
That team had a nice mix of ground game and passing attack, and if Plax wasn't playing on one leg we prolly would have scored more... Wasn't his TD catch for the win only his 1st or 2nd catch all day? Eli was playing with a short deck that day, and STILL outplayed Brady overall.
That's no small feat.
Well the average fans opinion is pretty worthless.