Between 2 Super Bowls. Either one could have played well in the other guy’s era.
When Eli was “struggling” he was winning 11 games and throwing for 4000 + yards and actually playing every game. Then he made the playoffs again. And then he made the playoffs yet again and led the team to a super bowl. Simms was in the tub or on the bench throughout the first five years of his career.
Some weird takes here. Simms had more tools and arm strength? Please. He threw a prettier seam pass and that’s it. Eli had pedigree, collegiate production and could make all the throws coming out of ole miss. He was considered the best qb and player in a loaded draft for good reason. It wasn’t just the last name and anyone implying otherwise then or now is an idiot.
They were different players with different styles. Simms hung in the pocket more and took more hits. This was both a virtue and a dangerous aspect of his game. Simms could run faster early on but that didn’t last, by the time 84 rolled around he was not very mobile. Both were very smart. Both were very tough. When the teams were in place, both delivered big time. When shit went south, they sufferered. Eli lasted longer and played on some truly dismal teams from 13-19. Simms endured trashy teams while he was also hurt and then got benched when the handley era would have hurt his won loss record.
Gun to my head I don’t even think twice. I’m taking Eli. He never got hurt and could beat any team on any ground. Simms was close, but not quite as good and virtually every metric supports this. But yes it’s close.
there is a rating that has a 100 as league average. phil was above average or average every single season after 1980.’. only 79 and 80 were below. he has a high of 120.
in 1990. Eli was below average as often as above and his peaks are not as good as phil’s.
it’s geek stats for sure but i find it more useful than comparing yardage td and int across eras.
and had 2 epic playoff runs. However I'd be hard pressed to find a Giant's QB who threw a better ball than Phil. As you can see in all those recently posted highlights from the 80's/90's he literally placed 30/40yd passes on receiver's finger tips with regularity.
RE: Love Phil but Eli was the better all around QB
and had 2 epic playoff runs. However I'd be hard pressed to find a Giant's QB who threw a better ball than Phil. As you can see in all those recently posted highlights from the 80's/90's he literally placed 30/40yd passes on receiver's finger tips with regularity.
Yeah, Simms (along with Collins) threw the best ball in Giants history, IMO.
Thought Phil he was delayed due to early bad coaching decisions. He was a better thrower, had some good comebacks (Vikings comes to mind). Had the best of all time player in LT and best LBs ever in Giants history, Very average Wrs., good backs, good line, different era.
Eli, was allowed to make mistakes. Had a difficult offense to master (Gilbride). Had good Wr's good defensive line, decent OL early then bad later. Eli had a knack of pulling more games out of his hat. Healthy his whole career
My overall thought was Simms was better day to day, but Eli was best on his best days. 2 great QBs
For me, Phil, without hesitation was the better quarterback. Better athlete, better arm, and in some ways a better leader.
I saw both play in person, tv etc.
I dont remember Phil being a "better athlete", he was a statue out there. Got crushed in the pocket with SF, Dallas, Bears defenses.
As I stated in another thread, Phil was more consistent, but Eli had great "best" games. Phil's Superbowl is one for the record on stats, but Eli seemed to play big in the moment.
and it's not even close. When you consider the wr's Phil had, the era he played in, the pounding he took, I'd stand with Phil.
Anyone saying it’s not even close for Phil is not being objective in my view. Not even close? You make it sound like Eli player with HOFers all over the offense. In reality he didn’t play with one.
Go back to the 2009 season. Rookie nicks. Second year 3rd rounder manningham. 2nd year Steve Smith. Average at best tight ends and an overrated running game that never really got on track that year. 404 pts scored. 427 pts allowed! As usual, much like every other year when Eli was under center, the defense shit the bed. But it was always Eli’s fault. He carried this franchise more often than not.
So many seasons were wasted despite the offense delivering time and time again when Eli was playing. 2009. 2010 and I’m blaming the D for that year because they blew it against Philly. 2012 offense scored 429 pts and missed the playoffs. 2013 was brutal I’ll put that year’s failure on the O but really it was on Reese and coughlin for failing to see that collapse coming. 2014? 380 pts scored, not bad at all. 6 wins. Defense sucked. 2015? 420 pts scored. 6 wins....
Eli was criminally underrated here over the second half of his career becsuse the offense scored pts but the team lost a lot of games. 2013 and 2017 were the exceptions. Every other year Eli and the offense delivered adequate or better results, and with little to no offensive talent save for Beckham. Literally, Beckham and a bunch of slobs.
Although the 85 team scored 399. Scoring was around 20.5 a game in 86 compared to 21.5 in 2009.
Eli was just a more dynamic qb and offensive presence, at least to this eye he was. He played more. He scored more pts. He was more prolific. He had a bigger star power aura to me and for good reason. Simms did play in a different era with different rules and on a team with different philosophies so it’s apples and oranges, but I think fans were always too hard on Eli especially when the team sucked. The stats show it to be true that while flawed and far from perfect, the Eli led offenses usually did its part, or at least did as much as the could with what they had. Eli never really had a bad year if the offense was in place. 1989 simms? He wasn’t that good that year, admittedly so. Granted he lost Bavaro that year and was a training camp holdout, something Eli never had to deal with.
But Simms never had to carry a team the way Eli did down the stretch in 2011. Not saying Simms couldn't, but he never had to.
Tell you what though--put Barkley back behind the 1986 line, with Carthon and you'd be wondering if he could break 3000 yards in a season.
You put Barkley onhe 1986 Giants you'd have a 6.0 ypc guy. His size and speed combination would have have been harder for smaller defenses to stop. Different era and such.
He played well, QB rating was 92.9, but the team was 9-7.
In 1990, Simms QB rating was 92.7 and the team was 12-2 when he broke his leg.
There just isn't any evidence to clearly say Eli was better, relatively speaking. They were both great for their times
The difference is that Simms was carried by the best defense in the league and a very good running game. Whereas Eli carried a very bad defense and terrible running game into the playoffs. The '11 defense came alive and the running game improved at the end of the year, all peaking at the right time to come out of nowhere and win a Super Bowl. But Eli put that team on his back and was insanely clutch all season long.
That QB Rating for Simms is impressive, especially relative to his era. But there's just no comparison between 1990 Simms and 2011 Eli. Simms was asked to be a game manager and do just enough, Eli was asked to do as much as possible and he did.
When Eli was “struggling” he was winning 11 games and throwing for 4000 + yards and actually playing every game. Then he made the playoffs again. And then he made the playoffs yet again and led the team to a super bowl. Simms was in the tub or on the bench throughout the first five years of his career.
Some weird takes here. Simms had more tools and arm strength? Please. He threw a prettier seam pass and that’s it. Eli had pedigree, collegiate production and could make all the throws coming out of ole miss. He was considered the best qb and player in a loaded draft for good reason. It wasn’t just the last name and anyone implying otherwise then or now is an idiot.
They were different players with different styles. Simms hung in the pocket more and took more hits. This was both a virtue and a dangerous aspect of his game. Simms could run faster early on but that didn’t last, by the time 84 rolled around he was not very mobile. Both were very smart. Both were very tough. When the teams were in place, both delivered big time. When shit went south, they sufferered. Eli lasted longer and played on some truly dismal teams from 13-19. Simms endured trashy teams while he was also hurt and then got benched when the handley era would have hurt his won loss record.
Gun to my head I don’t even think twice. I’m taking Eli. He never got hurt and could beat any team on any ground. Simms was close, but not quite as good and virtually every metric supports this. But yes it’s close.
in 1990. Eli was below average as often as above and his peaks are not as good as phil’s.
it’s geek stats for sure but i find it more useful than comparing yardage td and int across eras.
Yeah, Simms (along with Collins) threw the best ball in Giants history, IMO.
Agreed. Both great players in their respective eras.
For me, Phil, without hesitation was the better quarterback. Better athlete, better arm, and in some ways a better leader.
Without question.
Eli, was allowed to make mistakes. Had a difficult offense to master (Gilbride). Had good Wr's good defensive line, decent OL early then bad later. Eli had a knack of pulling more games out of his hat. Healthy his whole career
My overall thought was Simms was better day to day, but Eli was best on his best days. 2 great QBs
For me, Phil, without hesitation was the better quarterback. Better athlete, better arm, and in some ways a better leader.
I saw both play in person, tv etc.
I dont remember Phil being a "better athlete", he was a statue out there. Got crushed in the pocket with SF, Dallas, Bears defenses.
As I stated in another thread, Phil was more consistent, but Eli had great "best" games. Phil's Superbowl is one for the record on stats, but Eli seemed to play big in the moment.
Anyone saying it’s not even close for Phil is not being objective in my view. Not even close? You make it sound like Eli player with HOFers all over the offense. In reality he didn’t play with one.
Go back to the 2009 season. Rookie nicks. Second year 3rd rounder manningham. 2nd year Steve Smith. Average at best tight ends and an overrated running game that never really got on track that year. 404 pts scored. 427 pts allowed! As usual, much like every other year when Eli was under center, the defense shit the bed. But it was always Eli’s fault. He carried this franchise more often than not.
So many seasons were wasted despite the offense delivering time and time again when Eli was playing. 2009. 2010 and I’m blaming the D for that year because they blew it against Philly. 2012 offense scored 429 pts and missed the playoffs. 2013 was brutal I’ll put that year’s failure on the O but really it was on Reese and coughlin for failing to see that collapse coming. 2014? 380 pts scored, not bad at all. 6 wins. Defense sucked. 2015? 420 pts scored. 6 wins....
Eli was criminally underrated here over the second half of his career becsuse the offense scored pts but the team lost a lot of games. 2013 and 2017 were the exceptions. Every other year Eli and the offense delivered adequate or better results, and with little to no offensive talent save for Beckham. Literally, Beckham and a bunch of slobs.
Eli was just a more dynamic qb and offensive presence, at least to this eye he was. He played more. He scored more pts. He was more prolific. He had a bigger star power aura to me and for good reason. Simms did play in a different era with different rules and on a team with different philosophies so it’s apples and oranges, but I think fans were always too hard on Eli especially when the team sucked. The stats show it to be true that while flawed and far from perfect, the Eli led offenses usually did its part, or at least did as much as the could with what they had. Eli never really had a bad year if the offense was in place. 1989 simms? He wasn’t that good that year, admittedly so. Granted he lost Bavaro that year and was a training camp holdout, something Eli never had to deal with.
In 1990, Simms QB rating was 92.7 and the team was 12-2 when he broke his leg.
There just isn't any evidence to clearly say Eli was better, relatively speaking. They were both great for their times
Tell you what though--put Barkley back behind the 1986 line, with Carthon and you'd be wondering if he could break 3000 yards in a season.
Tell you what though--put Barkley back behind the 1986 line, with Carthon and you'd be wondering if he could break 3000 yards in a season.
In 1990, Simms QB rating was 92.7 and the team was 12-2 when he broke his leg.
There just isn't any evidence to clearly say Eli was better, relatively speaking. They were both great for their times
The difference is that Simms was carried by the best defense in the league and a very good running game. Whereas Eli carried a very bad defense and terrible running game into the playoffs. The '11 defense came alive and the running game improved at the end of the year, all peaking at the right time to come out of nowhere and win a Super Bowl. But Eli put that team on his back and was insanely clutch all season long.
That QB Rating for Simms is impressive, especially relative to his era. But there's just no comparison between 1990 Simms and 2011 Eli. Simms was asked to be a game manager and do just enough, Eli was asked to do as much as possible and he did.