Who actually believed McNabb could tie it up....

[JMFP]

If Eli Manning never wins another playoff game do we still describe him with one word "greatness"? If so, by all means, pay him $150,000,000 and erect a statue of him in place of the statue of liberty...

 

And if Romo won the Super Bowl against the Patriots, they would need the Jaws of Life to remove your mouth from his cock.

 

 

[ksm7]

Another thing that goes unmentioned about that game and the pace of it(which I believe GateB brought up)is the opening drive of the game. Giants used 8 minutes of clock and kept Brady and Co. off the field for a long time converting numerous 3rd down passes. It sort of set the tone and allowed the Pats offense to sit idly by and allow the defense much needed rest that they would need later in the game.

 

So your point about consistency and execution on offense could be rebutted that had they not executed properly on offense early on(lets say a 3 and out) and forced that defense to exert much needed energy early in the game maybe the Pats score more points.

 

the dog's final 2-cents worth on this whole topic: first, in defending manning as being great and the reason for the super bowl wins, people seem to be diminshing the defense's efforts in all this. the reason they won, and went on that run is because of the defense...it sounds as if, with examples above, you would think they won in spite of the defense. here's the thing, if they don't put together that final drive, and the patriots win 14-10, would people being shredding the defensive effort in the loss?? no, the discussion would be centered around the lack of offense. if god came to all giant fans before the super bowl and said, "at the end of the day I will give the patriots, possibly the most prolific offense in NFL history, just 14 points, and leave it in the hands of the offense" wouldn't you all have taken that in heartbeat?

 

as for manning, why is it so offensive to everyone to say that he managed things well, and made plays when he had to? the dog doesn't get it - saying that he is not "great" isn't an insult - most likely manning would agree...

[Herc]

who would you say is 'great' in the NFL right now?

[ksm7]

who would you say is 'great' in the NFL right now?

 

QB's - P. Manning, Brady, Brees, and Warner are the top 4 that come to mind. after that, the dog believes there are second tier QBs that are either young and with potential, or veterans that are very solid and can lead the team to success, and then there are the rest...

[xxi-xxv]

the dog's final 2-cents worth on this whole topic: first, in defending manning as being great and the reason for the super bowl wins, people seem to be diminshing the defense's efforts in all this. the reason they won, and went on that run is because of the defense...it sounds as if, with examples above, you would think they won in spite of the defense. here's the thing, if they don't put together that final drive, and the patriots win 14-10, would people being shredding the defensive effort in the loss?? no, the discussion would be centered around the lack of offense. if god came to all giant fans before the super bowl and said, "at the end of the day I will give the patriots, possibly the most prolific offense in NFL history, just 14 points, and leave it in the hands of the offense" wouldn't you all have taken that in heartbeat?

 

as for manning, why is it so offensive to everyone to say that he managed things well, and made plays when he had to? the dog doesn't get it - saying that he is not "great" isn't an insult - most likely manning would agree...

 

Ifs and butts ifs and butts. I look at facts and the facts are the offense did what they had to do to win that day. I would think such an astute football fan as the DOG is would look at each game individually as oppposed to simply what ifs and butts. An astute fan also knows that each game takes on a life of its own. As the game 4 weeks prior between these two games was a shootout, this one was a struggle for points and when looking at it you have to look at what the Giants offense did in terms of time of possesion early on to set the pace of this game. Giants probably would not have won a shootout, they did not 4 weeks prior. Does the Dog not think that Coughlin and the coaches set out early to use clock and make a potent offense become impatient? That is what they did. What if the Pats won 14-10 would everyone say the Pats offense was terrible or that they got it done when they had to. There are no ifs and butts there are only results and those speak for themselves.

You lost me where I said they won in spite of the defense, my point(as was the point in the previous posts) was that when called upon to do so Eli Manning picked his defense up. No need to go over the details again, you know them. There were plenty of times that post season he did not simple "manage" the game. He despite what some of you want to declare was not Trent Dilfer 2000, Dilfer never did in those games what Manning did. Defense played great, so did Manning.... end of discussion here

[ksm7]

Ifs and butts ifs and butts. I look at facts and the facts are the offense did what they had to do to win that day. I would think such an astute football fan as the DOG is would look at each game individually as oppposed to simply what ifs and butts. An astute fan also knows that each game takes on a life of its own. As the game 4 weeks prior between these two games was a shootout, this one was a struggle for points and when looking at it you have to look at what the Giants offense did in terms of time of possesion early on to set the pace of this game. Giants probably would not have won a shootout, they did not 4 weeks prior. Does the Dog not think that Coughlin and the coaches set out early to use clock and make a potent offense become impatient? That is what they did. What if the Pats won 14-10 would everyone say the Pats offense was terrible or that they got it done when they had to. There are no ifs and butts there are only results and those speak for themselves.

You lost me where I said they won in spite of the defense, my point(as was the point in the previous posts) was that when called upon to do so Eli Manning picked his defense up. No need to go over the details again, you know them. There were plenty of times that post season he did not simple "manage" the game. He despite what some of you want to declare was not Trent Dilfer 2000, Dilfer never did in those games what Manning did. Defense played great, so did Manning.... end of discussion here

 

ok...but the dog didn't realize you had such low expectations for greatness...marino, elway, montana, brady, bradshaw, aikman...must be some kind of mystical, god-like beings in your fun little world...

[JMFP]

An astute fan also knows that each game takes on a life of its own. As the game 4 weeks prior between these two games was a shootout, this one was a struggle for points and when looking at it you have to look at what the Giants offense did in terms of time of possesion early on to set the pace of this game.

 

when called upon to do so Eli Manning picked his defense up.

 

Defense played great, so did Manning.... end of discussion here

 

Very well said.

 

I'll throw in some final comments and then that's it for me:

 

The Dog brings up the argument that the defense was the reason the Giants won the Super Bowl. I differ by arguing that both the offense and defense pulled through at key points during the playoff run. For example.

 

• Buffalo: The playoff-clincher. The defense was led by Mitchell, and the offense was saved by Bradshaw.
• Patriots: Michael Strahan himself said this was the game that gave the Giants team the confidence it needed to go on its run. Eli Manning was clearly, without question, the star of that game.
• Tampa Bay: Defense played well. But that 2nd half monster drive by Manning, ending with the Toomer TD caught over Ronde "Eli can be had" Barber was the back-breaker (I wonder if The Dog and Ronde are related?).
• Cowboys: Defense played huge. But there were keys drives by Manning. The TD drive to end the 1st half was absolutely huge. And then in the 2nd half, it was a defensive slugfest, but Manning outdueled Romo.
• Packers: Eli outduels future Hall of Famer Brett Favre. In fact, if not for this game, I'd have serious issues with Eli's bad-weather game. The weather conditions made this a game-management game, and Eli played better than Favre, simple as that.
• Patriots: Eli scores 2 4th Quarter TDs to beat a Patriots team that was 80-2 when protecting a lead in the 4th Quarter. Widely considered among the Greatest Super Bowls of all time. Eli's final drive considered the Greatest Drive in Super Bowl history (surpassing Joe Montana's drive against Cincy); given time, will certainly be considered the Greatest Super Bowl Upset of all time (with all due respect, Namath beat Earl Morall, not Tom Brady). Is also considered among the greatest upsets in sports history (will never beat US v USSR, but certainly belongs in the conversation).

 

The Dog seems to want to penalize Eli for the Giant's defense. But I would The Dog to name a single Super Bowl champion QB that did not benefit from a solid defense. I can't think of any. On the flip side, I can think of many superstar QB's that never won anything because they didnt' have a defense that could keep them in the game in the 4th quarter (Marino comes immediately to mind; Dan Fouts was another).

 

So, The Dog's argument simply doesn't hold up....if it did, The Dog could name a team for me.

 

There is a difference between "great" and "superstar" QBs. I'd argue that so far, Eli has had a "great" career. Granted, he is young. But if you look at it, objectively, and stressing Wins as the most important stat of a QB, then going to the playoffs 4 years out of 5, and being a Super Bowl MVP would fall qualify as being off to a "great" start. Maybe someone else would argue that going to the playoffs 4x in a row and winning the Super Bowl is "average", or "okay". But that just doesn't seem to fit what I've seen.

 

Again, calling someone "great", at least for me, does not mean the same as "future HOFer" or "superstar". There is a degree of difference to it.

 

People can judge for themselves. But so far, I'm calling it great stuff from a great (albeit young) QB.

[Herc]

QB's - P. Manning, Brady, Brees, and Warner are the top 4 that come to mind. after that, the dog believes there are second tier QBs that are either young and with potential, or veterans that are very solid and can lead the team to success, and then there are the rest...

 

im not as high on warner as you, but i agree eli doesn't belonw with those other 3. would you put eli in that second tier?

[xxi-xxv]

ok...but the dog didn't realize you had such low expectations for greatness...marino, elway, montana, brady, bradshaw, aikman...must be some kind of mystical, god-like beings in your fun little world...

 

I never said ELI Manning was great, I said he played GREAT in the 2007 post season. Did not simply manage games like you want to declare. He was great that post season and combined with a great defense pulled of an upset for the ages.

 

BTW as great as Marino was how many rings does he have? Only goes even further to support JoeMorrisforprez astute comments about most Qb's winning sb's because of their defense.

 

 

[ksm7]

Very well said.

 

I'll throw in some final comments and then that's it for me:

 

The Dog brings up the argument that the defense was the reason the Giants won the Super Bowl. I differ by arguing that both the offense and defense pulled through at key points during the playoff run. For example.

 

• Buffalo: The playoff-clincher. The defense was led by Mitchell, and the offense was saved by Bradshaw.
• Patriots: Michael Strahan himself said this was the game that gave the Giants team the confidence it needed to go on its run. Eli Manning was clearly, without question, the star of that game.
• Tampa Bay: Defense played well. But that 2nd half monster drive by Manning, ending with the Toomer TD caught over Ronde "Eli can be had" Barber was the back-breaker (I wonder if The Dog and Ronde are related?).
• Cowboys: Defense played huge. But there were keys drives by Manning. The TD drive to end the 1st half was absolutely huge. And then in the 2nd half, it was a defensive slugfest, but Manning outdueled Romo.
• Packers: Eli outduels future Hall of Famer Brett Favre. In fact, if not for this game, I'd have serious issues with Eli's bad-weather game. The weather conditions made this a game-management game, and Eli played better than Favre, simple as that.
• Patriots: Eli scores 2 4th Quarter TDs to beat a Patriots team that was 80-2 when protecting a lead in the 4th Quarter. Widely considered among the Greatest Super Bowls of all time. Eli's final drive considered the Greatest Drive in Super Bowl history (surpassing Joe Montana's drive against Cincy); given time, will certainly be considered the Greatest Super Bowl Upset of all time (with all due respect, Namath beat Earl Morall, not Tom Brady). Is also considered among the greatest upsets in sports history (will never beat US v USSR, but certainly belongs in the conversation).

 

The Dog seems to want to penalize Eli for the Giant's defense. But I would The Dog to name a single Super Bowl champion QB that did not benefit from a solid defense. I can't think of any. On the flip side, I can think of many superstar QB's that never won anything because they didnt' have a defense that could keep them in the game in the 4th quarter (Marino comes immediately to mind; Dan Fouts was another).

 

So, The Dog's argument simply doesn't hold up....if it did, The Dog could name a team for me.

 

There is a difference between "great" and "superstar" QBs. I'd argue that so far, Eli has had a "great" career. Granted, he is young. But if you look at it, objectively, and stressing Wins as the most important stat of a QB, then going to the playoffs 4 years out of 5, and being a Super Bowl MVP would fall qualify as being off to a "great" start. Maybe someone else would argue that going to the playoffs 4x in a row and winning the Super Bowl is "average", or "okay". But that just doesn't seem to fit what I've seen.

 

Again, calling someone "great", at least for me, does not mean the same as "future HOFer" or "superstar". There is a degree of difference to it.

 

People can judge for themselves. But so far, I'm calling it great stuff from a great (albeit young) QB.

 

manning managed the games well...he made plays. that is a far cry from greatness. as for his career, the dog would be hard pressed to label it great. if you limit it to wins, fine. but the dog thinks if you define a QB by wins and not take the team into account, it is an unfair assessment. last year you wanted to argue that manning was better than drew brees because manning won a super bowl...the dog wonders what brees would do on a team that had a defense? but you would judge him otherwise because he doesn't have the wins, playoff appearances or super bowls on his resume...this just in, brees is far superior to manning at this time.

 

so we will disagree on this. you and xxi can continue your defense of manning with your sometimes uncomfortable passion, and the dog will continue to maintain that he is a solid QB that managed games well in a postseason run...

[feefifoefum]

If Eli Manning never wins another playoff game do we still describe him with one word "greatness"? If so, by all means, pay him $150,000,000 and erect a statue of him in place of the statue of liberty...

 

Hmm, not long ago people were ready to erect statues of Romo and were one postseason win away from anointing him as "great". Of course, he doesn't ever play well when the stakes are high, but he still got himself a nice 67 million dollar payday for putting up good fantasy numbers. Good for Tony. Hardly worth it, IMO.

 

Maybe someday he and the Cowboys will be showcased on "America's Game: The Missing Rings"

[JMFP]

if you limit it to wins, fine. but the dog thinks if you define a QB by wins and not take the team into account, it is an unfair assessment. last year you wanted to argue that manning was better than drew brees because manning won a super bowl...the dog wonders what brees would do on a team that had a defense...

 

No, I'm not "limiting" the criteria to wins. Rather, I am prioritizing the criteria, with wins being the most important. And within the subset of wins, I'll prioritize further, and give greater weight to playoff wins. Therefore, in my opinion, a QB that wins Super Bowls is weighted far more heavily on my "greatness scale" than a QB that puts up tremendous numbers against mediocre opposition and then fades down the stretch.

 

That may be unfair, but that seems to be the way to Canton. Terry Bradshaw comes immediately to mind. A much better example would be Bart Starr, who is in the Hall despite pedestrian passing numbers.

 

With all due respect to Drew Brees, he hasn't been able to translate his insane regular season stats into a Championship. Case in point: Brees was unable to outperform Rex Grossman in the NFC Championship when NO made their last run.

 

And, every QB post-game interview I've seen shares the same characteristic: the QB is quick to discount their own passing stats, and instead, look at wins and losses to judge their success or failure.

 

the dog will continue to maintain that he is a solid QB that managed games well in a postseason run...

 

And I will recognize this statement as encouraging progress on your part.

[xxi-xxv]

One wonders what might Brees be doing if he were not playing 8 games in a dome at home, 1 apiece in Tampa, Carolina and another dome in Atlanta.

 

To take Joemorrisforprez assertion about his 2006 season and where it wound up how did Brees do that day on a frigid soldier field as opposed to the friendly confines of Atlanta, Carolina, Tampa or his home dome?

 

 

Anyone ever see Eli's stats from games played in domes. The qb rating is on par with Peytons dome qb rating as are the yards/game, tds and int%.

 

What if Eli played in a dome/warm weather 11 games a year guaranteed like his brother and Brees do. Oh wait that would be like saying what if Samuel caught an INT his foot would have been out of bounds on. its a useless what if??