BE HONEST WITH YOURSELVES GIANTS FANS

[ksm7]

It depends: if you look at his first two full regular seasons, he's 19-13, which, while not tops in the league, is still better than average for the NFC. If you include his first few games in 2004 , it drops to average (20-19).

 

But I'm kind of hesistant to include those because:

1. by the time he came in, the defense was already destroyed by injuries--not just nicks and bruises, but that team had a double-digit injured reserve list. It would have taken an extraordinary team to cover that many injuries, and the 2004 Giants weren't anywhere close to extraordinary.
2. other than the Atlanta game, that defense couldn't keep the opponent to less than 23 points, much less 20.
3. His first few starts included playoff teams from that year (pittsburgh, philly, atlanta) and another excellent defense in Baltimore
4. His last 3 games, the offense scored 22, 30 and 28 points, and lost two of those games. That doesn't indicate offensive problems to me.

I didn't bother with the playoff losses: unless your last name is Montana or Brady, you probably have a .500 record or worse anyway.

 

for purposes of this debate, one should count the first year, as the same was being counted for Elway...now, that puts Manning at 20-19, which is essentially 500...not bad, not great...which, is what the Dog would stand by...very average. That is not a bad thing at this stage, but the is average what you want when you give up as much as you give up for a player? You will hate to say it, but the Dog thinks that posters who bring this up have arguments that have merit...

[randoff]

for purposes of this debate, one should count the first year, as the same was being counted for Elway...now, that puts Manning at 20-19, which is essentially 500...not bad, not great...which, is what the Dog would stand by...very average. That is not a bad thing at this stage, but the is average what you want when you give up as much as you give up for a player? You will hate to say it, but the Dog thinks that posters who bring this up have arguments that have merit...

Told ya someone would point that out. And for the record the Doff is really kidding...again. But the Doff-ster would like to say that Itailan Dog and Egg have brought some life on this side of the Giants board.

 

So what the Doff is thinkin' (or assuming) is that as much as the Giants have given 'up' for this Eli...the Giants should have won 2 Superbowls with Eli, Eli should be in every Pro bowl AND Eli should have an overall QB rating of 104.7? Oh and the Doff assumes Eli should have a 77% completion ratio every year. Here comes the "smile" to let ya know that the Doff is poking fun.....

[BIGBLUE01]

for purposes of this debate, one should count the first year, as the same was being counted for Elway...now, that puts Manning at 20-19, which is essentially 500...not bad, not great...which, is what the Dog would stand by...very average. That is not a bad thing at this stage, but the is average what you want when you give up as much as you give up for a player? You will hate to say it, but the Dog thinks that posters who bring this up have arguments that have merit...

 

No, but did what we give up really benefit SD? I mean Merriman appears to be a monster and Rivers looks better than expected, but what have they won? Since Eli , Merriman and Rivers enterd the league, the Chargers have had 1 good season as a result of the trade, last season, and the Giants have too, the season before that. Both had early playoff exits. The Gmens a little earlier :brooding:

 

So, the subject of givin too much away, sure, with all that I want Eli to be smoking out of the gate, but it didnt necessarliy bring SD a ring.

[randoff]

No, but did what we give up really benefit SD? I mean Merriman appears to be a monster and Rivers looks better than expected, but what have they won? Since Eli , Merriman and Rivers enterd the league, the Chargers have had 1 good season as a result of the trade, last season, and the Giants have too, the season before that. Both had early playoff exits. The Gmens a little earlier :brooding:

 

So, the subject of givin too much away, sure, with all that I want Eli to be smoking out of the gate, but it didnt necessarliy bring SD a ring.

And like I said before...in 2005 the Eli 'move' freed up monies that would have went to a first rounder and allowed Plax and Mackenzie to sign deals here in NY. Not comparing Plax and Mckenzie to Merriman....but the Giants needed a big reciever to compliment Toomer. And the Giants got depth at the O -line position in 2005.

[JayD]

for purposes of this debate, one should count the first year, as the same was being counted for Elway...now, that puts Manning at 20-19, which is essentially 500...not bad, not great...which, is what the Dog would stand by...very average. That is not a bad thing at this stage, but the is average what you want when you give up as much as you give up for a player? You will hate to say it, but the Dog thinks that posters who bring this up have arguments that have merit...

 

 

When we have one of the worst Defenses in the league, its better than it looks.

[BIGBLUE01]

When we have one of the worst Defenses in the league, its better than it looks.

 

Very true, its a point Ive made all along.

[fishgutmartyr]

for purposes of this debate, one should count the first year, as the same was being counted for Elway...now, that puts Manning at 20-19, which is essentially 500...not bad, not great...which, is what the Dog would stand by...very average. That is not a bad thing at this stage, but the is average what you want when you give up as much as you give up for a player? You will hate to say it, but the Dog thinks that posters who bring this up have arguments that have merit...

 

Manning has played in 39 regular season games. Of those 39, 28 times the offense scored 20 points or higher. You would think a significant majority of those games would be wins, right? Not so. Of those 28 games, 12 of them were losses. That includes 6 losses where the offense scored more than 21 points, which should be plenty, because it gives your defense space to give up 3 touchdowns.

 

If your offense is scoring at least 20 points 72% of the time, your record should be better than 20-19. Or you fire your defensive coordinator--oh, wait...

 

Now you could argue that that Tiki was responsible for a number of those high scoring games. And that's fair. On the other hand, you can't simultaneously look at the record, knowing how many games were flat-out BLOWN by the defense, and say that Manning is average because he's 20-19.

 

But let's compare anyway to Elway's situation. '83, '84, '85--ruled out the first four games of '83, didn't rule out whatever games Kubiak started. 43 games. Of those, 24 of them had Denver score 20 points or more. Guess how many of those Denver lost: 10? 8? Maybe 7? All wrong. They lost FOUR games!

 

As I look into this further and further as this thread goes, I'm actually becoming more convinced that Manning could wind up being worth the price we paid for him, and even with a modest boost from the defense, it might become much more apparent this coming season. He's definitely not there yet, but there is definitely hope.

[BIGBLUE01]

Manning has played in 39 regular season games. Of those 39, 28 times the offense scored 20 points or higher. You would think a significant majority of those games would be wins, right? Not so. Of those 28 games, 12 of them were losses. That includes 6 losses where the offense scored more than 21 points, which should be plenty, because it gives your defense space to give up 3 touchdowns.

 

If your offense is scoring at least 20 points 72% of the time, your record should be better than 20-19. Or you fire your defensive coordinator--oh, wait...

 

Now you could argue that that Tiki was responsible for a number of those high scoring games. And that's fair. On the other hand, you can't simultaneously look at the record, knowing how many games were flat-out BLOWN by the defense, and say that Manning is average because he's 20-19.

 

But let's compare anyway to Elway's situation. '83, '84, '85--ruled out the first four games of '83, didn't rule out whatever games Kubiak started. 43 games. Of those, 24 of them had Denver score 20 points or more. Guess how many of those Denver lost: 10? 8? Maybe 7? All wrong. They lost FOUR games!

 

As I look into this further and further as this thread goes, I'm actually becoming more convinced that Manning could wind up being worth the price we paid for him, and even with a modest boost from the defense, it might become much more apparent this coming season. He's definitely not there yet, but there is definitely hope.

 

 

 

You know, thats an interesting way to look at it. Scoring 20+ points a game should produce wins. But when your D is givin up 28 for whatever reason, thats not the case. And even in the games were Eli didnt necessarily dazzle because Tiki was runnin all over the place, he didnt do anything different from wht Big Ben or Rivers did in thier succes. Lean on a superstar RB and dont mess up. It could be just taking longer to get a ROI.

[ksm7]

Manning has played in 39 regular season games. Of those 39, 28 times the offense scored 20 points or higher. You would think a significant majority of those games would be wins, right? Not so. Of those 28 games, 12 of them were losses. That includes 6 losses where the offense scored more than 21 points, which should be plenty, because it gives your defense space to give up 3 touchdowns.

 

If your offense is scoring at least 20 points 72% of the time, your record should be better than 20-19. Or you fire your defensive coordinator--oh, wait...

 

Now you could argue that that Tiki was responsible for a number of those high scoring games. And that's fair. On the other hand, you can't simultaneously look at the record, knowing how many games were flat-out BLOWN by the defense, and say that Manning is average because he's 20-19.

 

But let's compare anyway to Elway's situation. '83, '84, '85--ruled out the first four games of '83, didn't rule out whatever games Kubiak started. 43 games. Of those, 24 of them had Denver score 20 points or more. Guess how many of those Denver lost: 10? 8? Maybe 7? All wrong. They lost FOUR games!

 

As I look into this further and further as this thread goes, I'm actually becoming more convinced that Manning could wind up being worth the price we paid for him, and even with a modest boost from the defense, it might become much more apparent this coming season. He's definitely not there yet, but there is definitely hope.

 

Excellent. The Dog is pleased with the efforts here. That being said, one has to always go further beyond the numbers, and you clearly being mpore adept at research, may be able to further add to the Dog's next point...

It is easy to give credit to the offense for scoring the points, and discredit the defense for allowing more - the essential question is, did the offenses lack of consistent production impact the defenses ability to prevent points? It is possible that when the offense sputtered, particularly in the second half of games, the defense was either on the field extensively or put in a position to defend a short field...One can put up numbers and score over 20 points a game, but if a high number of possessions result in turnovers or 3 and outs, the defense is not likely to be able to perform at a high level throughout (the Dog never understood the love affair with Phil Simms being this great QB, but what he did do during the Giant's 86 run was convert key third downs to keep drives going, which certainly benefited an aleard strong defense, and complimented a consistent run game)...this has not been the case as of yet with Manning...

 

The second issue which is yet to be discussed is with the intangibles, mainly leadership ability, which may be difficult to debate, but the Dog thinks for purposes of this discussion, must be addressed. Elway was a bit of a brat early on, but nobody can argue that the Bronco teams during that time did not have confidence in him to lead them week in and week out...Manning's leadership abilities have yet to surface, and there is not the same kind of confidence in him as there are in other past QB greats...Unfortunately for Manning, how his decision to take a stand against playing for the Chargers played out was weak (having his daddy voice those thoughts on draft day presented rather unfavorably...). Elway had baseball to fall back on, and that is what he used - still pretty bratty, but it holds up better then having your dad come out and say that he would never play for a team that drafted him...now if Manning came into NY and took charge, even through the growing pains, he could have put himself on a better track - but he continues even last year to often look like a deer in headlights, and while Burress and Shockey continue to shake their heads in disgust whenever he misses them, he just sits back and takes it with a look of "you guys are right, please forgive me" on his face...

[JayD]

Manning has played in 39 regular season games. Of those 39, 28 times the offense scored 20 points or higher. You would think a significant majority of those games would be wins, right? Not so. Of those 28 games, 12 of them were losses. That includes 6 losses where the offense scored more than 21 points, which should be plenty, because it gives your defense space to give up 3 touchdowns.

 

If your offense is scoring at least 20 points 72% of the time, your record should be better than 20-19. Or you fire your defensive coordinator--oh, wait...

 

Now you could argue that that Tiki was responsible for a number of those high scoring games. And that's fair. On the other hand, you can't simultaneously look at the record, knowing how many games were flat-out BLOWN by the defense, and say that Manning is average because he's 20-19.

 

But let's compare anyway to Elway's situation. '83, '84, '85--ruled out the first four games of '83, didn't rule out whatever games Kubiak started. 43 games. Of those, 24 of them had Denver score 20 points or more. Guess how many of those Denver lost: 10? 8? Maybe 7? All wrong. They lost FOUR games!

 

As I look into this further and further as this thread goes, I'm actually becoming more convinced that Manning could wind up being worth the price we paid for him, and even with a modest boost from the defense, it might become much more apparent this coming season. He's definitely not there yet, but there is definitely hope.

 

 

Exellent post man. Your seeing the light now.

[BIGBLUE01]

Excellent. The Dog is pleased with the efforts here. That being said, one has to always go further beyond the numbers, and you clearly being mpore adept at research, may be able to further add to the Dog's next point...

It is easy to give credit to the offense for scoring the points, and discredit the defense for allowing more - the essential question is, did the offenses lack of consistent production impact the defenses ability to prevent points? It is possible that when the offense sputtered, particularly in the second half of games, the defense was either on the field extensively or put in a position to defend a short field...One can put up numbers and score over 20 points a game, but if a high number of possessions result in turnovers or 3 and outs, the defense is not likely to be able to perform at a high level throughout (the Dog never understood the love affair with Phil Simms being this great QB, but what he did do during the Giant's 86 run was convert key third downs to keep drives going, which certainly benefited an aleard strong defense, and complimented a consistent run game)...this has not been the case as of yet with Manning...

 

The second issue which is yet to be discussed is with the intangibles, mainly leadership ability, which may be difficult to debate, but the Dog thinks for purposes of this discussion, must be addressed. Elway was a bit of a brat early on, but nobody can argue that the Bronco teams during that time did not have confidence in him to lead them week in and week out...Manning's leadership abilities have yet to surface, and there is not the same kind of confidence in him as there are in other past QB greats...Unfortunately for Manning, how his decision to take a stand against playing for the Chargers played out was weak (having his daddy voice those thoughts on draft day presented rather unfavorably...). Elway had baseball to fall back on, and that is what he used - still pretty bratty, but it holds up better then having your dad come out and say that he would never play for a team that drafted him...now if Manning came into NY and took charge, even through the growing pains, he could have put himself on a better track - but he continues even last year to often look like a deer in headlights, and while Burress and Shockey continue to shake their heads in disgust whenever he misses them, he just sits back and takes it with a look of "you guys are right, please forgive me" on his face...

 

 

If a high # of possesions result in a 3 and out or a turnover, the blue is quite certain thats not one of the 20+ point games we are referring to.

[JayD]

If a high # of possesions result in a 3 and out or a turnover, the blue is quite certain thats not one of the 20+ point games we are referring to.

 

 

I dont know about you bro, but I refuse to defend my team to a man who doesnt even have the balls to state which team he roots for. Especialy cause he knows if he did, it would shed much light on his negitivity twards the Giants.I have no time, or respect for such a person. At least when it comes to talking football.

[randoff]

I dont know about you bro, but I refuse to defend my team to a man who doesnt even have the balls to state which team he roots for. Especialy cause he knows if he did, it would shed much light on his negitivity twards the Giants.I have no time, or respect for such a person. At least when it comes to talking football.

Yep...it would be cool IF the Dog would just come out with it a say "Hey, I am a long time Cowboy fan!"

[BIGBLUE01]

I dont know about you bro, but I refuse to defend my team to a man who doesnt even have the balls to state which team he roots for. Especialy cause he knows if he did, it would shed much light on his negitivity twards the Giants.I have no time, or respect for such a person. At least when it comes to talking football.

 

You know, you are so right. Its just that I like to point out things he says that dont make sense, like he does to others.

[BIGBLUE01]

Yep...it would be cool IF the Dog would just come out with it a say "Hey, I am a long time Cowboy fan!"

 

Yeah, cause he's eggy anyway!!!

[JayD]

Yep...it would be cool IF the Dog would just come out with it a say "Hey, I am a long time Cowboy fan!"

 

 

Im thinking Cowboys as well. Its gotta be in our division at least. This way he can do all the dishing, and none of the taking. forget that noise.

[JayD]

You know, you are so right. Its just that I like to point out things he says that dont make sense, like he does to others.

 

 

You mean like how after scoring over 20 points, it the offenses fault that the defense couldnt hang on to win????

[BIGBLUE01]

You mean like how after scoring over 20 points, it the offenses fault that the defense couldnt hang on to win????

 

EGGxactly.

[xxi-xxv]

Manning has played in 39 regular season games. Of those 39, 28 times the offense scored 20 points or higher. You would think a significant majority of those games would be wins, right? Not so. Of those 28 games, 12 of them were losses. That includes 6 losses where the offense scored more than 21 points, which should be plenty, because it gives your defense space to give up 3 touchdowns.

 

If your offense is scoring at least 20 points 72% of the time, your record should be better than 20-19. Or you fire your defensive coordinator--oh, wait...

 

Now you could argue that that Tiki was responsible for a number of those high scoring games. And that's fair. On the other hand, you can't simultaneously look at the record, knowing how many games were flat-out BLOWN by the defense, and say that Manning is average because he's 20-19.

 

But let's compare anyway to Elway's situation. '83, '84, '85--ruled out the first four games of '83, didn't rule out whatever games Kubiak started. 43 games. Of those, 24 of them had Denver score 20 points or more. Guess how many of those Denver lost: 10? 8? Maybe 7? All wrong. They lost FOUR games!

 

As I look into this further and further as this thread goes, I'm actually becoming more convinced that Manning could wind up being worth the price we paid for him, and even with a modest boost from the defense, it might become much more apparent this coming season. He's definitely not there yet, but there is definitely hope.

 

Could not agree more on the defense part. I watched that SKINS game from week 1 last year on the NFL network and at 27-7 even a modest, medicore defense should not have let that team back in that game. I can think of 3 games in particular in 2006 where IF and this is a big IF the Giants had a good defense that could hold a lead they win the game. The two home games in DEC vs the Eagles and Boys come to mind and of course that Tenn game. In reality, that Tenn. game a good defense would have enabled some offensive backups to actually play the last 10 minutes. Thinking of that playoff game makes me gag. No one mentions that Mannings last pass of 2006 was a TD, a game tying TD on the road in a playoff game. Thats because the defense allowed the opponent to use 6 minutes and change of the clock to milk it down and kick a FG. Thats just unacceptable.

 

Although I would not call the Giants an offensive juggernaut under Manning, they certainly have scored enough points to warrant a better than 20-19 career record as a starter.

[BIGBLUE01]

Could not agree more on the defense part. I watched that SKINS game from week 1 last year on the NFL network and at 27-7 even a modest, medicore defense should not have let that team back in that game. I can think of 3 games in particular in 2006 where IF and this is a big IF the Giants had a good defense that could hold a lead they win the game. The two home games in DEC vs the Eagles and Boys come to mind and of course that Tenn game. In reality, that Tenn. game a good defense would have enabled some offensive backups to actually play the last 10 minutes. Thinking of that playoff game makes me gag. No one mentions that Mannings last pass of 2006 was a TD, a game tying TD on the road in a playoff game. Thats because the defense allowed the opponent to use 6 minutes and change of the clock to milk it down and kick a FG. Thats just unacceptable.

 

Although I would not call the Giants an offensive juggernaut under Manning, they certainly have scored enough points to warrant a better than 20-19 career record as a starter.

 

Couldnt agree more. Youknow, I've been saying something to this extent for some time now. The bad shape of the D HAD to impact a young QB, not to mention injuries overall. Some would come on here and say I was crazy, there is no reason for Eli to stink. Sure, some of the horrible throws were all Eli, but the state of the team had alot to do with it.

[ksm7]

You mean like how after scoring over 20 points, it the offenses fault that the defense couldnt hang on to win????

 

the Dog for one loves to impart football knowledge to those less fortunate...here is the logic - if your team on offense is able to put together several big plays or several good drives in a game, but a majority of the time sputters, and puts the defense on the field for extended times, or on a short field, then the 20 point average may not hold up...as for stating the favorite team, the Dog knows from reviewing other posters here how quick that deteriorates a logical discussion into team bashing, and since we are looking at Giants football, then that is the focus...others here have understood this, so the Dog guesses you will just have to accept it...

 

To that end, the Dog cautions - when BigBlue is your biggest supporter, step away from the debate...

[xxi-xxv]

Couldnt agree more. Youknow, I've been saying something to this extent for some time now. The bad shape of the D HAD to impact a young QB, not to mention injuries overall. Some would come on here and say I was crazy, there is no reason for Eli to stink. Sure, some of the horrible throws were all Eli, but the state of the team had alot to do with it.

 

I do not know if it impacted his play, but it led to added pressure, especially late in games as this defense has not stopped anyone in a big spot in quite some time. Lets just say ELI had the Steelers d of the last 3 years and lets even take away TIKI and his explosive playmaking abilities and hand him a ball control run game, one that keeps the defense on the sideline(as hotdog dully noted is a factor in poor d) do we think his won loss record is better?

 

I figure if ELI had been a caretaker of the offense the past 2 years and the Giants went 12-4 and 11-5 and had some more success in the playoffs, the naysayers would say something like "Eli Manning was not brought here to be a Trent Dilfer caretaker of the offense". In short no one is every happy.

 

I think we just have to let this play itself out.

[JayD]

the Dog for one loves to impart football knowledge to those less fortunate...here is the logic - if your team on offense is able to put together several big plays or several good drives in a game, but a majority of the time sputters, and puts the defense on the field for extended times, or on a short field, then the 20 point average may not hold up...as for stating the favorite team, the Dog knows from reviewing other posters here how quick that deteriorates a logical discussion into team bashing, and since we are looking at Giants football, then that is the focus...others here have understood this, so the Dog guesses you will just have to accept it...

 

To that end, the Dog cautions - when BigBlue is your biggest supporter, step away from the debate...

 

 

WHO DO YOU ROOT FOR???????????????

[fishgutmartyr]

Excellent. The Dog is pleased with the efforts here. That being said, one has to always go further beyond the numbers, and you clearly being mpore adept at research, may be able to further add to the Dog's next point...

It is easy to give credit to the offense for scoring the points, and discredit the defense for allowing more - the essential question is, did the offenses lack of consistent production impact the defenses ability to prevent points? It is possible that when the offense sputtered, particularly in the second half of games, the defense was either on the field extensively or put in a position to defend a short field...One can put up numbers and score over 20 points a game, but if a high number of possessions result in turnovers or 3 and outs, the defense is not likely to be able to perform at a high level throughout (the Dog never understood the love affair with Phil Simms being this great QB, but what he did do during the Giant's 86 run was convert key third downs to keep drives going, which certainly benefited an aleard strong defense, and complimented a consistent run game)...this has not been the case as of yet with Manning...

 

Actually, I did look at some numbers under Collins. The problem is 2001 is extremely skewed because the offense managed 40 fumbles (losing 12), plus 16 interceptions, and no defense is going to do well under those conditions. 2003, was, well, 2003, and most of that season is worthless due to the fact that the team basically called in the rest of the season after the Jets game to the tune of 8 straight losses. Any earlier is pointless, since the only defensive player left from back then is Strahan, although even that is rather telling.

 

That pretty much leaves us with the 2002 version of the defense, under (shudder!) Johnny Lynn. Still a lot of personnel differences, but on a whole, that defense was more at the level of mediocrity than suck, since Lynn was still using a lot of Fox's schemes. the 2006 line, had it stayed healthy, was better; but the 2002 team had (holy shit, I can't believe I'm typing this!) better outside linebackers in Jones and Short, although a weaker MLB. The 2002 secondary played better, although that might have been scheming issues and not personnel.

 

Anyway, Collins had nearly the same tools as Manning offensively--the oline was a little weaker, but it wasn't the disaster of the following year--Bober was a decent center, and Rosenthal was an ok RT. Toomer and Hilliard were a slight dropoff from Burress and Toomer, but at that stage, not drastic. Shockey was an uninjured rookie. And while Barber wasn't what he was in 2006, he still ran 1,386 yards.

 

So, if it was Manning's inconsistency that caused such a high losing percentage, it would stand to reason that the winning percentage would be much higher under a vet like Collins, right?

 

Well, not including that game, the regular season saw 5 games over 20 points, with the Giants winning only 3; again approaching .500.

 

The second issue which is yet to be discussed is with the intangibles, mainly leadership ability, which may be difficult to debate, but the Dog thinks for purposes of this discussion, must be addressed. Elway was a bit of a brat early on, but nobody can argue that the Bronco teams during that time did not have confidence in him to lead them week in and week out...Manning's leadership abilities have yet to surface, and there is not the same kind of confidence in him as there are in other past QB greats...Unfortunately for Manning, how his decision to take a stand against playing for the Chargers played out was weak (having his daddy voice those thoughts on draft day presented rather unfavorably...). Elway had baseball to fall back on, and that is what he used - still pretty bratty, but it holds up better then having your dad come out and say that he would never play for a team that drafted him...now if Manning came into NY and took charge, even through the growing pains, he could have put himself on a better track - but he continues even last year to often look like a deer in headlights, and while Burress and Shockey continue to shake their heads in disgust whenever he misses them, he just sits back and takes it with a look of "you guys are right, please forgive me" on his face...

 

This is getting really freaky, by the way...

 

Elway lined up once under guard--still want to talk intangibles?

 

The problem with Manning taking the lead would have been that he would have had to take it from Tiki, and there was no way that ego would have allowed that the transition to happen without an even larger circus going on in the press; no matter how much he claimed otherwise.

 

Shockey is that mildly retarded guy you find in every workplace: a good worker, but you don't listen to him without taking into consideration that he's, well, mildly retarded.

 

And that whole "Archie did the talking" argument is kind of tired. What was said to the Chargers was said behind closed doors: it was Smith, not Manning, that made the decision to release it. Very cheezy move, actually, and a strong-arm tactic that has caused a lot of damage to Manning's career. Considering the disregard Smith has shown in subsequent dealings with employees (Schottenheimer, Brees), I'd say that's more of a reflection on him than Manning. But that's just my opinion.

[ksm7]

So, if it was Manning's inconsistency that caused such a high losing percentage, it would stand to reason that the winning percentage would be much higher under a vet like Collins, right?

 

Well, not including that game, the regular season saw 5 games over 20 points, with the Giants winning only 3; again approaching .500.

 

This is getting really freaky, by the way...

 

Elway lined up once under guard--still want to talk intangibles?

 

The problem with Manning taking the lead would have been that he would have had to take it from Tiki, and there was no way that ego would have allowed that the transition to happen without an even larger circus going on in the press; no matter how much he claimed otherwise.

 

Shockey is that mildly retarded guy you find in every workplace: a good worker, but you don't listen to him without taking into consideration that he's, well, mildly retarded.

 

And that whole "Archie did the talking" argument is kind of tired. What was said to the Chargers was said behind closed doors: it was Smith, not Manning, that made the decision to release it. Very cheezy move, actually, and a strong-arm tactic that has caused a lot of damage to Manning's career. Considering the disregard Smith has shown in subsequent dealings with employees (Schottenheimer, Brees), I'd say that's more of a reflection on him than Manning. But that's just my opinion.

 

Lining up behind the guard has little to do with leadership, albeit a funny situation. The Dog isn't saying he has to take the lead, the Dog is saying he has to be a confident leader...he has yet to prove it...and whether it was the Chargers who released that information or not, the fact remains that his daddy sat at the table and stated that he would not play for them...that is the crux of the childish approach that was taken...if things don't improve in Giant land in the next year or two, how will you as a fan feel if Eli's daddy states that Eli wants out of NY?