OT: Eli Manning | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT: Eli Manning

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rico444 said:
Of course I do. Trust me, I do. I'm a cowboys fan. Romo gets murdered in the media for not winning more than one playoff game, and every time the cowboys lose, it's his fault. The reality is, he has never had an elite supporting cast. An elite quarterback can take an average team deep in the playoffs. Romo is very good, but not elite.

I wrote the above paragraph because that's also how I feel about Eli. He is great in the 2 minute drill, and when he has an elite supporting cast, he can win a super bowl (see 2007-2008). However, he has had an average to above average team each of the last few years, and hasn't won a playoff game. He is very good. But not elite unless he proves he can take a team with flaws deep into the playoffs. Rodgers did it. Brady has done it, and his brother has done it. They are elite. I'm sorry, but Eli isn't until he does that.
Expand ...
Time Out! Time Out! Who said Eli had an elite team in 07-08? That's creative after the fact, what I would expect from a 'boys fan. Did I say Let's call a Time Out?
 
What's laughable is that Eli didn't even have a warrior mentality before. Somehow, he was recently coached/conditioned into thinking he's a hotshot.
 
I really only want to make two points in this thread. I will state them here for clarity.

1) I don't believe Eli is elite. In my eyes, the elite quarterbacks are the best of the best; first-ballot HOFers. Not necessarily ones that have the resume right now, but ones that if they continue playing at a high level of play they have established on a consistent basis, will undoubtedly be there. My elite QBs would be Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethelisberger (somebody I missed on my list earlier, but he definitely fits). Not everybody has to agree with my definition of elite.

2) A quarterback can only control certain things. I agree that a quarterback can't control a horrible defense. I was making those comments to try to prove a point. Why should Tony Romo have his lack of playoff success held against him when his play wasn't what lead to the Cowboys' losses? Just like the Giants' bad defense shouldn't be held against Eli.
 
Rico444 said:
I really only want to make two points in this thread. I will state them here for clarity.

1) I don't believe Eli is elite. In my eyes, the elite quarterbacks are the best of the best; first-ballot HOFers. Not necessarily ones that have the resume right now, but ones that if they continue playing at a high level of play they have established on a consistent basis, will undoubtedly be there. My elite QBs would be Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethelisberger (somebody I missed on my list earlier, but he definitely fits). Not everybody has to agree with my definition of elite.

2) A quarterback can only control certain things. I agree that a quarterback can't control a horrible defense. I was making those comments to try to prove a point. Why should Tony Romo have his lack of playoff success held against him when his play wasn't what lead to the Cowboys' losses? Just like the Giants' bad defense shouldn't be held against Eli.
Expand ...
Romo had a decent/poor game against the Seahawks in '06 (QBR 89.6) 17/29, 6.5 YPA 1 TD
He had a terrible game against the Giants in '07 (QBR 64.7) 18/36, 5.6 YPA, 1 TD, 1 INT
He had a very nice game against Philly in '09 (QBR 104.9) 23/35, 7.0 YPA, 2 TD
But then he followed it up with a terrible game against Minnesota: (66.1 QBR) 22/35, 5.7 YPA, 0 TD, 1 INT, 2 Fumbles Lost.

So, overall, he went to the playoffs 3 times. His overall record is 1-3. He's never been to the NFC Championship Game. Two of those four games he was abominable. You can give the other team credit, but his rating was bad and he stunk up the joint. The game against the Seahawks was fine, except that he personally lost it by fumbling the ball.

Against Philly, in a WC game, he had a very good game and they won.

Manning, on the other hand:
2005: Lost in WC to Carolina. Terrible game. QBR 35. 10/18, 6.8 YPA, 3 INT, 1 Fumble Lost
2006: Lost in WC to Philly. He played decent (similar to Romo v. Seattle). QBR 85.6, 16/27, 6.0 YPA, 2 TD, 1 INT
2007: We all know. 4 wins. Killed Romo head to head (QBR 132.4) 12/18, 9.1 YPA, 2 TD
2008: He was terrible the next year against Philly. That team could have been very good, but the Plaxico incident happened. Regardless, a putrid performance.

That said, 3 really fantastic games (2007 v. TB, Dal, NE), 2 decent games, 2 bad games. 4-3.

That's not a great resume. Except for the Super Bowl win. Clearly better than Romo in the playoffs.
 
Prezidint said:
I love the social triviality that the topic is "OT: Eli Manning."
Because there might be readers who see "Eli Manning" in the topic and think he got hired as Ollie's next in line.

And BTW - I got roasted for saying it - we're an anti-religious nation. This thread exemplifies what I mean. Public mention of religion brings immediate scorn and sarcasm from the intelligentsia.
Expand ...

I would generally agree with you, but you're giving this thread too much credit - it's aspirations were limited to getting a cheap laugh.

I would mention that I met Archbishop Dolan (NY) the other night. I only do this to let you know how important I am.
 
Romo's game against the Vikings was not even close to his fault. The offensive line completely fell apart, and he had no time to throw the ball all night. Seriously...did you watch that game? It was the most pathetic performance I've ever seen from an offensive line. He never had a chance from the beginning. I'll give you the bad game against the Giants in 08.

But Eli was fantastic against the Patriots? He had a passer rating of 87.3. Not to mention on the final drive, he threw a terrible pass that absolutely should have been picked off, but was bobbled and dropped, and he had to be bailed out by David Tyree on that ridiculous catch. He stepped up late in the game, but he was far from fantastic.

Eli Manning's career postseason passer rating is 77.6. Not to take away from his ring, he played well enough with the team he had to get it, and he stepped up and made big plays in the super bowl. But let's not paint him out to be a god here.
 
.-.
Rico444 said:
Romo's game against the Vikings was not even close to his fault. The offensive line completely fell apart, and he had no time to throw the ball all night. Seriously...did you watch that game? It was the most pathetic performance I've ever seen from an offensive line. He never had a chance from the beginning. I'll give you the bad game against the Giants in 08.

But Eli was fantastic against the Patriots? He had a passer rating of 87.3. Not to mention on the final drive, he threw a terrible pass that absolutely should have been picked off, but was bobbled and dropped, and he had to be bailed out by David Tyree on that ridiculous catch. He stepped up late in the game, but he was far from fantastic.

Eli Manning's career postseason passer rating is 77.6. Not to take away from his ring, he played well enough with the team he had to get it, and he stepped up and made big plays in the super bowl. But let's not paint him out to be a god here.
Expand ...
He did win Super Bowl MVP for the game. I'll say anyone who wins that deserves a "fantastic" for the game.
 
I am not a Giants' fan - I'm actually a Vikings' fan.

You are off the duck*ing wall if you try to diminish even an ounce of what Manning did in that drive against the Patriots. The play to Tyree was as good a play as any quarterback has ever made considering the circumstances. Are you forgetting what he went through just to be able to get that pass away?!

Seriously, you have no argument there. He didn't 'step up' late in the game, he led one of the all-time great drives to win a duck*ing Super Bowl.

I'd kill you if it meant Eli Manning would be the Vikings' QB.
 
Guess I have no chance if everybody's made up their mind already.

You're forgetting his best pass of the drive hit Asante Samuel in the hands.
 
Rico444 said:
Guess I have no chance if everybody's made up their mind already.

You're forgetting his best pass of the drive hit Asante Samuel in the hands.
Expand ...
That's because, in this case, you are wrong. To try to minimize a guy who won a title and Super Bowl MVP (as opposed to Dilfer) is crazy.

The Romo-Manning comparison is a bad one, I think. In the Tebow thread I more or less argued that Manning was run-of-the-mill. That is wrong. He's much better this year than in the last couple, and I hadn't realized (as I'm not really a Giants fan).

Romo, though, is not very good. That's not true technically. The guy has great mechanics. But there's just something missing with him. He's never come up big in a big game. Manning is the opposite. He stinks up the place in easy games, and they lose to a team like Seattle, but then shows up big in others (NE, Dallas). He's got something upstairs that Romo doesn't. And that's important. It's why I'd always take Montana over Marino.
 
Yawn. I'm done with this. Some people in this thread have no clue.
 
.-.
I'm a Giants fan.

I don't think Eli is "elite" if you define that as being the very top tier of QBs (Peyton/Brady/Brees/Rodgers), but I think the Eli-haters are farther off than the "Eli is elite" crowd.

What Eli did in 2008 was absolutely ridiculous. It was legendary. Pats fans can cry about the possible interceptions on that final drive but there are always possible interceptions. They didn't pick him off and he made them pay.

Frankly, I think nowadays, the fact that Eli's last name is Manning hurts him rather than helps him. If he wasn't named Manning, he'd get even more credit for his late-game heroics. That said, he's stumbled since 2008...until this year. This year, without the Giants' vaunted running attack functioning well, he's had to put the team on his back. And he has played incredible football. He has carried ateam that came into the season with unknown quantities at WR and TE besides one player: Nicks. Eli has his fair share of brain farts but he also has an uncanny ability to perform well in clutch situations.

He's not a HOFer (at least not without a serious late-career run involving multiple SB appearances) but he is a top-1o QB and an elite late-game performer.
 
Fishy said:
I would generally agree with you, but you're giving this thread too much credit - it's aspirations were limited to getting a cheap laugh.

I would mention that I met Archbishop Dolan (NY) the other night. I only do this to let you know how important I am.
Expand ...
No need to let me know Fishy! Your post to like ration, or, as message board statisticians like me like to call it, your "PL ratio," is the highest on the Boneyard. That's the mark of important, right there. :p
 
Rico444 said:
You're really citing the eagles game from last year to call eli elite? The game where he did absolutely nothing in the 4th quarter while the eagles clawed back from down 3 scores? Or the New Orleans game, where he did absolutely nothing in the first half against a mediocre at best defense and allowed his team to fall down by 20+ points? The same defense that allowed 50 points to Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay? Or the same Eli manning that did nothing against the eagles earlier this year and fumbled the ball away on the last drive?

Eli Manning is having his best statistical season this year. Put his statline this year up against the best seasons of Rodgers, Brady, and Peyton, and it's not even in the same stratosphere.

There. I "defended my points." Now, stop avoiding my question: Do you think Eli is as good as Rodgers, Brady, and Peyton?
Expand ...
yes
 
tzznandrew said:
The country is absolutely not "anti-religious." When 78% of the country is Christian
Expand ...
Yeah but, half of them are twice a year Christians, 20% don't go to church at all, and half of what's left are going to church only because they don't want to take any chances with Hell and what not.

Point is, 78% of people answering "Christian" to a random poll does not equate to "being religious," as I mean it.

Perhaps we just have different defs. I don't define "religious" as "anybody who is not atheist."
 
Devland said:
It seems to me that Dallas and Denver are complete opposites. Denver wins games that they should have lost. Dallas finds ways to lose games that they appear to have in hand.
Expand ...

Yeah Devland he's the only quarterback who does that? Every QB gets lucky hell Homo did last night on the 1st freakin play - Kiwanuka could have waltzed into the endzone if he could catch......Must be a Cowboys, Pats fan or something!! lol
 
.-.
Rico444 said:
Guess I have no chance if everybody's made up their mind already.

You're forgetting his best pass of the drive hit Asante Samuel in the hands.
Expand ...

Noone cares about that pass unless you're a Pats fan or an Eli hater....you bring up irrelevant stuff and want everyone to agree. You have your thoughts and that's fine. To compare Romo to Eli is actually funny from someone who tries to be rational. He makes bad plays and doesn't finish - the other guy finishes. Pretty easy!
 
Prezidint said:
Yeah but, half of them are twice a year Christians, 20% don't go to church at all, and half of what's left are going to church only because they don't want to take any chances with Hell and what not.

Point is, 78% of people answering "Christian" to a random poll does not equate to "being religious," as I mean it.

Perhaps we just have different defs. I don't define "religious" as "anybody who is not atheist."
Expand ...
Your point may be true, but it does seem a little convenient to discount a ton a people. I don't want to get into a big thing (a la the Catholic argument I saw earlier--we can agree to disagree if it's going to get as angry as that seemed to).

Regardless. Even if I were to concede this, I think a few things going on:
  1. I think you are conflating a small, east and west coast, intellectuals with the country at large.
  2. I think there is something "American" about "leave me the hell alone about your beliefs and let me do what I want." This is why the pilgrims came. "Let me make money" is why Jamestown was founded. Good or bad (and let's not get into it) these are the people, and those are, in some ways, the ethics, of our country. I don't think "leave me alone about your religion" is "anti-religious."
  3. Any country that generally needs you to have a religion to hold office (not legally, but atheism is looked down on intensely according to polls), and 100% of the time for the presidency that religion needs to be Christian, can't really be "anti-religious."
To be clear, I take "anti-religious" to mean not liking religion. I think you can not go to church, but not be "anti-religious" in the same way I don't eat Fluff all that much, but still wouldn't put myself in the anti-Fluff camp. (I'm cool if you eat it. I might once in a while.)
I think Americans are cool with religion. They just want to be left to their own and not evangelized to. And again, church membership, church attendance, and any other measure of religiosity is much higher in the US than Canada, Japan, Korea, or first world Europe.
 
All I know, is that this year you can't spell "Elite" w/out "ELI"!!! Sorry, still on a high from last night's game!
 
I love when people talk about the Samuel INT that "hit him in the hands".

The pass was 8 feet over Samuel's head. The fact that he got even a piece of it was a feat of tremendous athleticism. But this idea that he should have intercepted it is, and always has been, lunacy.
 
.-.
As a final note to this thread.

Watch the game winning drive again. It's incredible. The defense was all over Eli, and he managed to pull this off. Patriots had them third-and-long twice, 4th-and-1, almost sacked ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,190
Messages
4,556,241
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom