Jump to content
SportsWrath

Giants' Eli Manning finishes 12th in ESPN QB rankings, called an 'interception machine'

Nas

By Nas
in New York Giants

 Share

Recommended Posts

JMFP

JMFP

Posted
Posted

 

I really don't care about rankings, but this kind of comment is fucking idiotic--no shit that a QB on any team needs a combination of defense and running game to succeed. Peyton can't do it, Fouts couldn't do it, Brees can't do it--certainly not with any consistency. At best, a QB will be able to carry a team to a Lombardi without a defense or running game 1 or 2 times in a career, and only by playing out of his mind. That's what made 2011 so amazing, and why I have so much respect for John Elway for what he accomplished with Reeve's Broncos. Or Marino's Dolphins, for that matter.

 

Frankly, this team has asked Eli to win without a running game, defense, or offensive line since 2011. As much as I admired MacKenzie for his time here, he was barely an obstacle his last year here--same with Diehl and Snee in their twilights. The only thing this team has had going for it for a few years now is Eli and a few wide receivers--and the wide receivers have had a hellacious time staying on the field together.

 

Comparing Manning to Cutler is ridiculous--Cutler is a QB with an attitude problem on an average team. The Giants teams that have actually stayed on the field since 2009 have rarely been average. And I've never heard anyone say something about Manning's attitude--his appearance, sure--but not his attitude.

 

Nas, I don't get the Roethlisberger love either--other than he benefited from a great line/running game/defense early in his career, which let him win. He looked just as bad during Pittsburgh's rebuild.

 

Well said, as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fishgutmartyr

fishgutmartyr

Posted
Posted

I like Eli. He's been spectacular for us and he'll likely go down as the best Giant QB ever when he retires. I can't argue that.

 

My ONLY issue with Eli, really isn't that much about Eli as it is about Rivers and Roethlisberger.

 

What we gave up to get Eli when we could've had Ben or Phillip without giving up those picks DEMANDED that Eli be THAT much better than those other two. And folks can throw up all the obscure stats they want, it just doesn't pass the smell test.

 

I think about Roethlisberger as a Giant. Could he have won with the teams Eli had? I think so. Could Rivers have won with the teams Elli had? I think so, though to a lesser extent than Roethlisberger. All these years later, I think I'd rank these three QBs into two slots. Tied at #1 would be Eli and Ben. Not far back at #2 would be Rivers.

 

Now, you look at some of the attitudes and off-field stuff and Eli has that nailed down over the other two.

 

But, then you look at consistency and Eli isn't quite there like the other two.

 

Again, you can look at this group forever and always find where one did slightly better than the other in this, but flip flop it for some other statistic. And because it's like that, I'll just go back to the price to get Eli...it was just too much given the other options.

 

Now, with all that being said, with the offense changing last year and Eli's performance improving, he has a huge chance to sway my opinion. Because if he improves over last year and is more consistent under McAdoo - it will look like Gilbride's system was holding Eli back and it wasn't so much Eli underperforming in spots.

 

Roethlisberger, maybe. But his teams were built differently than the Giants teams of the past 10 years, so it's anybody's guess; and who knows how things work between him, Gilbride, and Coughlin--especially with his off-field bullshit? Honestly, I don't think he'd survive NY after the motorcycle accident, let alone the rape accusations. Pittsburgh has a completely different head than NY/NJ when it comes to football.

 

No way with Rivers--do you remember some of the teams that guy had? Both Antonio Gates and Tomlinson leading the league annually, Merriman and Castillo before they fell apart; an incredibly weak division--and he couldn't get it done. That team should have cruised into the playoffs for years, despite Norv Turner. Instead, they managed to make it difficult for themselves, and only made the championship game once with that lineup. What possible reason is there to think Rivers could have taken any of these Giants teams, much less the 2011 team, to win as many Lombardis as Eli?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Herc

Herc

Posted
Posted

I really can't get down with the what if arguments regarding the other two qbs from that draft. They're both great and from an individual performance standpoint we probably wouldn't have gone wrong with any of the 3 but maybe Ben or rivers don't engineer some of those classic drives or get the ball to manningham perfectly or get free for the tyree throw (well Ben probably does, if he's even healthy for the game). Maybe we win 4 Super Bowls with one if the other two or maybe we win 0. But two is cool and i would've signed up for it in a heartbeat if you told me that's what we were getting on draft day

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nas

Nas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Roethlisberger, maybe. But his teams were built differently than the Giants teams of the past 10 years, so it's anybody's guess; and who knows how things work between him, Gilbride, and Coughlin--especially with his off-field bullshit? Honestly, I don't think he'd survive NY after the motorcycle accident, let alone the rape accusations. Pittsburgh has a completely different head than NY/NJ when it comes to football.

 

No way with Rivers--do you remember some of the teams that guy had? Both Antonio Gates and Tomlinson leading the league annually, Merriman and Castillo before they fell apart; an incredibly weak division--and he couldn't get it done. That team should have cruised into the playoffs for years, despite Norv Turner. Instead, they managed to make it difficult for themselves, and only made the championship game once with that lineup. What possible reason is there to think Rivers could have taken any of these Giants teams, much less the 2011 team, to win as many Lombardis as Eli?

 

I love you :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. P

Mr. P

Posted
Posted

I really can't get down with the what if arguments regarding the other two qbs from that draft. They're both great and from an individual performance standpoint we probably wouldn't have gone wrong with any of the 3 but maybe Ben or rivers don't engineer some of those classic drives or get the ball to manningham perfectly or get free for the tyree throw (well Ben probably does, if he's even healthy for the game). Maybe we win 4 Super Bowls with one if the other two or maybe we win 0. But two is cool and i would've signed up for it in a heartbeat if you told me that's what we were getting on draft day

 

Exactly.

 

When we hired Coughlin and signed Eli I said if we win 1 superbowl the whole thing has made me extremely satisfied with them as a fan.

 

We've now won 2. and they are still underappreciated by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmenroc

gmenroc

Posted
Posted

 

Roethlisberger, maybe. But his teams were built differently than the Giants teams of the past 10 years, so it's anybody's guess; and who knows how things work between him, Gilbride, and Coughlin--especially with his off-field bullshit? Honestly, I don't think he'd survive NY after the motorcycle accident, let alone the rape accusations. Pittsburgh has a completely different head than NY/NJ when it comes to football.

 

No way with Rivers--do you remember some of the teams that guy had? Both Antonio Gates and Tomlinson leading the league annually, Merriman and Castillo before they fell apart; an incredibly weak division--and he couldn't get it done. That team should have cruised into the playoffs for years, despite Norv Turner. Instead, they managed to make it difficult for themselves, and only made the championship game once with that lineup. What possible reason is there to think Rivers could have taken any of these Giants teams, much less the 2011 team, to win as many Lombardis as Eli?

 

Regarding the off the field stuff, I already suggested that Eli had the other two beat. So no need to beat a dead horse. NY for Roethlisberger...yes, would be questionable in retrospect...but maybe NY helps shape a young Roethlisberger too? Bottom line, one is slightly more mobile, one is slightly more consistent, one is better off the field...there are differences...that's not up for debate. What is up for debate, is HOW different they are. Is Eli really so far ahead of Roethlisberger after 10 years to warrant the cost? That's the question. And really, I think the mere fact that it's up for debate, answers the question. In my opinion, for what we gave up, there should be no question. Eli should be clearly, without debate or any contradictory evidence, beyond Ben both on and off the field. Again, I freely admit to Eli being beyond ben off the field. It's on the field where questions lie.

 

As for Rivers, again, he's certainly a step down from both Ben and Eli. I should've made that more clear. Rivers first full year as a starter was 2006. Tomlinson played with SD until 2009. So, those 2 only overlapped from 2006-2009. In 2006, Rivers led the Chargers to a 14-2 record and a first round playoff bye, to lose by just 3 points to a Tom Brady led Patriots team in the divisional round. In 2007, Rivers led the Chargers to an 11-5 record and the conference title game, facing the Tom Brady led Patriots again. The Chargers lost that game by just 9 points, but admittedly failed to score a TD. In 2008, the Chargers backed into the playoffs with an 8-8 record, but faced a Ben Roethlisberger led Steelers team and lost. 2009, when the Chargers faced the Jets in the playoffs and lost, is about the only unexcusable playoff loss over these years.

With the Steelers, Colts, Patriots, even the Ravens having some darn good teams...the AFC was consistently, more difficult those years than the NFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMFP

JMFP

Posted
Posted

 

Roethlisberger, maybe. But his teams were built differently than the Giants teams of the past 10 years, so it's anybody's guess; and who knows how things work between him, Gilbride, and Coughlin--especially with his off-field bullshit? Honestly, I don't think he'd survive NY after the motorcycle accident, let alone the rape accusations. Pittsburgh has a completely different head than NY/NJ when it comes to football.

 

No way with Rivers--do you remember some of the teams that guy had? Both Antonio Gates and Tomlinson leading the league annually, Merriman and Castillo before they fell apart; an incredibly weak division--and he couldn't get it done. That team should have cruised into the playoffs for years, despite Norv Turner. Instead, they managed to make it difficult for themselves, and only made the championship game once with that lineup. What possible reason is there to think Rivers could have taken any of these Giants teams, much less the 2011 team, to win as many Lombardis as Eli?

 

 

Again, agreed. The Chargers were absolutely stacked.....and yet Eli managed to win 2 Super Bowls with teams that didn't have nearly the Chargers firepower, at least on paper.

 

As far as Eli is concerned, there are only a handful of QBs that I would give the ball to over him with a Championship on the line......I'm thinking Joe Montana, or Johnny Unitas. Call me nuts, but if it came down to one drive, I'd want Eli instead of Peyton, Brady, Brees, or even Aaron Rodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fishgutmartyr

fishgutmartyr

Posted
Posted

 

Regarding the off the field stuff, I already suggested that Eli had the other two beat. So no need to beat a dead horse. NY for Roethlisberger...yes, would be questionable in retrospect...but maybe NY helps shape a young Roethlisberger too? Bottom line, one is slightly more mobile, one is slightly more consistent, one is better off the field...there are differences...that's not up for debate. What is up for debate, is HOW different they are. Is Eli really so far ahead of Roethlisberger after 10 years to warrant the cost? That's the question. And really, I think the mere fact that it's up for debate, answers the question. In my opinion, for what we gave up, there should be no question. Eli should be clearly, without debate or any contradictory evidence, beyond Ben both on and off the field. Again, I freely admit to Eli being beyond ben off the field. It's on the field where questions lie.

 

As for Rivers, again, he's certainly a step down from both Ben and Eli. I should've made that more clear. Rivers first full year as a starter was 2006. Tomlinson played with SD until 2009. So, those 2 only overlapped from 2006-2009. In 2006, Rivers led the Chargers to a 14-2 record and a first round playoff bye, to lose by just 3 points to a Tom Brady led Patriots team in the divisional round. In 2007, Rivers led the Chargers to an 11-5 record and the conference title game, facing the Tom Brady led Patriots again. The Chargers lost that game by just 9 points, but admittedly failed to score a TD. In 2008, the Chargers backed into the playoffs with an 8-8 record, but faced a Ben Roethlisberger led Steelers team and lost. 2009, when the Chargers faced the Jets in the playoffs and lost, is about the only unexcusable playoff loss over these years.

With the Steelers, Colts, Patriots, even the Ravens having some darn good teams...the AFC was consistently, more difficult those years than the NFC.

 

Yes, those Steelers teams were darn good...probably better than the Giants teams most of that period. Certainly better than the 2004-2005 teams, the period when Roethlisberger made his name.

 

You can't really make light of the off field issues--because the likelihood is that we would be dealing with a post-Roethlisberger team by now, probably for a few years. I highly doubt the same situation here would have permitted him to finish his last contract, let alone get an extension; and longevity (even due to this) certainly is a factor in cost. NY doesn't put up with people that get caught. (When did I get this cynical?)

 

I'd also like to move on from the cost argument--it's really a myth at this point. Yes, we gave up draft picks, but less than other teams have both before and after that draft to grab the first pick. That, coupled with not knowing who we would have picked and knowing how utterly spectacular the 2005 offseason was with both free agency and the draft, makes me wonder if the "cost" was as big as it appears even on paper. If we have all the picks, do we still grab who we did in free agency? Fewer free agents? Which would we have done without? Would we have drafted players that would have helped? Unanswerable.

 

There's something to said for simply being on the field as well. A second-string QB hasn't touched the field for the Giants since 2003 (Eli was a starter in-waiting in 2004, but if you want to count that, it's still impressive). Quantity has a quality all it's own. Roethlisberger isn't exactly a delicate snowflake, but he has missed games.

 

If you're willing to make excuses for River's playoff failures, I hope you make them for Manning as well. I still don't understand why he gets grief over 2005 and 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmenroc

gmenroc

Posted
Posted

 

Yes, those Steelers teams were darn good...probably better than the Giants teams most of that period. Certainly better than the 2004-2005 teams, the period when Roethlisberger made his name.

 

You can't really make light of the off field issues--because the likelihood is that we would be dealing with a post-Roethlisberger team by now, probably for a few years. I highly doubt the same situation here would have permitted him to finish his last contract, let alone get an extension; and longevity (even due to this) certainly is a factor in cost. NY doesn't put up with people that get caught. (When did I get this cynical?)

 

I'd also like to move on from the cost argument--it's really a myth at this point. Yes, we gave up draft picks, but less than other teams have both before and after that draft to grab the first pick. That, coupled with not knowing who we would have picked and knowing how utterly spectacular the 2005 offseason was with both free agency and the draft, makes me wonder if the "cost" was as big as it appears even on paper. If we have all the picks, do we still grab who we did in free agency? Fewer free agents? Which would we have done without? Would we have drafted players that would have helped? Unanswerable.

 

There's something to said for simply being on the field as well. A second-string QB hasn't touched the field for the Giants since 2003 (Eli was a starter in-waiting in 2004, but if you want to count that, it's still impressive). Quantity has a quality all it's own. Roethlisberger isn't exactly a delicate snowflake, but he has missed games.

 

If you're willing to make excuses for River's playoff failures, I hope you make them for Manning as well. I still don't understand why he gets grief over 2005 and 2008.

 

The fact the Giants may have cut ties with Roethlisberger in the midst of his legal issues and thereby not had him on the roster for the past few years is a valid point. I believe, and I could be mistaken here, that Shawn Merriman and Nate Kaeding were two of the players the Chargers got with picks the Giants traded them for Eli. Not saying we would've grabbed those players, but you're right...having those picks could have a ripple effect on the rest of that draft, free agency and drafts of the following years. And trying to reconfigure what the Giants would've done pure guesswork. There is no debate, however, that those picks have value. If they didn't have value, San Diego wouldn't have made the trade. Just because the exact cost can't be calculated in terms of who the Giants would've gotten or not gotten, does not mean there wasn't a cost.

 

We could sit here and list out all the things Eli does better and we can list all the things Ben does better. Things like mobility, arm strength, off-field/media handling, TD/Int ratios, completion percentage, passing vs. running offense, durability, dominant defense, opponents, etc., etc., etc. We could look at each one of them and debate which ones Eli is better at and which ones Ben is better at. If Eli didn't clearly win the vast majority, then I think it's fair to say we paid too much. And again, if there was any debate whatsoever, then it's really not necessarily a clear win and the cost comes into question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Allstarjim

Allstarjim

Posted
Posted

 

The fact the Giants may have cut ties with Roethlisberger in the midst of his legal issues and thereby not had him on the roster for the past few years is a valid point. I believe, and I could be mistaken here, that Shawn Merriman and Nate Kaeding were two of the players the Chargers got with picks the Giants traded them for Eli. Not saying we would've grabbed those players, but you're right...having those picks could have a ripple effect on the rest of that draft, free agency and drafts of the following years. And trying to reconfigure what the Giants would've done pure guesswork. There is no debate, however, that those picks have value. If they didn't have value, San Diego wouldn't have made the trade. Just because the exact cost can't be calculated in terms of who the Giants would've gotten or not gotten, does not mean there wasn't a cost.

 

We could sit here and list out all the things Eli does better and we can list all the things Ben does better. Things like mobility, arm strength, off-field/media handling, TD/Int ratios, completion percentage, passing vs. running offense, durability, dominant defense, opponents, etc., etc., etc. We could look at each one of them and debate which ones Eli is better at and which ones Ben is better at. If Eli didn't clearly win the vast majority, then I think it's fair to say we paid too much. And again, if there was any debate whatsoever, then it's really not necessarily a clear win and the cost comes into question.

All of that can be valid, but it's also moot because this franchise won two Lombardis with Eli. Doesn't matter that Roethlisberger has rings in Pittsburgh... Because he won his there with that team does not automatically mean we would've also won rings with him. The point is that none of it matters when you draft a multi-Super Bowl winner and MVP. You did well, you won, and you go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fishgutmartyr

fishgutmartyr

Posted
Posted

All of that can be valid, but it's also moot because this franchise won two Lombardis with Eli. Doesn't matter that Roethlisberger has rings in Pittsburgh... Because he won his there with that team does not automatically mean we would've also won rings with him. The point is that none of it matters when you draft a multi-Super Bowl winner and MVP. You did well, you won, and you go on.

 

Exactly. Winning one justified the price--the second means we got a discount. There's very few QBs with multiple SB wins, and even fewer with multiple SB MVPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...