Top 5 QB's in the NFL

[Virginia Giant]

the dog could ask you the same thing. you and others seem to shift what is emphasized in order to fit eli in the top 5 as you see fit. a cowboy or eagle fan brings up romo or mcnabb and their numbers (wins and stats), suddenly not having a ring automatically puts you out of top 5 contention. someone puts roethlisberger (two rings) ahead of manning, suddenly credit is taken away from him for benefiting from a good defense (um, manning doesn't sniff a super bowl without that defense in 2007...see last year for those results), and super bowl wins are de-emphasized. the dog throws out weak QBS with super bowl wins, and you post there career stats again de-emphasizing the rings when it suits you.

 

there is no criteria. kyle orton is outplaying eli manning and many others as a QB right now. if he had a team and or coach around him, he would have the wins to support his numbers. yet he isn't on anyones radar in top QB discussions...you know what, he should be. factors beyond his control diminish the number of wins he has, yet by your twisted and twisting criteria he would be well below what his level of play should place...

 

to project that manning will finish his career with numbers comparable to the best ever QBs is quite ambitous and over the top. can't be predicted. much the same way it was predicted after a super bowl loss that marino would be back for many more chances...or after GB lost to denver that favre would be back...

 

 

Eli Manning has never had a losing season as a starter, his worse record thus far is 500. His stats the last couple years are among the best, he has lead multiple 4 quarter drives to win the game or take the lead late. He plays in the toughest market in the nfl with some of the most egotistical players and has not lashed out or let it affect his play. He has been roug, hed up a few times and started every game since his first. Eli is in the conversation with anybody except Peyton, and possibly Brady and Brees.

 

Eli has played well with whoever is at WR, he revived Toomers career, turned Plax into a star, has made Smith one of the most respected wr's in football and has so far made Nicks a star. Not saying those players didn't or don't have a lot of talent but Eli has had an effect on their careers.

 

Romo has the talent of anyone, but his intagibles and penchant for throwing the bad pick keep him out of the discussion. Before he was hurt he led his team, which by all rights was likely the most all in all talented team in footbal to a 1 and 4 record and before that HE has lost playoff games.

 

Donovan was one of the best qb's ever, nothing but respect for him, but I can't in good faith put him in the top 5 anymore.

 

Rothlisberger is Eli's equal, they are both great on the football field.

 

Orton, the guy who was benched for Rex Grossman?

 

Call it the D all you want, Eli keeps proving every game he is among the best current QB's

[Allstarjim]

the dog would encourage you to look at brees sumbers in san diego again. pretty solid indeed. and funny that he may not have the "winning pedigree" having played in the same place as philip rivers, who many also argued against ranking him higher for the same reasons...could it be more than the QBs fault for that? hmmmm...and eli has struggled in weather games as well. as a lot of QBs have. yes winning matters, but you have to go beyond the wins sometimes before giving or taking away credit from a QB. is jim mcmahon a top 5 QB in 85? no. but he rolled up 18 wins against one loss. come from behind wins is a weak stat. brett favre is among the career leaders in this category (may even be number one, the dog doesn't care to look it up)...yet a majority of those occurred because his own poor play and stupid decisions put the team in that place to begin with. let's take the dog's kyle orton example above one step further. if you put eli manning in denver the team results are the same. 2-6. not his fault, as it isn't ortons, who has done everything he can to win but has nothing to support him.

 

I did look at Brees' numbers in San Diego. And while he was there, he was not considered top 5 by very many, if any, at all. He now is. Could it be offensive system and a fast track conducive to eye popping stats that is the reason? I think so. You say his numbers there are solid. I agree. That's why he's my 7th ranked QB in the NFL, and that's my opinion based on seeing him play for awhile now. And if you look, I don't take any one factor and base a ranking off it. You take the whole picture, the player, statistics, wins, character, competitive drive, determination, unflappability, physical ability, and football smarts and combine them. Eli ranks very high in everyone of these attributes. If you don't like it... I don't care. For the record, I think Orton is a very good QB and he is certainly in the conversation of top 10-12 QB's. I think that team's problem is coaching and game planning, as well as defensive problems. But there is no scientific way for you to say that a team's record would be the same if you switched QB's... Like it or not, QB's play a huge role in wins and losses on Sundays. That is why if you replaced Peyton Manning with any number of QB's that are considered "good QB's"... the Colts likely don't make teh playoffs. You can never say for sure, but I can say that without Peyton quarterbacking that team, that team doesn't have year after year double digit win seasons.

[fishgutmartyr]

the dog would encourage you to look at brees sumbers in san diego again. pretty solid indeed. and funny that he may not have the "winning pedigree" having played in the same place as philip rivers, who many also argued against ranking him higher for the same reasons...could it be more than the QBs fault for that? hmmmm...and eli has struggled in weather games as well. as a lot of QBs have. yes winning matters, but you have to go beyond the wins sometimes before giving or taking away credit from a QB. is jim mcmahon a top 5 QB in 85? no. but he rolled up 18 wins against one loss. come from behind wins is a weak stat. brett favre is among the career leaders in this category (may even be number one, the dog doesn't care to look it up)...yet a majority of those occurred because his own poor play and stupid decisions put the team in that place to begin with. let's take the dog's kyle orton example above one step further. if you put eli manning in denver the team results are the same. 2-6. not his fault, as it isn't ortons, who has done everything he can to win but has nothing to support him.

 

I couldn't stand McMahon. But if you look at the Bear's wins/losses over his career when he was on the field compared to when he was on the sidelines injured, you'll find that he was an integral member of that team. I mean the difference between being damn near undefeated, and barely above .500. Considering he played every game of the '85 season, and knowing what I know of how that team responded to that player, yeah, I might consider him top five in value for that year, albeit not statistically.

 

Which is why I don't rate Roethlisberger as highly as some people do. Cowher started his coaching career with such notable QBs as Bubby Brister, Neil O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart, and Tommy Maddox. Does that sound like names that inspire building teams around the QB, or are you going to build a system that minimizes the impact of the QB? I'm not saying that Ben is on the level of those scrubs, but it was much easier to have him perform well in that system than a system like Martz's or Payton's. Or are you going to argue that the combination of Dennis Dixon and Charlie Batch are the equal of Rothlisberger, and therefore superior to Eli?

 

I think it's more than coincidental that we start hearing "Giant's wide receivers" and "threat" in the same sentence after 2005.

[ksm7]

You provided several examples in an attempt to disprove my point, and statistically, they simply don't support your argument.

 

And then, you introduce Kyle Orton into the argument.....Eli has one more season in the league, and nearly double his yardage. Not to mention Orton has no ring, no playoff appearances, etc. I would imagine you could argue that Kyle hasn't been a starter for much of his career, to which I would respond if he were truly a great QB, he would have been starting much earlier.

 

Currently Orton is 2-6, whereas Eli is 5-2. Great quarterbacks win games. You are proving my argument.

 

There has been no "shifting" in my position. Eli continues to improve. He is leading arguably the most balanced attack in the NFL, and has a very real chance at another division title and playoff run.

 

Again, if Super Bowl Championships, Playoff appearances, Wins, Passing Yards, and Passer Rating are not valid metrics, then no, Eli is not an elite QB.

 

orton is the perfect example. he was 27-12 as a starter in chicago (winning with receivers that the dog would rank slightly higher than the local high schoool set). then he went to denver, and now plays for a b-rated coach with no run game, a battered o-line and still second tier receivers and is rolling up big numbers. he is a high quality QB that if given legit weapons and coaching, would have the wins. yet you turn a blind eye to it because your "formula" only accounts for wins. If eli is on the broncos currently, he is a 2-6 record starter, and you are ignoring him on your list. it is a fact, there is no criteria to measure and rank QBs that lies free of anyone's bias...you all are bias of eli, and so you see him how you want to. objectively, he is a good QB, but inconsistent and not top 5...top 10 at best....let's talk consistency and success - for those that want to ordain eli for winning when it counts, his teams under his superb leadership and brilliance at the QB level have been to the playoffs 4 of his seasons as a starter - they have gotten out of the first round once. what has been the difference? that was the year they played with a dominant defense...

[Virginia Giant]

orton is the perfect example. he was 27-12 as a starter in chicago (winning with receivers that the dog would rank slightly higher than the local high schoool set). then he went to denver, and now plays for a b-rated coach with no run game, a battered o-line and still second tier receivers and is rolling up big numbers. he is a high quality QB that if given legit weapons and coaching, would have the wins. yet you turn a blind eye to it because your "formula" only accounts for wins. If eli is on the broncos currently, he is a 2-6 record starter, and you are ignoring him on your list. it is a fact, there is no criteria to measure and rank QBs that lies free of anyone's bias...you all are bias of eli, and so you see him how you want to. objectively, he is a good QB, but inconsistent and not top 5...top 10 at best....let's talk consistency and success - for those that want to ordain eli for winning when it counts, his teams under his superb leadership and brilliance at the QB level have been to the playoffs 4 of his seasons as a starter - they have gotten out of the first round once. what has been the difference? that was the year they played with a dominant defense...

And how many times has Orton led his team to the playoffs. Fucking stupid argument dog, it's like saying Kelly isn't great for never winning a super bowl. And one of the years you mentioned, Eli led his team to a lead in the 4th quarter against the Eagles that the D let the eagles win. And was that the same year we lost Plax?

 

By any formulation, Eli is near the top, far supirior to Peyton, somewhat surpiror to Brady and Brees, but other than that, no one is clearly, or even marginally better than Eli.

 

He wins, throws a fair amount of TD's, (albeit he throws some picks), 4,000 yards last year, 60% completion percentage, super bowl win, consistantly in the playoffs, has yet to miss a start since his first.

 

What exactly does he need to do to prove himself? Win multiple super bowls? Only a few qb's have done that. And Eli could very well be the next.

[fishgutmartyr]

orton is the perfect example. he was 27-12 as a starter in chicago (winning with receivers that the dog would rank slightly higher than the local high schoool set). then he went to denver, and now plays for a b-rated coach with no run game, a battered o-line and still second tier receivers and is rolling up big numbers. he is a high quality QB that if given legit weapons and coaching, would have the wins. yet you turn a blind eye to it because your "formula" only accounts for wins. If eli is on the broncos currently, he is a 2-6 record starter, and you are ignoring him on your list. it is a fact, there is no criteria to measure and rank QBs that lies free of anyone's bias...you all are bias of eli, and so you see him how you want to. objectively, he is a good QB, but inconsistent and not top 5...top 10 at best....let's talk consistency and success - for those that want to ordain eli for winning when it counts, his teams under his superb leadership and brilliance at the QB level have been to the playoffs 4 of his seasons as a starter - they have gotten out of the first round once. what has been the difference? that was the year they played with a dominant defense...

 

Chicago was another system that didn't put a whole lot of stock in the QB position--at least before Martz. That was a defense/run system, done kind of half-assed. I don't think they made the Superbowl in 2006 on the arm of Rex Grossman...

 

Lloyd, Royal and Gaffney aren't a terrible receiver corps. Obviously not tops in the league, but definitely serviceable. Really don't think Orton is a bad QB, either. I wouldn't have given up Cutler for him, but he is underrated. I don't know if I would put him anywhere near top-10 right now though. If he has another season like this one, though, he might have to be considered. Assuming he continues like this for the full season.

 

And how many times has Orton led his team to the playoffs. Fucking stupid argument dog, it's like saying Kelly isn't great for never winning a super bowl. And one of the years you mentioned, Eli led his team to a lead in the 4th quarter against the Eagles that the D let the eagles win. And was that the same year we lost Plax?

 

By any formulation, Eli is near the top, far supirior to Peyton, somewhat surpiror to Brady and Brees, but other than that, no one is clearly, or even marginally better than Eli.

 

He wins, throws a fair amount of TD's, (albeit he throws some picks), 4,000 yards last year, 60% completion percentage, super bowl win, consistantly in the playoffs, has yet to miss a start since his first.

 

What exactly does he need to do to prove himself? Win multiple super bowls? Only a few qb's have done that. And Eli could very well be the next.

No, I think that was 2006. Thanks for bringing up a painful memory, btw.

 

I think your second paragraph is the opposite of what you mean.

[Allstarjim]

It's Manning and Brady, 1 and 2...

 

The next 5 you could realistically rank in any order because the margin is so close: Eli, Rivers, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, and Brees.

 

For ME, the only one I would feel good about trading Eli for to play in NY is Rodgers. If they traded him for any of the other QB's there, I'd be pissed, and that includes Brees. And if it was Orton, I'd shit a brick. Orton has a lot of passing yards this year, but he is not in the class of the QB's above. He is a tier below.

 

Here's what Doggie doesn't get... beyond the numbers, a lot of wins and losses on the football field come down to intangibles from the QB position. Eli has off the charts intangibles... that is, his instincts, his ability to read a defense, and when to take a shot, when to take a sack, and when to throw it away. I'm a stat guy, but stats only tell part of the story.

[Virginia Giant]

Chicago was another system that didn't put a whole lot of stock in the QB position--at least before Martz. That was a defense/run system, done kind of half-assed. I don't think they made the Superbowl in 2006 on the arm of Rex Grossman...

 

Lloyd, Royal and Gaffney aren't a terrible receiver corps. Obviously not tops in the league, but definitely serviceable. Really don't think Orton is a bad QB, either. I wouldn't have given up Cutler for him, but he is underrated. I don't know if I would put him anywhere near top-10 right now though. If he has another season like this one, though, he might have to be considered. Assuming he continues like this for the full season.

 

 

No, I think that was 2006. Thanks for bringing up a painful memory, btw.

 

I think your second paragraph is the opposite of what you mean.

Yeah I got my words a little jumbled it seems.

[BIGBLUE01]

OK, heres my revised list.

 

 

1. Derek Anderson

2. Matt Moore

3. Ryan Fitzpatrick

4. Rex Grossman (He is in really great shape!)

5. Jamarcus Russell

 

 

 

Beat that list, I dare ya.

[ksm7]

It's Manning and Brady, 1 and 2...

 

The next 5 you could realistically rank in any order because the margin is so close: Eli, Rivers, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, and Brees.

 

For ME, the only one I would feel good about trading Eli for to play in NY is Rodgers. If they traded him for any of the other QB's there, I'd be pissed, and that includes Brees. And if it was Orton, I'd shit a brick. Orton has a lot of passing yards this year, but he is not in the class of the QB's above. He is a tier below.

 

Here's what Doggie doesn't get... beyond the numbers, a lot of wins and losses on the football field come down to intangibles from the QB position. Eli has off the charts intangibles... that is, his instincts, his ability to read a defense, and when to take a shot, when to take a sack, and when to throw it away. I'm a stat guy, but stats only tell part of the story.

 

exactly...and a lot of wins and losses are not always because of QB play (see ravens super bowl season). orton has strong numbers throughout his career. he makes very few mistakes, and up until his last two seasons, he won games. VG says it is a stupid argument b/c he hasn't lead his team to the playoffs. why does it fall entirely on him? eli went to the playoffs with an 8-8 record relying on Tiki Barber, yet he gets credit for being a great QB that is a winner and lead his team to the playoffs? sorry vg, THAT is a stupid argument. put manning on the broncos the last two years, and that team is as successful as they are with orton. let's take it another step - david carr had as much talent as anyone coming out. he gets destroyed in houston due to a horrific o-line, no defense, and little by way of a run game. if he ends up on a more talented team, we may be including him in these debates. if eli goes to a team like that, he fairs no better. circumstance plays a huge role in QB success...

 

and to fish - lloyd is a second tier receiver...gaffney is as well. royal has some potential, but is young and still making his way...are you really going to argue that this is a potent receiving core? give manning those guys in place of burress, toomer, now nicks and smith, and let's see how well he is doing...

 

this is the lack or realism taking place. put orton up, the minimalist thinking says well he must be bad, because he hasn't won a lot of games as a starter...he did when he began his career. now he is putting up excellent numbers and the team loses in spite of him (defense, coaching, no attempt to run the ball...etc...) and that is ignored...but eli benefits from good to excellent receivers, a great o-line through much of his career, and a very strong and at times superb defense, yet he gets the credit and is mentioned in the same breath as peyton, brady, brees...? the dog loves these debates - too easy.

[Virginia Giant]

exactly...and a lot of wins and losses are not always because of QB play (see ravens super bowl season). orton has strong numbers throughout his career. he makes very few mistakes, and up until his last two seasons, he won games. VG says it is a stupid argument b/c he hasn't lead his team to the playoffs. why does it fall entirely on him? eli went to the playoffs with an 8-8 record relying on Tiki Barber, yet he gets credit for being a great QB that is a winner and lead his team to the playoffs? sorry vg, THAT is a stupid argument. put manning on the broncos the last two years, and that team is as successful as they are with orton. let's take it another step - david carr had as much talent as anyone coming out. he gets destroyed in houston due to a horrific o-line, no defense, and little by way of a run game. if he ends up on a more talented team, we may be including him in these debates. if eli goes to a team like that, he fairs no better. circumstance plays a huge role in QB success...

 

and to fish - lloyd is a second tier receiver...gaffney is as well. royal has some potential, but is young and still making his way...are you really going to argue that this is a potent receiving core? give manning those guys in place of burress, toomer, now nicks and smith, and let's see how well he is doing...

 

this is the lack or realism taking place. put orton up, the minimalist thinking says well he must be bad, because he hasn't won a lot of games as a starter...he did when he began his career. now he is putting up excellent numbers and the team loses in spite of him (defense, coaching, no attempt to run the ball...etc...) and that is ignored...but eli benefits from good to excellent receivers, a great o-line through much of his career, and a very strong and at times superb defense, yet he gets the credit and is mentioned in the same breath as peyton, brady, brees...? the dog loves these debates - too easy.

 

 

So what you're saying is, that first it was Tiki taking the Giants to the playoffs (which is true), then it was the defense, etc. The one constant being Eli. Despite the fact that last year is the first time he has missed the playoffs since becoming the full time starter, and the fact that every receiver who has spent time on the field with him has either revived or rejuvinated (Toomer and Plax) their career, or became a great WR (Smith) or began what looks like the start of a super star carer (Nicks). Seems odd that everyone thought Toomer was on his way out before Eli, then all of a sudden tacked on a few more great years. And that Plaxico, after 5 years with Pittsburg, comes to the Giants with Eli as the starter and mathes his carer high in TD's his first year there, and then in consecutive years tops it twice.

 

As far as circumstances go, they couldn't have picked a worse time to start Eli his rookie season, playing games against the Steelers, Ravens etc, albeit looking bad, but he continued to improve and almost beat the Steelers, then did beat the Cowboys.

 

Of course circumstances play a large part in it all, but just like you said Eli's stats can't be predicted for the remainder of his career, you can't predict what he would have done with the Broncos or Texans. Not to mention, Warner who spent a hall of fame career with ST Louis and then the Cards, wasn't very effenctive on the team Eli inherited. And you also can't predict what Eli's career would look like without the expectations of being a Manning playing in New York.

 

So, I'm done with this argument, Eli has the stats, the wins, the playoff appearences and the super bowl title half way through his career, by any measuring device used on QB's, Eli stacks up, so hate on him all you want, the Giants will continue winning with Eli behind enter.

[ksm7]

So what you're saying is, that first it was Tiki taking the Giants to the playoffs (which is true), then it was the defense, etc. The one constant being Eli. Despite the fact that last year is the first time he has missed the playoffs since becoming the full time starter, and the fact that every receiver who has spent time on the field with him has either revived or rejuvinated (Toomer and Plax) their career, or became a great WR (Smith) or began what looks like the start of a super star carer (Nicks). Seems odd that everyone thought Toomer was on his way out before Eli, then all of a sudden tacked on a few more great years. And that Plaxico, after 5 years with Pittsburg, comes to the Giants with Eli as the starter and mathes his carer high in TD's his first year there, and then in consecutive years tops it twice.

 

As far as circumstances go, they couldn't have picked a worse time to start Eli his rookie season, playing games against the Steelers, Ravens etc, albeit looking bad, but he continued to improve and almost beat the Steelers, then did beat the Cowboys.

 

Of course circumstances play a large part in it all, but just like you said Eli's stats can't be predicted for the remainder of his career, you can't predict what he would have done with the Broncos or Texans. Not to mention, Warner who spent a hall of fame career with ST Louis and then the Cards, wasn't very effenctive on the team Eli inherited. And you also can't predict what Eli's career would look like without the expectations of being a Manning playing in New York.

 

So, I'm done with this argument, Eli has the stats, the wins, the playoff appearences and the super bowl title half way through his career, by any measuring device used on QB's, Eli stacks up, so hate on him all you want, the Giants will continue winning with Eli behind enter.

 

dog doesn't hate eli...just sees him for what he actually is...the same way the dog saw jacobs for what he actually was. he is a solid QB that is inconsistent and gets more credit than he deserves. funny, allstar jim and others like to take brees down a few pegs because he isn't a winner, despite winning a super bowl with one of the classic nfl losers (of course, he would site his years in SD, ignoring his numbers his last two seasons there, 51 tds, 22 picks, 22 wins and 10 losses). then he takes rivers down a few notches for not winning. funny, two of the top 5 or so QBS in the league losing credit for not winning with the same organization...could it be there is something wrong with that organization? little eli thought so much of himself that he demanded he not play for that organization...interesting. the dog also loves that orton gets no credit because "great QBS like eli" have the "intangibles" that make them winners...again, eli has only won when he has had the top o-line and one of the best defenses. take last year - the giants start 5-0 against some of the worst teams in the league, everyone is clearing there super bowl calendars...then, when things go south, the giants go 3-8 down the stretch...where was the intangible knack for winning then? orton gets demerits from jim for not winning, yet eli gets credit for doing all he could...really? once the schedule got tougher, eli was 3-8 as a starter...when the team was spiriling, where were the intangibles?

 

dog doesn't expect everyone here to see eli for what he truly is...but at least be in the right ball park...

[Virginia Giant]

dog doesn't hate eli...just sees him for what he actually is...the same way the dog saw jacobs for what he actually was. he is a solid QB that is inconsistent and gets more credit than he deserves. funny, allstar jim and others like to take brees down a few pegs because he isn't a winner, despite winning a super bowl with one of the classic nfl losers (of course, he would site his years in SD, ignoring his numbers his last two seasons there, 51 tds, 22 picks, 22 wins and 10 losses). then he takes rivers down a few notches for not winning. funny, two of the top 5 or so QBS in the league losing credit for not winning with the same organization...could it be there is something wrong with that organization? little eli thought so much of himself that he demanded he not play for that organization...interesting. the dog also loves that orton gets no credit because "great QBS like eli" have the "intangibles" that make them winners...again, eli has only won when he has had the top o-line and one of the best defenses. take last year - the giants start 5-0 against some of the worst teams in the league, everyone is clearing there super bowl calendars...then, when things go south, the giants go 3-8 down the stretch...where was the intangible knack for winning then? orton gets demerits from jim for not winning, yet eli gets credit for doing all he could...really? once the schedule got tougher, eli was 3-8 as a starter...when the team was spiriling, where were the intangibles?

 

dog doesn't expect everyone here to see eli for what he truly is...but at least be in the right ball park...

 

 

Eli had one year where the team didn't have a winning record, and even then finished with a 500 record. Has Orton ever started 16 games and finished with a winning record? I really don';t know the answer to that question.Hopefully you can answer it.

 

And again, you credit the d, the o line, the running game, yet the one consistent has been eli.

 

Again, e has the stats, the wins, the playoff appearances and the super bowl, yet the best you've got to bring him down is one .500 season and credit everyone on the team but Eli Dare I say you are just another example of a hater who refuses to give credit to one of the top qb's of his day?

 

For the record, I think Rivers is great, I think Orton is above average, and thought he should be starting all along in Chicago. But the fact is he was benched for Grosman, and Grossman led that team to the super bowl.

[fishgutmartyr]

exactly...and a lot of wins and losses are not always because of QB play (see ravens super bowl season). orton has strong numbers throughout his career. he makes very few mistakes, and up until his last two seasons, he won games. VG says it is a stupid argument b/c he hasn't lead his team to the playoffs. why does it fall entirely on him? eli went to the playoffs with an 8-8 record relying on Tiki Barber, yet he gets credit for being a great QB that is a winner and lead his team to the playoffs? sorry vg, THAT is a stupid argument. put manning on the broncos the last two years, and that team is as successful as they are with orton. let's take it another step - david carr had as much talent as anyone coming out. he gets destroyed in houston due to a horrific o-line, no defense, and little by way of a run game. if he ends up on a more talented team, we may be including him in these debates. if eli goes to a team like that, he fairs no better. circumstance plays a huge role in QB success...

 

and to fish - lloyd is a second tier receiver...gaffney is as well. royal has some potential, but is young and still making his way...are you really going to argue that this is a potent receiving core? give manning those guys in place of burress, toomer, now nicks and smith, and let's see how well he is doing...

 

this is the lack or realism taking place. put orton up, the minimalist thinking says well he must be bad, because he hasn't won a lot of games as a starter...he did when he began his career. now he is putting up excellent numbers and the team loses in spite of him (defense, coaching, no attempt to run the ball...etc...) and that is ignored...but eli benefits from good to excellent receivers, a great o-line through much of his career, and a very strong and at times superb defense, yet he gets the credit and is mentioned in the same breath as peyton, brady, brees...? the dog loves these debates - too easy.

 

This is where it always becomes grey. If Orton has all these passing stats you are fawning over, who's doing the catching if not Lloyd, Gaffney, and Royal? I said they were a decent receiving corps anyway, not top-tier. Very few teams can make claim to that. Are you suggesting that Orton is making those wide receivers? Then why isn't Manning making Nicks, Manningham, and Smith? He's been putting up numbers before this lineup, and frankly I don't think Manningham is as good as his stats indicate...

 

Amani Toomer, as good as he was in his prime, would have been out of the league for years if it weren't for the acquistions of Burress and Manning. He simply wasn't good enough anymore to be a number 1 receiver. He reinforced that at the end of 2008. Want more proof? 2004, 16 games, 782 yds, 0 TDs as a #1. That's with Eli and Kurt Warner throwing to him. He became a reliable #2, but how much of that was Burress being double-covered, and Eli throwing to him?

 

Instead of 2006, why aren't you mentioning the other 8-8 season? In 2009, Eli had no defense at all, a beat up oline, and a sub-par running game. Nobody put any stock in our wide receivers. If we beat a decent team, it was by outscoring them, since they were still getting 20+ points, and there were three losses where we scored 20+ points (we actually lost one scoring 38 points!) that with a competent defense, may have brought us into the 10-6 area. Without Manning, we would have picked much earlier in the draft. Those circumstances seem very Orton-like, and yet that doesn't seem to matter in regard to Eli.

 

Sorry, but as far as the value to this team, Manning is right up there with Peyton, Brady, Brees, or anyone you care to mention. He might not be a stat-god like his brother, but he gets things done, and I breathe a sigh of relief when I think how close we came to having Rivers.

[ksm7]

Eli had one year where the team didn't have a winning record, and even then finished with a 500 record. Has Orton ever started 16 games and finished with a winning record? I really don';t know the answer to that question.Hopefully you can answer it.

 

And again, you credit the d, the o line, the running game, yet the one consistent has been eli.

 

Again, e has the stats, the wins, the playoff appearances and the super bowl, yet the best you've got to bring him down is one .500 season and credit everyone on the team but Eli Dare I say you are just another example of a hater who refuses to give credit to one of the top qb's of his day?

 

For the record, I think Rivers is great, I think Orton is above average, and thought he should be starting all along in Chicago. But the fact is he was benched for Grosman, and Grossman led that team to the super bowl.

 

the constant when they have been winning has been an excellent o-line and a nasty defense. the dog sees eli for what he is...a solid nfl QB. top 3? not even close. top 5. nope. in the end, there is no way to rank QBs b/c of circumstance. you can put the big three in a class by themselves. the next tier of QBs is about 20 players long...then you have the bottom feeders.

[Virginia Giant]

the constant when they have been winning has been an excellent o-line and a nasty defense. the dog sees eli for what he is...a solid nfl QB. top 3? not even close. top 5. nope. in the end, there is no way to rank QBs b/c of circumstance. you can put the big three in a class by themselves. the next tier of QBs is about 20 players long...then you have the bottom feeders.

Do you neven proof read your posts? Cause nthat makes no sense.

[ksm7]

Do you neven proof read your posts? Cause nthat makes no sense.

 

umm, not that difficult to understand if you earned a minimum of a GED. let the dog help you: the top 3 Qbs (peyton manning, brees and brady - the dog should have actually put there names down for you to be clear) stand well ahead of everyone else...the next tier of Qbs is about 20 players long (your little eli falls here...) and then there are those that fall below those 23 odd players...guys that are at the lower end of things by virtue of their ability and skill set, age...etc...

 

hope this helps...and just let it go. the dog's accurate assessment shouldn't get in the way of your mental love affair with little eli...

[Allstarjim]

umm, not that difficult to understand if you earned a minimum of a GED. let the dog help you: the top 3 Qbs (peyton manning, brees and brady - the dog should have actually put there names down for you to be clear) stand well ahead of everyone else...the next tier of Qbs is about 20 players long (your little eli falls here...) and then there are those that fall below those 23 odd players...guys that are at the lower end of things by virtue of their ability and skill set, age...etc...

 

hope this helps...and just let it go. the dog's accurate assessment shouldn't get in the way of your mental love affair with little eli...

 

 

Dude is a effin' idiot. Probably a Cowboys fan. Who cares. He sees what he wants to see. Funny thing, I was one of the biggest Eli haters for a long time, at least the first two full seasons. I'm very objective when it comes to the Giants, and I can see Eli for what he's become. In the game tonight, Strahan and Troy Aikman talked about it too. I guess Troy Aikman is too much of a Giants' homer to see the truth, that Eli is just the product of a good O-line, good receivers, and a good defense. Maybe the Dog should go try to convince Troy otherwise. Anybody that knows football would tell you Eli is head and shoulders above Orton. Problem is, Doggie only thinks he knows football, but really comes across as a blowhard idiot. There's really nothing worse than a guy who's completely wrong incessantly insisting he's right at the top of his lungs.

 

Guess what dude? We're going to continue to watch Eli play very well and win games... and you can continue to sit there and diminish it all you want. We will just sit here grinning at our mediocre QB as he takes us deep into the playoffs again this year.

[fringe]

five shmive

 

eli is an excellent QB- clearly the best ever Giants QB. the little minus he gets in accuracy is more than made up for with his Manning-esque field management, his Montana-esque vision and his Farvre-like cool under pressure.

 

italian shitdog, on the other hand, is a lonely moron. what little intelligence he does show is overshadowed by his hatred for anything giant, his jealousy and his general inability for objective thought.

[JMFP]

orton is the perfect example. he was 27-12 as a starter in chicago (winning with receivers that the dog would rank slightly higher than the local high schoool set). then he went to denver, and now plays for a b-rated coach with no run game, a battered o-line and still second tier receivers and is rolling up big numbers. he is a high quality QB that if given legit weapons and coaching, would have the wins. yet you turn a blind eye to it because your "formula" only accounts for wins. If eli is on the broncos currently, he is a 2-6 record starter, and you are ignoring him on your list. it is a fact, there is no criteria to measure and rank QBs that lies free of anyone's bias...you all are bias of eli, and so you see him how you want to. objectively, he is a good QB, but inconsistent and not top 5...top 10 at best....let's talk consistency and success - for those that want to ordain eli for winning when it counts, his teams under his superb leadership and brilliance at the QB level have been to the playoffs 4 of his seasons as a starter - they have gotten out of the first round once. what has been the difference? that was the year they played with a dominant defense...

 

My "formula" is pretty straightforward: wins, playoff appearances, playoff performance, passing yards, passer rating....these are quantifiable.

 

Again, using Orton as a example - inferior stats, inferior playoff appearances, inferior playoff performance.

 

I happen to like Orton.....thought he was a good QB for the Bears. But he doesn't belong in the conversation with the Manning brothers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or

Rothlisberger.

 

Side note: I suppose what Eli did today, in one of the toughest venues in the NFL, doesn't count for much in your eyes either. 6-2, leading what many people are now calling the best team in the NFC.

[fishgutmartyr]

umm, not that difficult to understand if you earned a minimum of a GED.

Well, that qualifies you as a pompous ass, doesn't it?

let the dog help you: the top 3 Qbs (peyton manning, brees and brady - the dog should have actually put there names down for you to be clear) stand well ahead of everyone else...the next tier of Qbs is about 20 players long (your little eli falls here...) and then there are those that fall below those 23 odd players...guys that are at the lower end of things by virtue of their ability and skill set, age...etc...

 

hope this helps...and just let it go. the dog's accurate assessment shouldn't get in the way of your mental love affair with little eli...

So your argument is the first three are on one tier, then there are 20 QBs on the second tier that are about the same but Manning couldn't be in the two positions remaining in the top 5 even if they were about the same? Matt Ryan is about as good as Phillip Rivers? Matt Stafford is about as good as Aaron Rodgers? There's no serious flaw in logic here?

[Tempest]

Have to agree with the dog on the standards everyone is using for judging QBs on the list. The seem to adjust according to the Quarterback. This is just a personal top 5 list with no set standards. Gonna knock one QB for having an excellent defense and the other guy gets a pass.

[JMFP]

Have to agree with the dog on the standards everyone is using for judging QBs on the list. The seem to adjust according to the Quarterback. This is just a personal top 5 list with no set standards.

 

Sure, it's a personal top 5 list.....but I disagree about the lack of standards. Wins, passing yards, playoff performances, consecutive starts....these are just a few of the metrics that several people have used to make their points.

 

If someone wants to offer a different set of standards, I'd be curious to hear them.

 

Gonna knock one QB for having an excellent defense and the other guy gets a pass.

 

In 2009, Eli had his best statistical season..... with the worst Giants defense in over 40 years, so that claim doesn't make sense.

[Iceman_NYG]

Hmm...to be honest, I have to admit that the Dog has been quite objective in this thread. A lot of you others have not been. The argument for best QB will never be settled because there is and always will be a little bit of rose shades coming in while viewing a QB that you like in your mind. Like one of the posters said - Id only be OK if Eli was traded for Rodgers. I wouldnt. I dont think Rodgers is better than Eli. Eli will end his career as a Giant.

 

Where I dont agree with The Dog is his 'objective assessment' of Eli - I think you referred to him as a Ok-ok QB who is inconsistent and gets a lot more credit than he deserves? Pray tell me Dog, outside of this message board - when has Eli ever been given any more credit than he deserved? Infact, if you follow most of the Sports websites - Im sure you do - youll realise he doesnt get half the credit he deserves. Infact, the entire Giants team in general doesnt get a lot of credit - and Im personally OK with that. These fuckers play much better when they are not raised onto a pedestal. CNNSI, ESPN, NFL.COM - all these websites are anointing Rivers as the next best thing since sliced bread and about how great a QB he is. He had the luxury of Gates, LDT, VJ to choose as his weapons and he played mostly in warm weather - he hasnt achieved much. People hang on to Rodgers's jockstrap like he is primed to explode onto the scene - agreed his team has had a bunch of injuries this year - but his play wasnt too spectacular before that either. He is a fantastic QB dont get me wrong - but the credit those 2 (Rivers and Rodgers) receive - Eli doesnt even get a small percentage for that.

 

Peyton is undoubtedly #1 - his play is on a completely different dimension. The drop off to second would be Brady - his achievements and his play cannot be overlooked and he has been clutch. Not so much the last couple years - he has lost games due to errors - but he is just that good. Brees #3 - He is just awesome. He just carried on where he left off at San Diego and took it one step further. AJ Smith was just a stupid fucking imbecile - but he had to choose between 2 QBs with amazing skill sets who hadnt achieved much - maybe he made the wrong choice - only time will tell.

 

The remaining is just carousel that can be adjusted based upon who is looking and where he is looking - stats, wins, intangibles, instincts etc etc - but I do know that these QBs belong in that list - Eli, Rivers, Rodgers, Roethlisberger - 2-3 years back maybe we would be speaking about Carson Palmer, Cowboys fans might want to throw in Romo, Orton because of his stats this year etc - but I only think those 4 belong in the next level. Eli and Ben have the wins and clutch performances to back it up. Rivers and Rodgers have the stats. We are not even taking into account the team that each QB was handed when he took over. Big Ben was handed an outstanding Steelers team with a punishing defense and running game. Rivers was handed a super talented Chargers team with a load of weapons. Rodgers had the option of learning from the best for a while before being handed the reins from Favre to a very very good Packers team. Eli on the other hand was handed a team in the doldrums with Tiki and Strahan agreed - spiralling - hurtling downwards at an alarming rate. I think he makes the case for quite a consistent QB. I wont put him in the same breath as Peyton - I wouldnt put anyone for that matter - but for you to put Eli where you are putting him also is a tad unwarranted I feel.

[Allstarjim]

Ice -

 

Clarification on my comment about Rodgers... I don't want Eli going anywhere. As a fan, Eli is a SB hero and I want him to finish his career as a Giant. I would be pissed if they traded Eli for anyone, because he is the face of the franchise and he is a perfect fit on this team in this city. The comment was made more on a talent for talent level... The QB's we've been talking about after Peyton and Brady, I meant the only one that I think would be as good or better playing in NY is Aaron Rodgers. After Peyton and Brady retire one day, after he's had a few more seasons to put up numbers and convert doubters, Rodgers, IMO, will be widely considered the best QB in the NFL, as Peyton is right now. Watching him play, it's hard to believe he's only played 2 and a half seasons of professional football. Yes, he did have time holding a clipboard for a couple of seasons, but what he's accomplished in a short period of time rivals any QB in history, and he does it playing in Lambeau, also not the greatest place for a QB to put up big numbers.

 

The only thing where I disagree with some of you guys is that I don't think Brees is the clear cut #3 QB in the NFL. I am much more impressed by what Rodgers does in Green Bay and what Eli does in NY than I am with what Brees does in that offense on a fast track indoors... and he does it 9 games a year, minimum, playing on turf indoors. Also playing in the west coast offense, an offense conducive to big stats at the QB position. I think if you put Brees up there based on the information above, then the Dog's argument about Orton is valid (which it isn't). Difference is Brees won the SB... but the way I see it, if Eli and Brees traded teams and offensive systems, who would be better off? Would Brees be better than Eli playing in our system, in our stadium 8 games a year? I personally do not think his game would translate as well. But I think Eli could be just as good as Brees playing in the SuperDome. And that's why I think Brees is among that second tier of QB's from 3-7 after Peyton and Brady.

 

 

 

But anyways Iceman, I don't get your opening of your first paragraph. You claim that the dog has been objective (hilarious) and others haven't, specifically quoting me. But you are citing my being ok with a Rodgers for Eli swap as evidence of not being objective... and then saying you wouldn't be ok with it... I think that supports my objectivity than the reverse. Then you go on to say in the next paragraph that the Dog HASN'T been objective in his assessment of Eli... basically, I can't follow who is being objective and who is not here, according to you.