But I will always love Phil more. Simms was my favorite player from my favorite era of Giants football.
That being said, Simms had much worse weapons at WR than Eli did and Parcells very much had a run first mentality, so who knows how Simms' stats would have compared if he was the QB during Eli's run
...Eli was a superior QB, but had MUCH better receivers.
Simms looked like he might be a bust til he showed his stuff in 84. He deserved the Pro Bowl honors, Giants SHOULD have won at least 2 SB with him, but it didn't work out that way. Still, toward the end of Simms' career, he actually improved - his INT rate dropped dramatically, and he became a near impossible out. Won most of his close games. Screw Ray Handley.
Eli 2005-2011 = Open the game hot, 1 or 2 scores. Take a 2 quarter nap, opposition takes the lead. Pull it out in the 4th Quarter or OT, regardless of how far behind he was. Drove me nuts with the mid game slumbers, but no Giant QB ever delivered heart attack wins like he did. And even after 2011 with the awful O-lines, he still delivered gaudy numbers and memorables games and plays.
RE: Eli is one of the most underrated players of all time...
But I will always love Phil more. Simms was my favorite player from my favorite era of Giants football.
That being said, Simms had much worse weapons at WR than Eli did and Parcells very much had a run first mentality, so who knows how Simms' stats would have compared if he was the QB during Eli's run
This is where I stand 100%. Different era different teams . And Phil was much more athletic.
I take Phil Simms every damned time without thinking twice. Give Phil Simms the receivers Eli Manning had, and the post-2005 rule changes that made playing defense more difficult, and let's see what happens then.
RE: RE: Based on the most important play in Giant history,Manning
I take Phil Simms every damned time without thinking twice. Give Phil Simms the receivers Eli Manning had, and the post-2005 rule changes that made playing defense more difficult, and let's see what happens then.
Disagree. Phil had the bad habit of taking 'phantom' sacks.
I recently rewatched some games from 86, and Simms had a fucking rifle of an arm. Much stronger than Eli's, and on the whole, Phil was probably a better pure passer.
That's not to say Eli wasn't a great passer, too. Clearly Eli had a more successful career. He was also a LOT luckier with his health than Simms was.
But if Simms hadn't gotten hurt, and they somehow managed to with the second SB with Phil instead of Hoss, Simms would be in the HOF, and the conversation would be a lot closer that it is.
Of course Hoss made plays with his feet in that run that Simms couldn't have made. Everyone including Simms acknowledges that.
Here's how Phil's career regular season numbers stack up against some of the already enshrined HOF QBs.
Completions: 2,576
More than 13 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Dawson, Namath, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Bradshaw, Graham, Griese, Layne, Waterfield, Staubach and Starr.
Yards: 33,462
More than 15 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Dawson, Namath, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Aikman, Bradshaw, Graham, Griese, Layne, Young, Waterfield, Staubach and Starr.
Touchdowns: 199
More than 9 of the 23 HOF QBs: Namath, Van Brocklin, Aikman, Graham, Griese, Layne, Waterfield, Staubach and Starr.
Interceptions: 157
Less than 16 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Dawson, Fouts, Unitas, Namath, Moon, Tarkenton, Tittle, Kelly, Van Brocklin, Marino, Jurgensen, Bradshaw, Griese, Elway and Layne.
Rating: 78.5
Higher than 9 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Unitas, Namath, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Bradshaw, Griese, Layne and Waterfield.
He also played the best statistical game ever by a QB in the Super Bowl, and won 10 of the games in the 1990 run.
I think he should be in the Hall but I don't get a vote.
Both super tough but Eli always took the next play. '86 team was fantastic and once they got going nobody was beating them.
I think in 7/8 playoff games during Eli's two runs the Giants were underdogs. For many of them big ones and Eli didn't do much managing to help win those games.
Great to have had both of them for many years.
RE: RE: RE: Based on the most important play in Giant history,Manning
I take Phil Simms every damned time without thinking twice. Give Phil Simms the receivers Eli Manning had, and the post-2005 rule changes that made playing defense more difficult, and let's see what happens then.
I agree with this statement.
Simms best receivers over his career were HBs (Tony Galbreath & David Meggett) and a TE (Mark Bavaro).
Not that Bobby Johnson, Lionel Manuel & Stephen Baker weren’t decent, but swap them out for Plaxico Burress, Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks. Who would you rather throw too?
Not only were DBs allowed more leeway in coverage in Simms era, he was subjected to some of the most hellacious hits I’ve ever witnessed.
He would have thrived under the current rules.
Nothing against Simms, he's a great player. I just ask the question "if I swapped them, would we still have 4 Super Bowls?".
I just can't see Phil Simms out dueling Tom Brady and breaking up the perfect season. I also don't see him (or anyone else for that matter) surviving and winning the 49er's game in the 2011 run.
On the flip side, I think Eli would have easily gotten us 2 rings on the backs of our mid to late 80's defenses. We were the #2 and #1 scoring defenses in 86' and 90'. 17th and 25th in 07' and 11'...
Bill Walsh loved Phil Simms and would have drafted him in 1979 if the Giants hadn't. I think he was a pretty good judge of QBs.
Not only that. When the Giants had 3 QBs competing for the starting job, which was Parcells at his worst, Al Davis tried to trade for Simms and had zero interest in the other 2 guys.
but...the game had changed by the last quarter of Eli's career. As much as people want to blame the franchise for not doing enough to help him down the stretch of his career - some of that demise was on him. Father time is undefeated and it showed at the end.
Without that season, I'd lean towards Simms. He took more sacks but made less relatively poor turnovers. He had a stronger pure arm.
But Eli's 2011 was just so far out in front of anything that Simms did in terms of carrying the team that I just have to go Eli with that taken into account.
Phil would have had 2 SB victories without the injury in '90, and who knows, maybe he gets MVP in that game too? He was lights out in the first SB win.
Phil had the better roster around him, but that cuts both ways. It gave him a better chance to win, but also suppressed his stats quite a bit. I'd still lean Eli, but it's close. I think his 2 magical plays in those SB's makes the difference. The pass to Tyree was a lot of luck, although what Eli did to escape the pass rush is wildly underappreciated, but the pass to Manningham is one of the best throws and catches in NFL history,
RE: Eli is one of the most underrated players of all time...
Without that season, I'd lean towards Simms. He took more sacks but made less relatively poor turnovers. He had a stronger pure arm.
But Eli's 2011 was just so far out in front of anything that Simms did in terms of carrying the team that I just have to go Eli with that taken into account.
Hard to compare raw stats between the '80s and 2011. I will say that Simms' 1984 was much more impressive than it would seem today. Prior to that, only a few QBs had thrown for 4000+ yards. Simms did it with WRs who were unknown rookies (7th rd pick Lionel Manual, UDFA Bobby Johnson), a guy with 54 career NFL receptions (Byron Williams), and an end of the line Earnest Gray. A second-year undrafted player at TE (Zeke Mowatt), and a third down specialist RB (Tony Galbreath). Those were his primary receivers. The Giants' rushing offense was awful that year - Carpenter was their leading rusher with just 795 yards and an abysmal 3.2 YPC.
But Eli was special in the biggest moments. In the biggest moments, NO ONE was better. Some of the throws he made are just legendary. Not saying Phil wouldn't have had greatness in Eli's era... But he never elevated the people around him the way Eli did.
So Eli was certainly clutch at the end of those games.
But you don't have to be clutch at the end of the 4th quarter when you dominate the whole damn game.
Simms was 22 of 25 for 268 yds and a 150.9 passer rating in Super Bowl XXI. And the Giants scored more points in that game (39) than in "Eli's" two Super Bowl wins combined (38).
phil played in a much different era much different rules. he produced a lot of wins and got better with age. in a setup not conducive to passing. he played on a ball control offense.
people saying it’s not close are addicted to passing tds and yards. both highly inflated and easier to come by in eli’s nfl. also shows recency bias.
also with the eli is underrated again. no he is not - he’s going to make the hof. underrated is phil-he’s ranks highly relative to his peers at qb on sites that track those metrics.
Phil, playing in an era of much less QB protection, was unbelievably tough. Before the Suburbanites got their act together, Simms took shot after shot that had me saying to myself, "Stay down, Phil!" But, like the Terminator, he'd reconstitute himself and get the job done.
Dude was an absolute competitor and leader.
The only thing that separates Eli and Phil in my mind is that second SB and, as much as Hoss stepped up in the stretch, Phil was the superior QB.
I get some of you grew up in the 80's and were sipping juice boxes watching him play, but he's not the better player.
Eli had more talent? I suppose you can make that argument (on offense) as Eli did have many excellent WRs at his disposal throughout his career. However, Eli's most talented weapons had an unusual string of career ending bad luck. Between Nicks, Smith, Cruz and Plax, just about all ended their careers short of what they could have been. Eli played with a revolving door at TE where Boss and Ballard went down too early.
But what about defense? Should we hold it against Simms that he played with all-time great defenses? Eli's teams never featured a defense at that level.
Phil also played pre-salary cap era when it was easier to keep your team together. Another advantage.
We can compare eras and teammates all we want, but just look to 1990 when Simms went down and his team didn't miss a beat. Can you imagine any season where Eli Manning went down (not that that ever happened) and the Giants would actually have a chance to field a decent offense? Let alone continue on the path to win a Super Bowl?
Both players provided great memories for Giants' fans. It is a shame the need to tear a great Giant player down to defend the other great Giant player.
Both players provided great memories for Giants' fans. It is a shame the need to tear a great Giant player down to defend the other great Giant player.
I get some of you grew up in the 80's and were sipping juice boxes watching him play, but he's not the better player.
Eli had more talent? I suppose you can make that argument (on offense) as Eli did have many excellent WRs at his disposal throughout his career. However, Eli's most talented weapons had an unusual string of career ending bad luck. Between Nicks, Smith, Cruz and Plax, just about all ended their careers short of what they could have been. Eli played with a revolving door at TE where Boss and Ballard went down too early.
But what about defense? Should we hold it against Simms that he played with all-time great defenses? Eli's teams never featured a defense at that level.
Phil also played pre-salary cap era when it was easier to keep your team together. Another advantage.
We can compare eras and teammates all we want, but just look to 1990 when Simms went down and his team didn't miss a beat. Can you imagine any season where Eli Manning went down (not that that ever happened) and the Giants would actually have a chance to field a decent offense? Let alone continue on the path to win a Super Bowl?
No one is as consistently wrong as you. You're like the Wayne Gretzky of bad takes.
The 1990 thing is just a bizarre argument. All that indicates is that Jeff Hostetler was a much better QB than any of the Giants' backups behind Eli.
Yes, many of the talented receivers of the 2000s had their careers degraded by injuries...but Phil Simms never had receivers of that caliber at all. The best WR he ever had was a half season of Mike Sherrard in 1993. Even at TE he only had a healthy Bavaro for four seasons before Vencie Glenn wrecked his knee.
Lastly, as has been said, the 1980s represented a much tougher environment for QBs than the post-2005 NFL.
I get some of you grew up in the 80's and were sipping juice boxes watching him play, but he's not the better player.
Eli had more talent? I suppose you can make that argument (on offense) as Eli did have many excellent WRs at his disposal throughout his career. However, Eli's most talented weapons had an unusual string of career ending bad luck. Between Nicks, Smith, Cruz and Plax, just about all ended their careers short of what they could have been. Eli played with a revolving door at TE where Boss and Ballard went down too early.
But what about defense? Should we hold it against Simms that he played with all-time great defenses? Eli's teams never featured a defense at that level.
Phil also played pre-salary cap era when it was easier to keep your team together. Another advantage.
We can compare eras and teammates all we want, but just look to 1990 when Simms went down and his team didn't miss a beat. Can you imagine any season where Eli Manning went down (not that that ever happened) and the Giants would actually have a chance to field a decent offense? Let alone continue on the path to win a Super Bowl?
No one is as consistently wrong as you. You're like the Wayne Gretzky of bad takes.
The 1990 thing is just a bizarre argument. All that indicates is that Jeff Hostetler was a much better QB than any of the Giants' backups behind Eli.
Yes, many of the talented receivers of the 2000s had their careers degraded by injuries...but Phil Simms never had receivers of that caliber at all. The best WR he ever had was a half season of Mike Sherrard in 1993. Even at TE he only had a healthy Bavaro for four seasons before Vencie Glenn wrecked his knee.
Lastly, as has been said, the 1980s represented a much tougher environment for QBs than the post-2005 NFL.
If my take is so bad why is related higher on the Giants top 100 list? Surely the panel considered all factors and arrived at the same conclusion as me, that Eli was the better player.
Both were GREAT QBs. Both guys stepped up in their biggest games. The 100 best voting had Eli at 8 and Phil at 11. That's fair considering how their careers played out. But 8 and 11 are pretty damn close.
One (Eli) was CLEARLY more successful, had better weapons, better luck staying healthy, and played more games. That's why he's 8 and Phil's 11.
That takes NOTHING away from how great Simms was. 11th all time Giant ain't nothing. It's greater than 90 of the other top 100 Giants. Several of whom are in the HOF.
Given what Simms had to work with -- a run-first offense, pedestrian WRs, and missing most of his first 4 years due to injury, one could argue that it was actually harder/more impressive that Phil reached 11th, than it was for Eli to reach 8.
I wasn't sipping juice boxes when Phil played. I saw his whole career. Once Phil got past his early injuries, he was terrific. PERIOD. If you weren't old enough to see Simms' career yourself, your opinion doesn't outweigh those who did.
I didn't see Title (12) and Conerly (13) play, so I have to trust the people who did, that they were great, too.
Whatever the gap between them may be, it's smaller than the difference between eras.
I think Phil commanded more respect around the League during his career than Eli. That may have had less to do with his QB play than his ability to take a punch. But the praise from some of the greatest coaches of all time, like Joe Gibbs and Bill Walsh, suggests that Phil was much more than the NFL version of Chuck Wepner.
Eli was masterful during the two Super Bowl runs. That and durability are his legacy, as they should be. Those are huge distinctions and they dwarf everything else about him. Otherwise, his career was impressively long but otherwise lackluster: statistically mediocre for his era, 0-4 in his other postseason appearances, and a lot of wrenchingly stupid moments like the two slide-fumbles against Philly and the lefty INT against Tennessee. His fourth-quarter heroics, outside of the two super bowls, have been exaggerated; I think a fair review of the game logs suggests that he fell short in the clutch just as often as he came through.
And that was pretty much every Eagles game for four or five years. Those Reggie White/Jerome Brown/Clyde Simmons defenses were scary, and QBs weren't nearly as protected as they have been in the recent past.
RE: I mean, think of the brutal pounding Eli took in SF in 2011
And that was pretty much every Eagles game for four or five years. Those Reggie White/Jerome Brown/Clyde Simmons defenses were scary, and QBs weren't nearly as protected as they have been in the recent past.
100% correct.
And I think that SF game was the best of Manning's career, considering that defense and the beating he took. That was an awesome performance.
RE: RE: I mean, think of the brutal pounding Eli took in SF in 2011
And that was pretty much every Eagles game for four or five years. Those Reggie White/Jerome Brown/Clyde Simmons defenses were scary, and QBs weren't nearly as protected as they have been in the recent past.
100% correct.
And I think that SF game was the best of Manning's career, considering that defense and the beating he took. That was an awesome performance.
To be clear, I meant 100% agreement with Greg's assessment of the Philly games back then.
I think the brutality of the 80's and 90's is a bit overstated when we are saying that Manning's 2011 NFC championship game was a normal game against the eagles for 4-5 years (8-10 games). I think Manning's performance in that game was also a great game in the 80's and 90's instead of it being a common occurrence.
over 58 times in the NFCCG against the Niners and I think he was hit 21 times. Rolle said it was that day that he understood what "playoff" Eli was all about. He was shocked he survived that day.
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
over 58 times in the NFCCG against the Niners and I think he was hit 21 times. Rolle said it was that day that he understood what "playoff" Eli was all about. He was shocked he survived that day.
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
That's all absolutely true.
The difference in eras is that those games were much were much more common in Simms' career.
Not to mention, who was the best wide receiver Simms ever played with?
over 58 times in the NFCCG against the Niners and I think he was hit 21 times. Rolle said it was that day that he understood what "playoff" Eli was all about. He was shocked he survived that day.
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
That's all absolutely true.
The difference in eras is that those games were much were much more common in Simms' career.
Not to mention, who was the best wide receiver Simms ever played with?
over 58 times in the NFCCG against the Niners and I think he was hit 21 times. Rolle said it was that day that he understood what "playoff" Eli was all about. He was shocked he survived that day.
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
That's all absolutely true.
The difference in eras is that those games were much were much more common in Simms' career.
Not to mention, who was the best wide receiver Simms ever played with?
That being said, Simms had much worse weapons at WR than Eli did and Parcells very much had a run first mentality, so who knows how Simms' stats would have compared if he was the QB during Eli's run
Simms looked like he might be a bust til he showed his stuff in 84. He deserved the Pro Bowl honors, Giants SHOULD have won at least 2 SB with him, but it didn't work out that way. Still, toward the end of Simms' career, he actually improved - his INT rate dropped dramatically, and he became a near impossible out. Won most of his close games. Screw Ray Handley.
Eli 2005-2011 = Open the game hot, 1 or 2 scores. Take a 2 quarter nap, opposition takes the lead. Pull it out in the 4th Quarter or OT, regardless of how far behind he was. Drove me nuts with the mid game slumbers, but no Giant QB ever delivered heart attack wins like he did. And even after 2011 with the awful O-lines, he still delivered gaudy numbers and memorables games and plays.
Agreed, the first half of Eli's career is undermined by public perception solely because he refused to play for the Chargers.
That being said, Simms had much worse weapons at WR than Eli did and Parcells very much had a run first mentality, so who knows how Simms' stats would have compared if he was the QB during Eli's run
Not even clear that Phil is 2nd best QB in Giants' history. Connerly and Tittle both have a claim.
Absolute nonsense.
I take Phil Simms every damned time without thinking twice. Give Phil Simms the receivers Eli Manning had, and the post-2005 rule changes that made playing defense more difficult, and let's see what happens then.
Quote:
Phil would have folded like a house of cards
Absolute nonsense.
I take Phil Simms every damned time without thinking twice. Give Phil Simms the receivers Eli Manning had, and the post-2005 rule changes that made playing defense more difficult, and let's see what happens then.
Disagree. Phil had the bad habit of taking 'phantom' sacks.
That's not to say Eli wasn't a great passer, too. Clearly Eli had a more successful career. He was also a LOT luckier with his health than Simms was.
But if Simms hadn't gotten hurt, and they somehow managed to with the second SB with Phil instead of Hoss, Simms would be in the HOF, and the conversation would be a lot closer that it is.
Of course Hoss made plays with his feet in that run that Simms couldn't have made. Everyone including Simms acknowledges that.
Here's how Phil's career regular season numbers stack up against some of the already enshrined HOF QBs.
Completions: 2,576
More than 13 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Dawson, Namath, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Bradshaw, Graham, Griese, Layne, Waterfield, Staubach and Starr.
Yards: 33,462
More than 15 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Dawson, Namath, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Jurgensen, Aikman, Bradshaw, Graham, Griese, Layne, Young, Waterfield, Staubach and Starr.
Touchdowns: 199
More than 9 of the 23 HOF QBs: Namath, Van Brocklin, Aikman, Graham, Griese, Layne, Waterfield, Staubach and Starr.
Interceptions: 157
Less than 16 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Dawson, Fouts, Unitas, Namath, Moon, Tarkenton, Tittle, Kelly, Van Brocklin, Marino, Jurgensen, Bradshaw, Griese, Elway and Layne.
Rating: 78.5
Higher than 9 of the 23 HOF QBs: Blanda, Unitas, Namath, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Bradshaw, Griese, Layne and Waterfield.
He also played the best statistical game ever by a QB in the Super Bowl, and won 10 of the games in the 1990 run.
I think he should be in the Hall but I don't get a vote.
I think in 7/8 playoff games during Eli's two runs the Giants were underdogs. For many of them big ones and Eli didn't do much managing to help win those games.
Great to have had both of them for many years.
And I disagree with your disagreement. He took a lot of big hits to hang in and get throws off.
Quote:
Phil would have folded like a house of cards
Absolute nonsense.
I take Phil Simms every damned time without thinking twice. Give Phil Simms the receivers Eli Manning had, and the post-2005 rule changes that made playing defense more difficult, and let's see what happens then.
I agree with this statement.
Simms best receivers over his career were HBs (Tony Galbreath & David Meggett) and a TE (Mark Bavaro).
Not that Bobby Johnson, Lionel Manuel & Stephen Baker weren’t decent, but swap them out for Plaxico Burress, Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks. Who would you rather throw too?
Not only were DBs allowed more leeway in coverage in Simms era, he was subjected to some of the most hellacious hits I’ve ever witnessed.
He would have thrived under the current rules.
I just can't see Phil Simms out dueling Tom Brady and breaking up the perfect season. I also don't see him (or anyone else for that matter) surviving and winning the 49er's game in the 2011 run.
On the flip side, I think Eli would have easily gotten us 2 rings on the backs of our mid to late 80's defenses. We were the #2 and #1 scoring defenses in 86' and 90'. 17th and 25th in 07' and 11'...
Not only that. When the Giants had 3 QBs competing for the starting job, which was Parcells at his worst, Al Davis tried to trade for Simms and had zero interest in the other 2 guys.
But Eli's 2011 was just so far out in front of anything that Simms did in terms of carrying the team that I just have to go Eli with that taken into account.
Phil had the better roster around him, but that cuts both ways. It gave him a better chance to win, but also suppressed his stats quite a bit. I'd still lean Eli, but it's close. I think his 2 magical plays in those SB's makes the difference. The pass to Tyree was a lot of luck, although what Eli did to escape the pass rush is wildly underappreciated, but the pass to Manningham is one of the best throws and catches in NFL history,
I would say closer to the last half of his career.
Just as he was reaching his top form the destruction of the LoS played out. Nicks injury in '12 (TB) also really hurt.
But Eli's 2011 was just so far out in front of anything that Simms did in terms of carrying the team that I just have to go Eli with that taken into account.
Hard to compare raw stats between the '80s and 2011. I will say that Simms' 1984 was much more impressive than it would seem today. Prior to that, only a few QBs had thrown for 4000+ yards. Simms did it with WRs who were unknown rookies (7th rd pick Lionel Manual, UDFA Bobby Johnson), a guy with 54 career NFL receptions (Byron Williams), and an end of the line Earnest Gray. A second-year undrafted player at TE (Zeke Mowatt), and a third down specialist RB (Tony Galbreath). Those were his primary receivers. The Giants' rushing offense was awful that year - Carpenter was their leading rusher with just 795 yards and an abysmal 3.2 YPC.
You mean, besides when he went 22-25 in a Super Bowl?
But you don't have to be clutch at the end of the 4th quarter when you dominate the whole damn game.
Simms was 22 of 25 for 268 yds and a 150.9 passer rating in Super Bowl XXI. And the Giants scored more points in that game (39) than in "Eli's" two Super Bowl wins combined (38).
people saying it’s not close are addicted to passing tds and yards. both highly inflated and easier to come by in eli’s nfl. also shows recency bias.
also with the eli is underrated again. no he is not - he’s going to make the hof. underrated is phil-he’s ranks highly relative to his peers at qb on sites that track those metrics.
Dude was an absolute competitor and leader.
The only thing that separates Eli and Phil in my mind is that second SB and, as much as Hoss stepped up in the stretch, Phil was the superior QB.
Eli had more talent? I suppose you can make that argument (on offense) as Eli did have many excellent WRs at his disposal throughout his career. However, Eli's most talented weapons had an unusual string of career ending bad luck. Between Nicks, Smith, Cruz and Plax, just about all ended their careers short of what they could have been. Eli played with a revolving door at TE where Boss and Ballard went down too early.
But what about defense? Should we hold it against Simms that he played with all-time great defenses? Eli's teams never featured a defense at that level.
Phil also played pre-salary cap era when it was easier to keep your team together. Another advantage.
We can compare eras and teammates all we want, but just look to 1990 when Simms went down and his team didn't miss a beat. Can you imagine any season where Eli Manning went down (not that that ever happened) and the Giants would actually have a chance to field a decent offense? Let alone continue on the path to win a Super Bowl?
This
I am seriously confused by your comment. Do you care to elaborate?
Eli had more talent? I suppose you can make that argument (on offense) as Eli did have many excellent WRs at his disposal throughout his career. However, Eli's most talented weapons had an unusual string of career ending bad luck. Between Nicks, Smith, Cruz and Plax, just about all ended their careers short of what they could have been. Eli played with a revolving door at TE where Boss and Ballard went down too early.
But what about defense? Should we hold it against Simms that he played with all-time great defenses? Eli's teams never featured a defense at that level.
Phil also played pre-salary cap era when it was easier to keep your team together. Another advantage.
We can compare eras and teammates all we want, but just look to 1990 when Simms went down and his team didn't miss a beat. Can you imagine any season where Eli Manning went down (not that that ever happened) and the Giants would actually have a chance to field a decent offense? Let alone continue on the path to win a Super Bowl?
No one is as consistently wrong as you. You're like the Wayne Gretzky of bad takes.
The 1990 thing is just a bizarre argument. All that indicates is that Jeff Hostetler was a much better QB than any of the Giants' backups behind Eli.
Yes, many of the talented receivers of the 2000s had their careers degraded by injuries...but Phil Simms never had receivers of that caliber at all. The best WR he ever had was a half season of Mike Sherrard in 1993. Even at TE he only had a healthy Bavaro for four seasons before Vencie Glenn wrecked his knee.
Lastly, as has been said, the 1980s represented a much tougher environment for QBs than the post-2005 NFL.
Quote:
but nice try. look up the hall of fame monitor on pro football reference. simms compares similarly and favorably albeit lower.
I am seriously confused by your comment. Do you care to elaborate?
I apologize. I am an idiot. It seems you were talking to the other Chris. My mistake.
Quote:
I get some of you grew up in the 80's and were sipping juice boxes watching him play, but he's not the better player.
Eli had more talent? I suppose you can make that argument (on offense) as Eli did have many excellent WRs at his disposal throughout his career. However, Eli's most talented weapons had an unusual string of career ending bad luck. Between Nicks, Smith, Cruz and Plax, just about all ended their careers short of what they could have been. Eli played with a revolving door at TE where Boss and Ballard went down too early.
But what about defense? Should we hold it against Simms that he played with all-time great defenses? Eli's teams never featured a defense at that level.
Phil also played pre-salary cap era when it was easier to keep your team together. Another advantage.
We can compare eras and teammates all we want, but just look to 1990 when Simms went down and his team didn't miss a beat. Can you imagine any season where Eli Manning went down (not that that ever happened) and the Giants would actually have a chance to field a decent offense? Let alone continue on the path to win a Super Bowl?
No one is as consistently wrong as you. You're like the Wayne Gretzky of bad takes.
The 1990 thing is just a bizarre argument. All that indicates is that Jeff Hostetler was a much better QB than any of the Giants' backups behind Eli.
Yes, many of the talented receivers of the 2000s had their careers degraded by injuries...but Phil Simms never had receivers of that caliber at all. The best WR he ever had was a half season of Mike Sherrard in 1993. Even at TE he only had a healthy Bavaro for four seasons before Vencie Glenn wrecked his knee.
Lastly, as has been said, the 1980s represented a much tougher environment for QBs than the post-2005 NFL.
If my take is so bad why is related higher on the Giants top 100 list? Surely the panel considered all factors and arrived at the same conclusion as me, that Eli was the better player.
So I find the best way to look at them is where they stand vs their contemporaries.
Both Phil and Eli sat in the tier of QBs for their era that was just a small notch below the elite QBs at the time.
Was Phil great? Sure, but he wasn't as good as Marino or Montana at the time.
Same with Eli when you put him up against Brady and Peyton.
So for me, one isn't better than the other. I find that they are equal in caliber of QB for the eras in which they played.
Both were GREAT QBs. Both guys stepped up in their biggest games. The 100 best voting had Eli at 8 and Phil at 11. That's fair considering how their careers played out. But 8 and 11 are pretty damn close.
One (Eli) was CLEARLY more successful, had better weapons, better luck staying healthy, and played more games. That's why he's 8 and Phil's 11.
That takes NOTHING away from how great Simms was. 11th all time Giant ain't nothing. It's greater than 90 of the other top 100 Giants. Several of whom are in the HOF.
Given what Simms had to work with -- a run-first offense, pedestrian WRs, and missing most of his first 4 years due to injury, one could argue that it was actually harder/more impressive that Phil reached 11th, than it was for Eli to reach 8.
I wasn't sipping juice boxes when Phil played. I saw his whole career. Once Phil got past his early injuries, he was terrific. PERIOD. If you weren't old enough to see Simms' career yourself, your opinion doesn't outweigh those who did.
I didn't see Title (12) and Conerly (13) play, so I have to trust the people who did, that they were great, too.
Why is this even a thing?
I think Phil commanded more respect around the League during his career than Eli. That may have had less to do with his QB play than his ability to take a punch. But the praise from some of the greatest coaches of all time, like Joe Gibbs and Bill Walsh, suggests that Phil was much more than the NFL version of Chuck Wepner.
Eli was masterful during the two Super Bowl runs. That and durability are his legacy, as they should be. Those are huge distinctions and they dwarf everything else about him. Otherwise, his career was impressively long but otherwise lackluster: statistically mediocre for his era, 0-4 in his other postseason appearances, and a lot of wrenchingly stupid moments like the two slide-fumbles against Philly and the lefty INT against Tennessee. His fourth-quarter heroics, outside of the two super bowls, have been exaggerated; I think a fair review of the game logs suggests that he fell short in the clutch just as often as he came through.
Both were very good, but neither was great. I wouldn't put either in the Hall.
For Eli, a perfect back-shoulder fade.
Quote:
Disagree. Phil had the bad habit of taking 'phantom' sacks.
And I disagree with your disagreement. He took a lot of big hits to hang in and get throws off.
When John Madden was asked to build a "composite" QB, he said for Heart he'd take Phil every time.
Quote:
Disagree. Phil had the bad habit of taking 'phantom' sacks.
And I disagree with your disagreement. He took a lot of big hits to hang in and get throws off.
There were no such things as "phantom sacks" back then.
100% correct.
And I think that SF game was the best of Manning's career, considering that defense and the beating he took. That was an awesome performance.
Quote:
And that was pretty much every Eagles game for four or five years. Those Reggie White/Jerome Brown/Clyde Simmons defenses were scary, and QBs weren't nearly as protected as they have been in the recent past.
100% correct.
And I think that SF game was the best of Manning's career, considering that defense and the beating he took. That was an awesome performance.
To be clear, I meant 100% agreement with Greg's assessment of the Philly games back then.
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
That's all absolutely true.
The difference in eras is that those games were much were much more common in Simms' career.
Not to mention, who was the best wide receiver Simms ever played with?
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
That's all absolutely true.
The difference in eras is that those games were much were much more common in Simms' career.
Not to mention, who was the best wide receiver Simms ever played with?
Quote:
over 58 times in the NFCCG against the Niners and I think he was hit 21 times. Rolle said it was that day that he understood what "playoff" Eli was all about. He was shocked he survived that day.
There was very little margin of error in that game and Eli did not turn the ball over. All those hits and still the discipline and focus to stay mistake free.
That's all absolutely true.
The difference in eras is that those games were much were much more common in Simms' career.
Not to mention, who was the best wide receiver Simms ever played with?
Mike Sherad?
lol