Playoffs proving how good Eli is

[Iceman_NYG]

Going down this road again if we must.....ahh well. Eli simply managed the game in the 2007 playoffs? Here are some instances from that post season where he did a tad more than "manage" the game, a la Trent Dilfer.

 

Divisional Round, down 14-7 to the Cowboys, after a close to 10 minute 18 play TD drive by the Cowboys, Eli and his offense get the ball back with 47 seconds left on the clock. What does Manning and his offense "manage" to do? They drive right down the field aided by some clutch passes to Steve Smith, Kevin Boss and a TD strike to Amani Toomer. Totally changed the games momentum. Hardly managing a game. A conservative approach with a QB "managing" games would have been to be content to be down 7 at the half.

 

Championship game, freezing cold, Lambeu. What did ELI do to "manage" this game. Threw the ball 40 times and put on an absolute clinic of abuse on AL Harris with Plaxico Burress. Giants did not run the ball exceptionally well that day and ELI had plenty of drops on a cold night by his Wr's, but managed to lead the offense with his arm. Again not the gameplan of a team with a QB simply "managing" things.

 

Super Bowl. Did something that at the time only 2(now 3 with Ben last year) qbs had ever done. Led their team down the field for a go ahead touchdown in the final 3 minutes of a SUper Bowl. The other was this guy named Joe Montana in 1988 vs the Bengals. We will not go over the particulars of the drive, or the type of game he played, been there we know it. When you are one of only 2(now3) qbs to do what he did you are hardly simply a game manager.

 

Eli Manning is not a problem for the Giants. He is a cool customer under pressure. Has proven it on the biggest of stages and has something that is worth its weight in gold, does not let the NY media bother him one bit. He took steps this year and put up numbers that many felt he never would playing in the northeast with a roster of novice WR's. In fact all I hear about is how well Peyton did with his two young WRS in Collie and Garcon. Eli did pretty well with his young WRS too. Eli's defense sabotaged a terrific season for him. In fact this is 2 years in a row now where he is plus 10 or more td/int ratio.

 

Good stuff. Eli will never become an elite QB in the eyes of others until he puts up giddy numbers like Manning, Brady or Brees. That is the only thing that makes them "elite" QBs. Those guys are obviously the best. Big Ben won his Superbowl literally riding on his team's defense and he had a LOUSY Superbowl! Lousy. He did everything to lose, but thankfully his team saved him. The second one he played well. Eli's and his team had a symbiotic relationship. At times the defense would play lights out and he wouldnt have to do too much. And at times he would literally take it upon himself to engineer game winning drives. This year he played lights out! but his defense and at a lot of times his WRs who had too many drops hurt him. Even after that he made those bunch of young WRs look good - even after all that butterfingers stuff.

[Treehugger]

Meh, Eli came good but I wouldn't say he played "lights out" all season. He was fairly inaccurate towards the start of the season, missing a number of sure TD passes.

[ksm7]

oh, lonely guy....

you started off with a decent point but you mangled it with so much under the surface vitriol and contrived history that the validity just gets overlooked.

 

perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten the dog as to what is "surface vitriol" and "contrived history"...the dog's issue isn't whether or not manning is an "elite" qb. believe it if you want. the dog will disagree at this point in his career. the dog's issue is how joe is defining an "elite" qb. why you think anything the dog is said is contrived or bitter has no validity here...or did you simply flip the vocabulary desk calendar you own and feel compelled to use the word?

[fishgutmartyr]

limiting elite qbs to only those who have won super bowls is limited in thinking. the dog has to disagree with grouping jim plunkett in the same catagory as joe montana...doug williams with troy aikman....trent dilfer with tom brady....

 

take a look at the following numbers...they are the career numbers for what you would call an "elite" nfl QB because in a 12 year career he had one super bowl victory:

 

TD-INT 173-220

Yards 27,663

QB Rating 65.5

 

here's one for you - doug williams reached elite status in a season where he played in exactly 5 whole games before the post season...that is how he reached elite status.

 

the career numbers of another "elite" qb according to you:

 

TDS

113

INT

129

YDS

20,518

RTG

70.2

 

look, you want to ordain manning as an elite qb, the dog will simply agree to disagree until he does more than ride the defense to a title in one postseason (the only time in 4 post seasons that he could lead his team out of the first round, a point that doesn't seem to mark against him in your formula). but to argue that a super bowl win as a qb defines you as elite with total disregard to the circumstances of a particular season and the career around the super bowl wins is flawed. and the dog still can't figure out why romo and mcnabb's failures in the playoffs this season elevates manning's status further when he couldn't elevate his team to that level this year...the great qbs should be defined by what they accomplish when the supporting cast is weak as much as what they do when they are blessed with a potent defense and reliable running game (see Elway/Marino...etc...). Good night Mighty Joe. the dog is tired.

You seem to forget that Doug Williams accrued a ton of horrible stats while playing for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the 70's, an expansion team that was one of the worst teams of all time. Even still, he did get them into the playoffs in '79. He was a good QB with a horrible record ala Archie Manning.

 

Jim Plunkett was one of the better QBs in the league during his time with Oakland. And he did that after his time with the Pats nearly destroyed him as a player.

 

And if those stats are for Plunkett and Williams, you need to keep them in context of their time. 100pt QBRs were the exception not the rule back then.

 

Marino and Elway had their 8-8 seasons as well. Great quarterbacking can't help shitty defense. Losing games 41-35 isn't a sign of poor quarterback play.

 

Your assertion that Manning rode the defense in 2007 is as extreme as saying Manning single-handedly drove the Giants throughout the playoffs. The light came on at the end of that season, and he's done nothing but improve since then. I will admit that he's finally getting some help from the WRs, who aren't dropping passes at the rate they did during the Burress/Toomer/Shockey years.

 

In fact, no Manning-led Giants team has played below .500 in a season he began as a starter. He's a winning QB in the regular season, the playoffs (don't give me that "take away..." bullshit, its a reality), a ring, and now he is getting the personal stats to back up the position that he is easily in the top 10 QBs, and arguably in the top 5.

[Nas]

You seem to forget that Doug Williams accrued a ton of horrible stats while playing for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the 70's, an expansion team that was one of the worst teams of all time. Even still, he did get them into the playoffs in '79. He was a good QB with a horrible record ala Archie Manning.

 

Jim Plunkett was one of the better QBs in the league during his time with Oakland. And he did that after his time with the Pats nearly destroyed him as a player.

 

And if those stats are for Plunkett and Williams, you need to keep them in context of their time. 100pt QBRs were the exception not the rule back then.

 

Marino and Elway had their 8-8 seasons as well. Great quarterbacking can't help shitty defense. Losing games 41-35 isn't a sign of poor quarterback play.

 

Your assertion that Manning rode the defense in 2007 is as extreme as saying Manning single-handedly drove the Giants throughout the playoffs. The light came on at the end of that season, and he's done nothing but improve since then. I will admit that he's finally getting some help from the WRs, who aren't dropping passes at the rate they did during the Burress/Toomer/Shockey years.

 

In fact, no Manning-led Giants team has played below .500 in a season he began as a starter. He's a winning QB in the regular season, the playoffs (don't give me that "take away..." bullshit, its a reality), a ring, and now he is getting the personal stats to back up the position that he is easily in the top 10 QBs, and arguably in the top 5.

 

[JMFP]

Fish has spoken.

[fishgutmartyr]

limiting elite qbs to only those who have won super bowls is limited in thinking. the dog has to disagree with grouping jim plunkett in the same catagory as joe montana...doug williams with troy aikman....trent dilfer with tom brady....

 

By the way, you are comparing apples and oranges here--but not the way you think.

Both Montana and Aikman were on teams that had HOF'ers ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL.

 

Montana had Rice to throw to, and Taylor. Nice set of WRs. When he didn't feel like throwing, he had Craig and Rathman. A very solid offensive line. And he had guys on defense like Lott.

 

Plunkett ever play with a Hall of Famer? Maybe Dave Casper in his waning years. And some very good defensive players on the Raiders.

 

Aikman? He only had one of the best, if not the best offensive lines of its time. A hall of fame WR. And a running back that was rumored to be decent.

 

Williams had Lee Roy Selmon on defense, and running back Ricky Bell (Who? Exactly...).

 

That's not to say Aikman or Montana don't deserve their stature, but if your argument is going to be "the great qbs should be defined by what they accomplish when the supporting cast is weak as much as what they do when they are blessed with a potent defense and reliable running game," you might want to pick better examples. The only legitimate one you cited was Elway--Marino won divisions at 9-7 when the AFC East was at its weakest. 8-8 isn't exactly a that far behind.

[JMFP]

By the way, you are comparing apples and oranges here--but not the way you think.

Both Montana and Aikman were on teams that had HOF'ers ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL.

 

Montana had Rice to throw to, and Taylor. Nice set of WRs. When he didn't feel like throwing, he had Craig and Rathman. A very solid offensive line. And he had guys on defense like Lott.

 

Plunkett ever play with a Hall of Famer? Maybe Dave Casper in his waning years. And some very good defensive players on the Raiders.

 

Aikman? He only had one of the best, if not the best offensive lines of its time. A hall of fame WR. And a running back that was rumored to be decent.

 

Williams had Lee Roy Selmon on defense, and running back Ricky Bell (Who? Exactly...).

 

That's not to say Aikman or Montana don't deserve their stature, but if your argument is going to be "the great qbs should be defined by what they accomplish when the supporting cast is weak as much as what they do when they are blessed with a potent defense and reliable running game," you might want to pick better examples. The only legitimate one you cited was Elway--Marino won divisions at 9-7 when the AFC East was at its weakest. 8-8 isn't exactly a that far behind.

 

You make a great point....in fact, one of the reasons why Marino and Fouts are considered all-time greats, despite their lack of championships, is because they spent their entire careers on teams that had deep flaws.... Marino never had a running game to speak of. Fouts was saddled with a defense that was as sorry as the Giants.

[ksm7]

You make a great point....in fact, one of the reasons why Marino and Fouts are considered all-time greats, despite their lack of championships, is because they spent their entire careers on teams that had deep flaws.... Marino never had a running game to speak of. Fouts was saddled with a defense that was as sorry as the Giants.

 

which is exactly why defining a QB as "elite" based on winning a championship doesn't make sense in the dog's opinion. the stats cited were for Namath and dilfer (two elite or great nfl QBs by your way of measuring). look at it this way, if you are given a team to coach for one season only, and the team is solid in every aspect, and you are given a chance to select the QB you want to lead them for that one season, do you want Jim Kelly or Doug Williams? Williams fits the bill for being elite in your formula, kelly does not, unless he is yet another exception in your opinion, a la fouts, marino, tarkenton, ken anderson, esiason, moon...etc...

 

and where does jeff hostetler fit into the mix? super bowl winning elite qb? really? mark rypien?

 

again, label manning elite if you want, but by doing so, unless the dog is misunderstanding, you are placing him among montana, elway, aikman, bradshaw, staubach, starr, favre, warner, brady, p. manning...etc...at this point, that is insulting to those QBs, and just as undeserving as mentioning rypien and hostetler in the same breath...

[JMFP]

which is exactly why defining a QB as "elite" based on winning a championship doesn't make sense in the dog's opinion. the stats cited were for Namath and dilfer (two elite or great nfl QBs by your way of measuring). look at it this way, if you are given a team to coach for one season only, and the team is solid in every aspect, and you are given a chance to select the QB you want to lead them for that one season, do you want Jim Kelly or Doug Williams? Williams fits the bill for being elite in your formula, kelly does not, unless he is yet another exception in your opinion, a la fouts, marino, tarkenton, ken anderson, esiason, moon...etc...

 

and where does jeff hostetler fit into the mix? super bowl winning elite qb? really? mark rypien?

 

again, label manning elite if you want, but by doing so, unless the dog is misunderstanding, you are placing him among montana, elway, aikman, bradshaw, staubach, starr, favre, warner, brady, p. manning...etc...at this point, that is insulting to those QBs, and just as undeserving as mentioning rypien and hostetler in the same breath...

 

The fact that the name "Rypien" is remembered is further validation of my argument. When Mark Rypien won the Super Bowl, who were some other QB's playing that season?....without Google, I'm a complete blank. And yet, to this day, his name is likely remembered with fondness by Redskin fans, just as Hoss is remembered by Giants fans.

 

Certainly, one cannot discount a player's entire career when judging whether a player is "great" or "good". However, if one were to get into a time machine and travel back to that year, if one were to call Mark Rypien an "elite QB", he would have supporters.

 

But to get to your comment, I think you are reading too much into my comments. I believe Eli Manning is among today's elite quarterbacks.....not among the all-time greats.

 

To give another example - I don't think one would argue that Chris Johnson is among the "elite" running backs in the NFL. However, if one were to compare him to Jim Brown, it would be laughable.

 

Similarly, Larry Johnson was once considered an "elite running back"....today, one would be very hard pressed to rank him among the likes of Emmitt Smith.

 

 

Consider this: in his 6th season, Eli Manning has achieved more than Peyton Manning in his 6th season. And statistically speaking, this was Eli's finest year. His career statistics show a steady arc of improvement in all the key areas - rating, TD/INT, yards, etc.

 

But in his 6th season, there was little doubt that Peyton Manning was an "elite" NFL QB....his rating of 99 being very similar to Eli's 93.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/players/peytonmanning/profile?id=MAN515097

http://www.nfl.com/players/elimanning/profile?id=MAN473170

 

So, sure, it's only conjecture (the province of message boards) to argue that Eli would have done better with a stronger supporting cast. But it's conjecture based upon wins, playoff appearances, stats, and championships.

[fishgutmartyr]

which is exactly why defining a QB as "elite" based on winning a championship doesn't make sense in the dog's opinion. the stats cited were for Namath and dilfer (two elite or great nfl QBs by your way of measuring). look at it this way, if you are given a team to coach for one season only, and the team is solid in every aspect, and you are given a chance to select the QB you want to lead them for that one season, do you want Jim Kelly or Doug Williams? Williams fits the bill for being elite in your formula, kelly does not, unless he is yet another exception in your opinion, a la fouts, marino, tarkenton, ken anderson, esiason, moon...etc...

 

and where does jeff hostetler fit into the mix? super bowl winning elite qb? really? mark rypien?

 

again, label manning elite if you want, but by doing so, unless the dog is misunderstanding, you are placing him among montana, elway, aikman, bradshaw, staubach, starr, favre, warner, brady, p. manning...etc...at this point, that is insulting to those QBs, and just as undeserving as mentioning rypien and hostetler in the same breath...

Kelly won a USFL championship. Moon won 5 Grey cups. Those don't count?

 

And truth be told, I'd have to give consideration to Williams over Kelly: it's a bit more impressive to me to have gotten those early Tampa Bay teams to the playoffs 3 TIMES than it was to get those Bills teams to the SB. Hell, Kelly wasn't even QB'ing when Buffalo had that big comeback win in the playoffs against Houston (Frank Reich was). Those teams were as much Thurmon Thomas' as they were Kelly's offensively.

 

Namath was elite for the 1960's, and would have been in the 70's if his knees weren't blown-out.

 

Mark Rypien wasn't terrible by a long shot--just had a short career.

 

Hostetler spent his peak behind Simms--and still got a Raiders team with an atrocious oline into the playoffs twice. So I'm not sure why you are so down on him. He didn't really get a chance to have the career of an all-time great, but did well with the time he did have.

 

And frankly, I'm not sure Warner really belongs in that list of all-time greats. He's been blessed by playing with 2 of the best WR tandems in the past 15 years--not to mention Marshall Faulk. When he doesn't have those wide receivers, he's been less than ordinary.

 

And yes, you are misunderstanding: there is a difference between being elite within the current time frame, and being an all-time great. All the same, Manning's career, barring unforeseen circumstances, is far from over and could very well wind up being in that all-time great category.

[ksm7]

Kelly won a USFL championship. Moon won 5 Grey cups. Those don't count?

 

And truth be told, I'd have to give consideration to Williams over Kelly: it's a bit more impressive to me to have gotten those early Tampa Bay teams to the playoffs 3 TIMES than it was to get those Bills teams to the SB. Hell, Kelly wasn't even QB'ing when Buffalo had that big comeback win in the playoffs against Houston (Frank Reich was). Those teams were as much Thurmon Thomas' as they were Kelly's offensively.

 

Namath was elite for the 1960's, and would have been in the 70's if his knees weren't blown-out.

 

Mark Rypien wasn't terrible by a long shot--just had a short career.

 

Hostetler spent his peak behind Simms--and still got a Raiders team with an atrocious oline into the playoffs twice. So I'm not sure why you are so down on him. He didn't really get a chance to have the career of an all-time great, but did well with the time he did have.

 

And frankly, I'm not sure Warner really belongs in that list of all-time greats. He's been blessed by playing with 2 of the best WR tandems in the past 15 years--not to mention Marshall Faulk. When he doesn't have those wide receivers, he's been less than ordinary.

 

And yes, you are misunderstanding: there is a difference between being elite within the current time frame, and being an all-time great. All the same, Manning's career, barring unforeseen circumstances, is far from over and could very well wind up being in that all-time great category.

 

a lot of what you are saying speaks to the dog's point. maybe rypien could have been elite, but he had a short career, so why label him that? hostetler spent his prime years as a back-up...so we call him elite for winning part of a season and a super bowl? seriously you would consider williams over kelly? you want to disagree, fine, but let's be realistic in some sense. before you get too excited about the winning ways in the early years of the buccaneers, realize that they made the playoffs in 79 with the league's leading defense, again in 81 with the 4th ranked defense, and in the strike shortened 82 season in shich they started 0-3, ended at 5-4 and qualified for the leagues extended playoff format. not impressed. certainly not elite. and again, yopu are judging warner and saying he doesn't belong in that category because of the help he had on his team, but are OK with naming manning to that category while ignoring all of the help he had on that team...

[fishgutmartyr]

a lot of what you are saying speaks to the dog's point. maybe rypien could have been elite, but he had a short career, so why label him that? hostetler spent his prime years as a back-up...so we call him elite for winning part of a season and a super bowl? seriously you would consider williams over kelly? you want to disagree, fine, but let's be realistic in some sense. before you get too excited about the winning ways in the early years of the buccaneers, realize that they made the playoffs in 79 with the league's leading defense, again in 81 with the 4th ranked defense, and in the strike shortened 82 season in shich they started 0-3, ended at 5-4 and qualified for the leagues extended playoff format. not impressed. certainly not elite. and again, yopu are judging warner and saying he doesn't belong in that category because of the help he had on his team, but are OK with naming manning to that category while ignoring all of the help he had on that team...

I absolutely DID NOT ignore all the help Manning had on that team--I'm simply not DOWNPLAYING HIS ROLE on that team. In fact, if you look at one of my previous posts, you'll notice I mentioned that his stats improved because his wide receivers dropped passes at a lower rate this year. They've also improved his yds/attempt, because we're finally seeing some YAC.

 

As for Warner, even you can't turn a blind eye to the fact that Marc Bulger(!) took over for him and had great stats. Or that he was less than adequate during his time with the Giants. Or that THE CARDINALS drafted his replacement before he went on a tear with Bolden, Fitzgerald, Breaston et al. Does that sound like someone that should be grouped with the Elways and Montanas of the past? He should go to the Hall of Fame--but there's no way he's on my short list, and he isn't in the same place guys like Staubach, Peyton Manning, and Unitas are.

 

Hostetler--had he been on another team that didn't have Simms, he may have been elite. As it was, he was a good QB that got the Raiders into the playoffs twice before retiring. By the way, I don't recall labeling him elite, nor do I recall Joe doing so.

 

Jim Kelly had a TON of talent around him. There really is no reason why Buffalo didn't have at least one ring. I mean, he was up against Hostetler and Rypien, right? Point to one wide receiver Williams had in his entire career that came close to the talent of Lofton, Andre Reed, Beebe, or Tasker. Gary Clark? A gazillion year-old Art Monk? Please.

 

But you're being deliberately dense here. Calling Joe out for stating that Manning is currently one of the elite QBs in the league by comparing him to all-time greats is hyperbole. Steve McNair was definitely an elite QB in this league for a few years, but the only way he's going to the Hall of Fame is if they eventually scatter his ashes there. Manning has stats and a win loss record that Dilfer could only dream about, and championships absolutely matter as a component in judging a QBs effectiveness.

 

Comparing Manning to the likes of Dilfer is no less absurd than comparing Manning to Montana.

[ksm7]

I absolutely DID NOT ignore all the help Manning had on that team--I'm simply not DOWNPLAYING HIS ROLE on that team. In fact, if you look at one of my previous posts, you'll notice I mentioned that his stats improved because his wide receivers dropped passes at a lower rate this year. They've also improved his yds/attempt, because we're finally seeing some YAC.

 

As for Warner, even you can't turn a blind eye to the fact that Marc Bulger(!) took over for him and had great stats. Or that he was less than adequate during his time with the Giants. Or that THE CARDINALS drafted his replacement before he went on a tear with Bolden, Fitzgerald, Breaston et al. Does that sound like someone that should be grouped with the Elways and Montanas of the past? He should go to the Hall of Fame--but there's no way he's on my short list, and he isn't in the same place guys like Staubach, Peyton Manning, and Unitas are.

 

Hostetler--had he been on another team that didn't have Simms, he may have been elite. As it was, he was a good QB that got the Raiders into the playoffs twice before retiring. By the way, I don't recall labeling him elite, nor do I recall Joe doing so.

 

Jim Kelly had a TON of talent around him. There really is no reason why Buffalo didn't have at least one ring. I mean, he was up against Hostetler and Rypien, right? Point to one wide receiver Williams had in his entire career that came close to the talent of Lofton, Andre Reed, Beebe, or Tasker. Gary Clark? A gazillion year-old Art Monk? Please.

 

But you're being deliberately dense here. Calling Joe out for stating that Manning is currently one of the elite QBs in the league by comparing him to all-time greats is hyperbole. Steve McNair was definitely an elite QB in this league for a few years, but the only way he's going to the Hall of Fame is if they eventually scatter his ashes there. Manning has stats and a win loss record that Dilfer could only dream about, and championships absolutely matter as a component in judging a QBs effectiveness.

 

Comparing Manning to the likes of Dilfer is no less absurd than comparing Manning to Montana.

 

the dog is being dense here? ok. hostetler - could have been great if he wasn't behind simms??...the dog wonders how many QBs could say the same thing. not dealing with couuld have beens. he had a couple of decent seasons and one where he came in late and the team won it all. why should he be considered great based on what he could have been if he was in a different situation?

 

Warner - bulger had great stats and that team never went far with him. warner has taken two teams to the super bowl, won one, and has the three highest passing yard games in super bowl history. did he have talent around him? yes. but show me one person who said the cardinals would go the super bowl last year. and don't you think the cardinals drafted his replacement more b/c warner was approaching 40 years old? he was 5-4 with the giants when they pulled him, and his numbers were not bad.

 

Kelly also had talent around him, but you wanted to discuss the fact that the bucs were a terrible team, and the reality is, two of the three years they went to the playoffs, they had the #1 ranked defense and the #4 ranked defense, and the third year was a 9 game season where they slid in b/c of the extended pool for playoff teams. he is solid, but you would take him over jim kelly? Just an fyi, art monk was 30 years old when williams was the QB for a whopping 5 games that year, and the 25 year old gary clark was a very good receiver. as was sanders as a third option.

 

the dog is not calling joe out for stating manning is elite in so much as the dog has an issue with the formula that elevates super bowl winning qbs to that status regardless of all aspects of the teams those seasons, as well as for the fact that there is nothing in this postseason that gives more evidence to him being a great qb. championships are a component, but everything that you and the dog both said is that it is limited in scope. your last statement supports exactly what the dog has been trying to say all along, which was the point of all of this.

[JMFP]

the dog is not calling joe out for stating manning is elite in so much as the dog has an issue with the formula that elevates super bowl winning qbs to that status regardless of all aspects of the teams those seasons, as well as for the fact that there is nothing in this postseason that gives more evidence to him being a great qb. championships are a component, but everything that you and the dog both said is that it is limited in scope. your last statement supports exactly what the dog has been trying to say all along, which was the point of all of this.

 

 

We've gotten a little downstream here, so let me lay down some markers:

 

My point was never that Eli Manning was an "all-time great" QB. I think he is a "great" (present tense) QB. I think calling him an "elite" QB is also accurate, but again, in the present tense.

 

With respect to Rypien, during his super bowl run, he had very strong season - according to the stats, not only did he win the Super Bowl in 1991, but he had a 97 season rating, and was selected as Super Bowl MVP. I would certainly consider him as an "elite" QB during that time. However, I would not call him an "all-time great", but if I were to rate his career, he would certainly get at least a "B", and likely "B+" given his SB win.

http://www.nfl.com/players/markrypien/profile?id=RYP415291

 

With respect to Doug Williams v. Brian Kelly, I'd go back to my "body of work" qualifier. Just as Marino and Fouts should be considered "All Time Greats", then Kelly should too. Looking at the stats, the wins, the 4 AFC Championships....all of that speaks to an "All Time Great" QB.

 

It is difficult to compare past legends (Montana, Aikman) with current elite QBs (Eli Manning) because the body of work is not comparable.

 

However, let's take Eli's current 6 year career, and double it.....you'd have a guy with a 12 year span and 2 Super Bowl wins.....I'd compare that with some Hall of Famers.

 

Before you hit the reply button, let me be clear that I'm not calling Eli a future Hall of Famer. But I am saying that he is halfway there toward making that case, and he probably hasn't even peaked yet. I would say that justifies calling him, right now, an elite QB.

 

I'm sure you'll agree. Thanks.

[JMFP]

Another quick point: the "body of work" qualifier is useful to evaluate past legends (Fouts, Marino....yes, Brian Kelly) and current elite QBs (e.g., Drew Brees).

 

However, among the current QBs, other than Drew Brees, I can't think of a current non-champion QB that belongs in that "Tier 1" category.

 

And this gets back to my original post.....take at look at the Jets/Chargers game. Hats off to the Jets, and they deserved to win that game. But they deserved to win that game MAINLY because the Chargers lost their composure. Look at the many blown opportunities the Chargers had. Kaeding was a huge part of the problem, but so was Rivers. He had two critical interceptions in a game that should have been the Chargers to win.

 

A QB is more than a pass-thrower. He is the leader of the team. And when your team is dropping passes, missing kicks, getting dumb penalties (kicking the refs flag, for example), it's the job of the leader to get his guys heads screwed on.

 

Joe Montana doesn't lose that game....Troy Aikman doesn't....Roger Staubuch or Terry Bradshaw keep their team's heads on straight to win that game.

 

And yes, my friend, Big Ben or Eli Manning win wouldn't lose that game.

[ksm7]

Another quick point: the "body of work" qualifier is useful to evaluate past legends (Fouts, Marino....yes, Brian Kelly) and current elite QBs (e.g., Drew Brees).

 

However, among the current QBs, other than Drew Brees, I can't think of a current non-champion QB that belongs in that "Tier 1" category.

 

And this gets back to my original post.....take at look at the Jets/Chargers game. Hats off to the Jets, and they deserved to win that game. But they deserved to win that game MAINLY because the Chargers lost their composure. Look at the many blown opportunities the Chargers had. Kaeding was a huge part of the problem, but so was Rivers. He had two critical interceptions in a game that should have been the Chargers to win.

 

A QB is more than a pass-thrower. He is the leader of the team. And when your team is dropping passes, missing kicks, getting dumb penalties (kicking the refs flag, for example), it's the job of the leader to get his guys heads screwed on.

 

Joe Montana doesn't lose that game....Troy Aikman doesn't....Roger Staubuch or Terry Bradshaw keep their team's heads on straight to win that game.

 

And yes, my friend, Big Ben or Eli Manning win wouldn't lose that game.

 

agreed...so then how was manning productive in this role this year? which is what the dog spoke of earlier. his leadership, much like his performance, has been inconsistent at best. it is easy to take on the leadership role when you are beating sub par teams to start the year. when things are heading south, when did he step up? and if this is part of the criteria, then again, how does he be considered "elite" this year of all years? this speaks to one of the original points: how does this year's postseason elevate him further or keep him in that status? because three QBs who directed their teams to the playoffs and better seasons lost in the first and second round?

 

as for rivers, how well has manning done over his career in games where he had no running attack playing against the top rated defense in the league and a defense that was bleeding while the other team amassed 150 yards rushing? compare rivers efforts this past weekend with mannings efforts in the three post season games he played in other than the super bowl run (he was 0-3). to say he would have won that game is marginal. as is projecting his future progress by simply doubling what he has done the first 6 years. How long does being a part of a super bowl winning team from two years ago sustain him for being great?

[fishgutmartyr]

agreed...so then how was manning productive in this role this year? which is what the dog spoke of earlier. his leadership, much like his performance, has been inconsistent at best. it is easy to take on the leadership role when you are beating sub par teams to start the year. when things are heading south, when did he step up? and if this is part of the criteria, then again, how does he be considered "elite" this year of all years? this speaks to one of the original points: how does this year's postseason elevate him further or keep him in that status? because three QBs who directed their teams to the playoffs and better seasons lost in the first and second round?

 

as for rivers, how well has manning done over his career in games where he had no running attack playing against the top rated defense in the league and a defense that was bleeding while the other team amassed 150 yards rushing? compare rivers efforts this past weekend with mannings efforts in the three post season games he played in other than the super bowl run (he was 0-3). to say he would have won that game is marginal. as is projecting his future progress by simply doubling what he has done the first 6 years. How long does being a part of a super bowl winning team from two years ago sustain him for being great?

 

This is why I said you are being deliberately dense (note: I'm not calling you dense, but you are playing at it).

 

How on earth is the leader of the offense, which was playing at worst at an acceptable level all year, supposed to lead the defense, which was not? If your offense is scoring 27 or more points, you need to win the majority of those games; our defense didn't allow that to happen at the end of the season, and you're calling out the QB on that? By that standard, you may as well say Dilfer was elite, because he was such a great leader that his defense was historic. Come on...

 

This year, of all years, is not the one for you to make this argument, Dog. If you look at the offensive scoring between last year and this year, there isn't too much difference in the number of TDs. What is very different is the ratio of rushing/passing TDs. This season, it was the pass that scored the most touchdowns, when the running game dropped-off. So how did Manning not "step-up?" Did playing with an injury reflect poorly on his teamates, dropping morale?

 

150 yds rushing? Hell, Sheridan's D allowed that by the start of the 4th quarter on a number of occasions...but Rivers gets some slack and Manning doesn't? The first Dallas game they ran on us so much that the front seven had cleat marks on their chests--and Manning won it. (Off topic, I still can't get over how weak the SD running game is. Tomlinson didn't decline: he plummeted.)

 

I've noticed that you've once again blocked 2007 from your memory; and yet when I look at the records, it still seems to be there. Is it going to dawn on you anytime soon that the only way to have a winning record in the playoffs is to get to the Superbowl as a division winner; or get to the conference championship after winning a wild card game? Otherwise, you're at best .500. So if you are going to be 4-3, I'll take it like it happened, thank you very much.

[ksm7]

This is why I said you are being deliberately dense (note: I'm not calling you dense, but you are playing at it).

 

How on earth is the leader of the offense, which was playing at worst at an acceptable level all year, supposed to lead the defense, which was not? If your offense is scoring 27 or more points, you need to win the majority of those games; our defense didn't allow that to happen at the end of the season, and you're calling out the QB on that? By that standard, you may as well say Dilfer was elite, because he was such a great leader that his defense was historic. Come on...

 

This year, of all years, is not the one for you to make this argument, Dog. If you look at the offensive scoring between last year and this year, there isn't too much difference in the number of TDs. What is very different is the ratio of rushing/passing TDs. This season, it was the pass that scored the most touchdowns, when the running game dropped-off. So how did Manning not "step-up?" Did playing with an injury reflect poorly on his teamates, dropping morale?

 

150 yds rushing? Hell, Sheridan's D allowed that by the start of the 4th quarter on a number of occasions...but Rivers gets some slack and Manning doesn't? The first Dallas game they ran on us so much that the front seven had cleat marks on their chests--and Manning won it. (Off topic, I still can't get over how weak the SD running game is. Tomlinson didn't decline: he plummeted.)

 

I've noticed that you've once again blocked 2007 from your memory; and yet when I look at the records, it still seems to be there. Is it going to dawn on you anytime soon that the only way to have a winning record in the playoffs is to get to the Superbowl as a division winner; or get to the conference championship after winning a wild card game? Otherwise, you're at best .500. So if you are going to be 4-3, I'll take it like it happened, thank you very much.

 

you are making the dog's points...leadership is leadership. charger recievers drop passes and rivers is to blame because he wasn't showing leadership skills by demanding his players catch passes, yet the giant team doesn't show on a number of occassions this year and get manhandled, and manning gets a pass because the route of the attitude problems was on defense and he plays offense? really? look at QBs with great leadership skills in history (brady...elway...montana...etc...) and listen to teammates on both sides of the ball talk about them in interviews past and present - they would lie down in traffic for those players if they were asked to.

 

the dog is making the point that you can't blame rivers' leadership for the loss anymore than you can turn the same argument around in favor of manning (as you just said). rivers is not a great qb because his team struggled against the #1 defense and started to self destruct (drop passes...penalties...etc...), yet this somehow elevates manning in a season when his team self destructed well before the playoffs (penalities...NOT SHOWING UP TO GAMES...grumbling in the locker room (see Osi...)). and since you brought it up, how did manning do this year with a defense that was crumbling and giving up all those yards and without a consistent running game? he went 8-8 which was a gift record based on the schedule. That was the dog's point when joe brought up rivers and the playoff game (by the way, the giants had a better ranked defense this year than the chargers believe it or not, and the chargers had the 31st ranked rushing offense this year, and rivers took the team to the playoffs with 13 wins, and manning sat at home with 8, and this somehow translates into manning being great and rivers not...how does that make sense???). why is the dog being considered dense on all of this? put the team passion aside, and look at all that is factual.

 

not ignoring the 2007 season - we will differ on manning's role during that run. that being said, in the dog's opinion, it is difficult to say how great a qb is, sight his postseason run to the super bowl, and ignore the fact that in three other trips, he has been unable to take his team out of the first round. is that all his fault - no. but great qbs have more consistent seasonal success than that...nobody can ever take the super bowl victory away from him, nor should they. but if anyone wants to argue that the defense doesn't deserve most of the credit for that run, well the dog is going to fight you on that, or suggest watching all of those games again...

[fishgutmartyr]

you are making the dog's points...leadership is leadership. charger recievers drop passes and rivers is to blame because he wasn't showing leadership skills by demanding his players catch passes, yet the giant team doesn't show on a number of occassions this year and get manhandled, and manning gets a pass because the route of the attitude problems was on defense and he plays offense? really? look at QBs with great leadership skills in history (brady...elway...montana...etc...) and listen to teammates on both sides of the ball talk about them in interviews past and present - they would lie down in traffic for those players if they were asked to.

 

So Montana went over to the defense and gave them pep talks? That didn't bother Ronnie Lott, a defensive captain and HOF'er? Ever hear Strahan talk about Manning? The defense has confidence in the guy--but that doesn't mean anything when they aren't doing their own jobs.

 

the dog is making the point that you can't blame rivers' leadership for the loss anymore than you can turn the same argument around in favor of manning (as you just said). rivers is not a great qb because his team struggled against the #1 defense and started to self destruct (drop passes...penalties...etc...), yet this somehow elevates manning in a season when his team self destructed well before the playoffs (penalities...NOT SHOWING UP TO GAMES...grumbling in the locker room (see Osi...)). and since you brought it up, how did manning do this year with a defense that was crumbling and giving up all those yards and without a consistent running game? he went 8-8 which was a gift record based on the schedule. That was the dog's point when joe brought up rivers and the playoff game (by the way, the giants had a better ranked defense this year than the chargers believe it or not, and the chargers had the 31st ranked rushing offense this year, and rivers took the team to the playoffs with 13 wins, and manning sat at home with 8, and this somehow translates into manning being great and rivers not...how does that make sense???). why is the dog being considered dense on all of this? put the team passion aside, and look at all that is factual.

 

I can think of maybe 3 games where the offense didn't show up: Denver, and the last two. Otherwise, the offense played well enough to be ranked in the top ten, despite having their running game (such as it was this year) removed from the table thanks to the defense's inability to stop the opponent from scoring. Even if the running game was better than SD's, it didn't matter because we were playing catch up all too often.

 

Even then, we had games like the Eagles game where we CAUGHT UP AND TOOK THE LEAD briefly, only to lose it again on the very next possession. How do you consider that a breakdown on offense?

 

Again, virtually every single item you mentioned (crippling penalties, grumbling, not showing up to games) were almost exclusively defensive issues. There is only so much an offensive leader can do in that situation.

 

Yeah, SD did win 13 games. In the AFC West. We would have easily gone 4-2 in that division as well. The only playoff teams they beat all season were Cincy, Dallas, and Philly. Give me 4 games against KC and Oakland, one each against Cleveland, Miami, and Washington; and I bet we could come up with a decent record. I don't remember how the Titans were doing by the end of the season, so I didn't include them. Manning had a gift of a schedule, and Rivers didn't?

 

Better ranked defense in total yards. We were 30th in total points--mind boggling when you consider in two games a total of 7 pts were scored against us. Their defense was better than ours in the one stat that counts.

 

not ignoring the 2007 season - we will differ on manning's role during that run. that being said, in the dog's opinion, it is difficult to say how great a qb is, sight his postseason run to the super bowl, and ignore the fact that in three other trips, he has been unable to take his team out of the first round. is that all his fault - no. but great qbs have more consistent seasonal success than that...nobody can ever take the super bowl victory away from him, nor should they. but if anyone wants to argue that the defense doesn't deserve most of the credit for that run, well the dog is going to fight you on that, or suggest watching all of those games again...

 

If you are going by the Superbowl alone, sure. Although without some clutch plays by Manning, 14 points would have won it--remember, both our touchdowns came by passes.

 

Dallas? Would have been a totally different game if Manning didn't orchestrate that 2 minute drill before half-time. The defense nearly gave it away by leaving Clayton open at the end of the game. Thank god he dropped that pass.

 

Green Bay? The offense held on to the ball for over 40 minutes. Burress had 154 yards. And it still went into overtime. Other than Webster's INT in overtime, where's the defense?

 

Tampa Bay was dominance by both sides of the ball.

 

Certainly, the defense played it's part. But the portrait you're painting is quite a bit different than what actually happened.

[ksm7]

So Montana went over to the defense and gave them pep talks? That didn't bother Ronnie Lott, a defensive captain and HOF'er? Ever hear Strahan talk about Manning? The defense has confidence in the guy--but that doesn't mean anything when they aren't doing their own jobs.

 

 

 

I can think of maybe 3 games where the offense didn't show up: Denver, and the last two. Otherwise, the offense played well enough to be ranked in the top ten, despite having their running game (such as it was this year) removed from the table thanks to the defense's inability to stop the opponent from scoring. Even if the running game was better than SD's, it didn't matter because we were playing catch up all too often.

 

Even then, we had games like the Eagles game where we CAUGHT UP AND TOOK THE LEAD briefly, only to lose it again on the very next possession. How do you consider that a breakdown on offense?

 

Again, virtually every single item you mentioned (crippling penalties, grumbling, not showing up to games) were almost exclusively defensive issues. There is only so much an offensive leader can do in that situation.

 

Yeah, SD did win 13 games. In the AFC West. We would have easily gone 4-2 in that division as well. The only playoff teams they beat all season were Cincy, Dallas, and Philly. Give me 4 games against KC and Oakland, one each against Cleveland, Miami, and Washington; and I bet we could come up with a decent record. I don't remember how the Titans were doing by the end of the season, so I didn't include them. Manning had a gift of a schedule, and Rivers didn't?

 

Better ranked defense in total yards. We were 30th in total points--mind boggling when you consider in two games a total of 7 pts were scored against us. Their defense was better than ours in the one stat that counts.

 

 

 

If you are going by the Superbowl alone, sure. Although without some clutch plays by Manning, 14 points would have won it--remember, both our touchdowns came by passes.

 

Dallas? Would have been a totally different game if Manning didn't orchestrate that 2 minute drill before half-time. The defense nearly gave it away by leaving Clayton open at the end of the game. Thank god he dropped that pass.

 

Green Bay? The offense held on to the ball for over 40 minutes. Burress had 154 yards. And it still went into overtime. Other than Webster's INT in overtime, where's the defense?

 

Tampa Bay was dominance by both sides of the ball.

 

Certainly, the defense played it's part. But the portrait you're painting is quite a bit different than what actually happened.

 

and again, how does any of this translate into manning being a great qb? how does the fact that he was the super bowl winning qb two years ago provide the basis and solidification (if there is such a word) of his greatness in a year when the team went 8-8 (and were lucky to be that)? how does any of this year's postseason support the notion that he is a great QB? this was all where it started...rivers (whom the dog can't stand but he is a talent) loses to the #1 defense in the playoffs with the 31st ranked offense and 20th ranked defense against the #1 ranked rushing attack and this somehow supports the idea that manning is great. and to go so far as to suggest that manning would have won that game if he had been the QB is ludicrous...yet the dog in all of this is the one who is being dense? come on...it is hard to say how great he is at this stage in his career, but for soemone as inconsistent year in and year out to this point, if the dog is downplaying him as a QB, you all are certainly drinking he kool aide and elevating him to qb sainthood way too soon...and if he is currently an elite qb, than the qb pool in the league is seriously weak and putrid...

[JMFP]

 

the dog is making the point that you can't blame rivers' leadership for the loss anymore than you can turn the same argument around in favor of manning

 

....rivers is not a great qb because his team struggled against the #1 defense and started to self destruct (drop passes...penalties...etc...), yet this somehow elevates manning in a season when his team self destructed well before the playoffs

 

Hey, when (rather, if) Rivers wins a championship, he'll get the same benefit of the doubt.

[xxi-xxv]

Know when ELI stepped up as a leader? Dec 13th against the Eagles. With first place on the line all ELI did was single handedly keep his team in that game and actually take the lead after falling behind 14 points. It was not ELIS fault that his defense game after game after game shit the bed when he did his part, that night in particular he was outstanding and that at the time was thebiggest game of the year.

 

Why are we still debating ELI Manning, what more does he have to do? Maybe throw for 4000 yards and 28 tds with 1st 2nd and 3rd year Wrs? ...oh wait nevermind

[ksm7]

Another quick point: the "body of work" qualifier is useful to evaluate past legends (Fouts, Marino....yes, Brian Kelly) and current elite QBs (e.g., Drew Brees).

 

However, among the current QBs, other than Drew Brees, I can't think of a current non-champion QB that belongs in that "Tier 1" category.

 

And this gets back to my original post.....take at look at the Jets/Chargers game. Hats off to the Jets, and they deserved to win that game. But they deserved to win that game MAINLY because the Chargers lost their composure. Look at the many blown opportunities the Chargers had. Kaeding was a huge part of the problem, but so was Rivers. He had two critical interceptions in a game that should have been the Chargers to win.

 

A QB is more than a pass-thrower. He is the leader of the team. And when your team is dropping passes, missing kicks, getting dumb penalties (kicking the refs flag, for example), it's the job of the leader to get his guys heads screwed on.

 

Joe Montana doesn't lose that game....Troy Aikman doesn't....Roger Staubuch or Terry Bradshaw keep their team's heads on straight to win that game.

 

And yes, my friend, Big Ben or Eli Manning win wouldn't lose that game.

 

the dog guesses we need to re-evaluate favre as a leader and in his overall place among elite QBs, well, since his team fell apart yesterday with all the fumbles/penalties...etc...why he didn't step up as a leader is beyond the dog...

 

by the way, the games yeserday cemented in the dog's mind eli's place among this year's QB elite - did you see how enthusiastic he was in he booth when his brother threw his third TD pass? greatness.

[JMFP]

the dog guesses we need to re-evaluate favre as a leader and in his overall place among elite QBs, well, since his team fell apart yesterday with all the fumbles/penalties...etc...why he didn't step up as a leader is beyond the dog...

 

by the way, the games yeserday cemented in the dog's mind eli's place among this year's QB elite - did you see how enthusiastic he was in he booth when his brother threw his third TD pass? greatness.

 

What I find interesting is this:

 

1. 
    
   
2. I said Sanchez had a shot at greatness if he won the Super Bowl. Peyton Manning answered that question.
   
3. I said that some QB's are "great" based upon their body of work (Marino, Fouts). I included Drew Brees as the ONLY QB in that category.
   
4. I said to be considered great, you need to go through the greats......Sanchez was unable to do that against Peyton. Brees was able to do that against Favre.
   

 

If anything, I believe this weekend provided a perfect confirmation of what I shall now term The JMFP QB Greatness Barometer (or JMFP/QBGB for short).

 

I'm sure you'll agree. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.