nfl 12/13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eboue said:
I'm not rating him behind all and sundry (which the Internet tells me means one and all). I'm rating him anywhere from 9th to 15th. So IMO he is at worst a top half QB and at best a top third QB. Seems pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...

You can pull as many statistics out of your arse as you want to, but sport is about winning. Which means it's about producing clutch performances in clutch games. Eli was imperious in the playoffs where others (like Rodgers) fell last year. That said, I'd rather have those at the pinnacle - Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Peyton - but he's just one tier below them. He's so cool under pressure and that counts for so much. What's the point of blowing it up for 400 yards and 3 TDs every game when you don't produce it when it matters?

Luck, statistically, is not having as good a season as RGIII either, but look at those game winning drives and how that team stood at 2-14 last year. In my opinion, he's been just as good as him if not better.
 
mightberight said:
You can pull as many statistics out of your arse as you want to, but sport is about winning. Which means it's about producing clutch performances in clutch games. Eli was imperious in the playoffs where others (like Rodgers) fell last year. That said, I'd rather have those at the pinnacle - Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Peyton - but he's just one tier below them. He's so cool under pressure and that counts for so much. What's the point of blowing it up for 400 yards and 3 TDs every game when you don't produce it when it matters?

Luck, statistically, is not having as good a season as RGIII either, but look at those game winning drives and how that team stood at 2-14 last year. In my opinion, he's been just as good as him if not better.
Click to expand...

:lol:I'm not pulling them out of my arse, I'm pulling them off of NFL.com. I'm sorry they don't support your preconcieved notion but it's just a fact.

Let's take the Tyree catch for example. Eli Manning just chucks it up into triple coverage and gets bailed out of one of the best catches ever. The Giants went on to win and thus made Eli Manning "a guy who produces when it matters". But remember, once the ball left Manning's hands the probability was an interception or at least and incomplete pass. Some other guy made that play.

Manningham's throw was also into double coverage. This was a much better throw than the Tyree pass but it also relied hugely on another player.

So I'll ask you: Manning or Marino?
 
No ... I'm saying TDs, pass completion, QB rating etc largely fall in comparison to what really matters - winning. Of course Marino was better, but I'm not the one making the claim that Eli's just pushing the top 15 QBs currently in the league. That's just insane.

You can't use one fortunate play as a basis for proving it was a fluke. And you also conveniently forget he produced an utter miracle to avoid a sack for the Tyree catch in the first place.

And, as you're a stat man - 2007 postseason, 6 TDs and 1 interception. 2011, 9TDs and 1 interception. If you call the man a "two-time fluke", all you're doing is insulting your own intelligence.
 
I'm saying him being a two time winner was a fluke. The Giants were 9-7 both years and got hot/lucky at the right time.

The idea of attributing success of a team to a QB is so odd. Trent Dilfer is a Super Bowl winning QB. I remember when Peyton was derided for "not being able to win the big one".
 
For all of P Manning's greatness he has a career losing record in the postseason and made a huge mistake that lost his team a SB against New Orleans. He was probably fortunate that 1) New England choked a big lead in Jan 2007 and b) that year's opposing SB starter was Rex Grossman, or he'd still be labelled a guy that can't win the big game.

Romo could conceivably win a SB (not really with Jerry running things) and most would still hate him because of one reason - he's the Cowboys QB. If he QB'd any other club he would have far fewer haters. Aikman was a winner and most fans hated his ass too for one sole reason - he QB'd the Cowboys.
 
MrMarcello said:
For all of P Manning's greatness he has a career losing record in the postseason and made a huge mistake that lost his team a SB against New Orleans. He was probably fortunate that 1) New England choked a big lead in Jan 2007 and b) that year's opposing SB starter was Rex Grossman, or he'd still be labelled a guy that can't win the big game.
Click to expand...

I agree. Which shows how dumb the label is.
 
Brady-Hernandez-TD. Great start for the Pats.

Didn't realise Edelman was put on IR, big loss as he was playing very well recently.
 
Tom Brady is shredding the Texans D. Beautiful throw, Lloyd open, 14-0.

He won't win it, but considering the injuries suffered on offense, Brady should be MVP.
 
Wilfork probably ate his teacher at school. Guy is a beast.

I'd have taken the points even if you're 21 points behind, still a long way to go in this game. Unless we get another TD before the half, then it'll be over.
 
Brilliant half from the Pats. D has been superb, Brady has done well to get us into a commanding position.

We get the ball to start the second half as well, this game should be won from here.

Hope Talib is ok, would be a massive loss for the secondary which has got better since he was traded.
 
Brady is getting hit a lot today. Texans D have slowed him down after the initial massacre to start the game.
 
TD Patriots! Another beautiful pass Brady.

And with that, good night!
 
The Patriots are going to win it, aren't they? arrghhh....

Eli is one of the elite QB's in the league. I rate only Manning, Brady and Brees better than him in this century and only Brady, Manning, Brees and Rodgers better than him now. He is better than Big Ben.

The fact that he stopped one of the greatest QB's of all time twice, and once when Brady's team was on a 18-0 run just adds to his resume. The only thing I still hold against Eli is him refusing the join San Diego in the draft. Other than that he has been terrific. Numbers don't define a player and is very narrow view to judge someone. I bet around 75% of the QB's on the football outsiders list above Eli wouldn't achieve the same with those Giants teams.
 
Forevergiggs said:
The Patriots are going to win it, aren't they? arrghhh....

Eli is one of the elite QB's in the league. I rate only Manning, Brady and Brees better than him in this century and only Brady, Manning, Brees and Rodgers better than him now. He is better than Big Ben.

The fact that he stopped one of the greatest QB's of all time twice, and once when Brady's team was on a 18-0 run just adds to his resume. The only thing I still hold against Eli is him refusing the join San Diego in the draft. Other than that he has been terrific. Numbers don't define a player and is very narrow view to judge someone. I bet around 75% of the QB's on the football outsiders list above Eli wouldn't achieve the same with those Giants teams.
Click to expand...

Does he play defense too? If so, I'll have to reevaluate him since I've clearly overlooked that.

And about the "75% wouldn't achieve the same results thing", do you have anything to back that up? You're at least the second person in this thread to throw out that kind of assertion. What makes you think Aaron Rodgers or Matt Schaub couldn't have done what Manning did? (which is only 17 and 21 points, the Giants D is the real hero of those wins) You dismiss the numbers I provide but at least those are data from what actually happened.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Eboue, did Eli Manning do something nasty to you? I had a similar irrational hatred for Paolo Di Canio.
Click to expand...

:lol: no I have no problem at all with Eli. Except for his senior year at Mississippi when he tripped over his own feet and missed the chance to beat LSU.

I'm the one arguing rationally with data. Those on the other side are making unsubstantiated assertions
 
Eboue said:
:lol: no I have no problem at all with Eli. Except for his senior year at Mississippi when he tripped over his own feet and missed the chance to beat LSU.

I'm the one arguing rationally with data. Those on the other side are making unsubstantiated assertions
Click to expand...

You are arguing with numbers and others are asking you to look at the results. For instance, Eli's first SB was more of the defence making a last stand and Eli getting a few quick plays in. But the fact is, it was not in one game. They went on road to Bucs and Packers too. The second SB was more about Eli though. He was clutch in most of the matches and came back with the answers when they were needed of him.

Last season he came up against Rodgers and in spite of being rated below him, he answered all that Packers threw at him and Rodgers couldn't handle it.
 
But the results cannot be attributed just to him. Let's say that football is 45% offense, 45% defense and 10% special teams. The quarterback is one of eleven players on offense. If each was equally important he would be 4% of the team. Let's say the QB is five times as important as any other offensive player. That puts him as 20% of the team? Why should we assign wins and losses to him when a large chunk of things are out of his control?

I use yards and turnovers and other stats because the QB has much more control over those numbers, thus they are better for judging his performance.

I keep bringing up Marino because he illustrates the point perfectly. Universally regarded as one of the very best quarterbacks of all time, Marino never won a Super Bowl and his team lost by 22 in their only appearance. The fact that he never won it all doesn't change how great he was, just like the fact Trent Dilfer did win it all doesn't change how subpar he was.

That same argument is taking place here. The fact that Mannings team won it all twice doesn't change the fact that he is a good quarterback just like the fact that Brees/Rodgers/Peyton only won it once doesn't change the fact that they are great quarterbacks.
 
Eboue said:
But the results cannot be attributed just to him. Let's say that football is 45% offense, 45% defense and 10% special teams. The quarterback is one of eleven players on offense. If each was equally important he would be 4% of the team. Let's say the QB is five times as important as any other offensive player. That puts him as 20% of the team? Why should we assign wins and losses to him when a large chunk of things are out of his control?

I use yards and turnovers and other stats because the QB has much more control over those numbers, thus they are better for judging his performance.

I keep bringing up Marino because he illustrates the point perfectly. Universally regarded as one of the very best quarterbacks of all time, Marino never won a Super Bowl and his team lost by 22 in their only appearance. The fact that he never won it all doesn't change how great he was, just like the fact Trent Dilfer did win it all doesn't change how subpar he was.

That same argument is taking place here. The fact that Mannings team won it all twice doesn't change the fact that he is a good quarterback just like the fact that Brees/Rodgers/Peyton only won it once doesn't change the fact that they are great quarterbacks.
Click to expand...

But the numbers are often skewed by the NFL system, where not all teams play against each other. See what happened with Tebow last year? He dragged his team to play off despite having a .50 record didn't he? It's not like the EPL where teams play each other twice and the numbers are pretty much evened out. A team can get through playing easier opposition all the time.

And with the draft system, you draft a number 1 pick for QB, then you rebuild your team for a while and it's a long process to build the team. All these tells you the numbers don't often tell the correct story, nor do the results.
 
Eboue said:
Does he play defense too? If so, I'll have to reevaluate him since I've clearly overlooked that.

And about the "75% wouldn't achieve the same results thing", do you have anything to back that up? You're at least the second person in this thread to throw out that kind of assertion. What makes you think Aaron Rodgers or Matt Schaub couldn't have done what Manning did? (which is only 17 and 21 points, the Giants D is the real hero of those wins) You dismiss the numbers I provide but at least those are data from what actually happened.
Click to expand...

My bad! I should have clearly spelled it for you. He got the better of Brady and hence stopped him from winning another two SuperBowls. Clear enough?

Defense did play a major role (that is why they are there in the first place, innit?) but that doesn't take any thing away from Eli's contribution in that first Superbowl win. You can highlight the Tyree miracle catch or anything but that doesn't change the fact that Eli made it. You need luck along the way, everyone does, but using it as a tool to demean his performances is hardly correct.

Since you are such a numbers man - 277, 330, 316, 296 - these were Eli's passing stats in the 2011 playoffs. He threw 9 TD's and only 1 interception. His passer rating was better than 100 in 3 of those 4 games including the Super Bowl. If those numbers don't satisfy you, nothing will. He was the MVP in both the SuperBowl wins. The MVP is the best player, right?

75% is not quantifiable but I have seen enough to know what I am talking about. Who told that you that I was not including Rodgers or Shaub on that list? Why hasn't Schaub not been able to do it in 8 years?

You clearly have an agenda against Eli and I am not trying change your position. Though calling him only the 9th or the 10th best QB in the league is preposterous.
 
Haven't watched many Houston games this season, but they got blitzed at Foxborough yesterday. Was this just a bad day at the office for them, or is their excellent record masking issues?
 
fishfingers15 said:
Which teams do you reckon will make it to the play offs in the NFC? Not looking good for giants :(
Click to expand...

The Giants will make it. They'll win of the Atlanta or the Baltimore games and then beat the Eagles in the last games. 10-6 should be good enough to make the play offs.
 
Pats to win the superbowl this year, I can feel it lads.
 
iSparky said:
Pats to win the superbowl this year, I can feel it lads.
Click to expand...

If D plays like it has the past few games, then we have a great chance to go all the way. Was very impressed with how we dealt with Houston yesterday.
 
It's always tough to compare QB's because as is so often pointed out who plays around them has such an effect. For instance Dan Marino put up great numbers but never won a Super Bowl, but with the defense that Dolphins always had at that time and the complete lack of a running game for most seasons, it was no wonder. If Joe Montana had played for those Dolphins teams and Dan Marino played for those 49ers teams, would Joe be a multi-title winning QB still and Dan not have won at all still? Obviously nobody can say.

Living near Buffalo, Jim Kelly gets a lot of talk as one of the best ever, despite being 0-4 in the Super Bowls. One of the things his supporters bring up is how he often called his own plays in the no-huddle offense the Bills ran almost all the time. They point to other QB's at the time and since who did not do that and therefore, claim they could not do that. Of course that is unproven, since so many QB's of the generation since the 80's do not get a chance to do that, we do not know if they can.

Would Terry Bradshaw be a 4 time winner without the Steel Curtain defense? John Elway finally got his rings when he had a running game to go with his passing game, before that he got torn up in Super Bowls.

End of the day each of us will put emphasis on the things we think are important.

My best, based on who I have seen in their prime, so apologies to Bart Starr, Johnny Unitas, etc.
No particluar order.

Joe Montana
Dan Marino
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Terry Bradshaw
Brett Favre
John Elway
Dan Fouts
Fran Tarkenton
Roger Staubach
 
Has a club ever lost to Arizona/St Lous Cardinals in the regular season and won the Super Bowl? Seem to recall that tidbit a few years back.

That could be a deathblow to New England.
 
MrMarcello said:
Has a club ever lost to Arizona/St Lous Cardinals in the regular season and won the Super Bowl? Seem to recall that tidbit a few years back.

That could be a deathblow to New England.
Click to expand...


First Super Bowl Champ I looked up (did it strictly by chance), 1977 Dallas Cowboys sufferred their first loss of the season in week 9 to the St Louis Cardinals. The Cowboys destroyed the Broncos in the Super Bowl
 
JustAFan said:
First Super Bowl Champ I looked up (did it strictly by chance), 1977 Dallas Cowboys sufferred their first loss of the season in week 9 to the St Louis Cardinals. The Cowboys destroyed the Broncos in the Super Bowl
Click to expand...

Maybe it's since their move to Arizona or perhaps it was the old Buccaneers of the 70s/80s/to mid-90s.
 
Speaking of QB rankings, no doubt in my mind that the likes of Elway, Fouts, Marino, Simms, Moon, et al could have won all those championships in San Francisco but I highly doubt Montana would have won in Denver, Miami, Houston, or San Diego (he certainly could have with the Parcells coached Giants). Montana was a great leader, a great player, but he certainly benefitted from a great collection of coaching and talent and played in a vacuum (i.e. a bloated offensive system well ahead of its time, similar to Brees today). I feel he gets way too much credit for those SB wins no matter how clutch he was, and I actually enjoyed watching him play. Young could have won in the late 80s had Montana gone down/not been there.
 
So player suspensions have been overturned in the Bounty scandal.

I'm confused now - does this ruling mean players have always been innocent even though there was something about a player (Vilma?) offering $10,000 if someone knocked Favre out?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.