Would it be fair to say that Eli Manning has been below average for 75% of his career?

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Jlowe22 said:

Eli isn't a HoFer, but below average for 75% of his career is pushing it.

He's not below average. That's stupid. But he's been very average most of his career with dips below and above average and then some short bursts of spikes of greatness and a couple not so short spikes of being terrible. He's very inconsistent in an era where most of his HOF peers and even the one's who won't be were consistently somewhere between exceptional and very good. 

[RandyMossIsBoss]

Not only would it be unfair, it would be completely wrong. Leave it at just "average" and you may have a point, but he was a proven franchise QB for a decade (2007-2016). His stats might be a tad below average, but the Giants were always a fairly unique offense, one that was not favorable to passer rating. While most offenses by even the late 00s were utilizing RBs heavily in the pass game, putting WRs in the slot for easy yardage underneath coverage, and generally running quick strike attacks, the Giants were running what remained of the run and shoot offense. Long developing routes that often included options for the WR are not kind to a QBs stats, their completion rate will be low and INTs will be higher. It's not coincidence his best seasons came in years where the Giants had a reliable guy in the slot. Now that's not to say Eli was a great QB, if he was he'd have regularly engineered great offenses with the WR talent he has had, which he only did a couple times, but he was certainly well above "below average". Between 2009 and about 2015, he generally played like a borderline top 10 QB.

 

 

and on the HOF topic, I agree with many others. I think he gets in, but I don't think he should. I don't think he should even sniff it, quite frankly. If you take away 2 games, hell, 2 plays, from his 15+ year career, his name isn't even brought up in the discussion! Performance in the SB should be held in higher regard to performance in week 5, but it should not outweigh entire seasons worth of play.

[Jlowe22]

1 hour ago, Malik said:

Ceiling in terms of career success or play?

I'm saying that he's capable of a level of play I don't see from below average QBs, or even most average ones.  Even if he is very average most years.

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Jlowe22 said:

I'm saying that he's capable of a level of play I don't see from below average QBs, or even most average ones.  Even if he is very average most years.

Is that really true? RGIII, Alex Smith, Ryan Tannehill, and Geno Smith are on a very shortlist of QB's who had a perfect passer rating in a game. No matter how you feel about that, it's an extremely rare and high level distinction. Eli had a really good post season run once where he played great throughout. But aside from that, I think plenty of average to mediocre QB's can have a super high level game. Jay Cutler can have an incredible game every once in a while.

[Danger]

Joe Namath is in the Hall of Fame. It's automatically a joke.

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, Danger said:

Joe Namath is in the Hall of Fame. It's automatically a joke.

Joe Namath was one of the best and most renowned QB's of his era. Can't say that for Eli. 

[Jlowe22]

Just now, lancerman said:

Is that really true? RGIII, Alex Smith, Ryan Tannehill, and Geno Smith are on a very shortlist of QB's who had a perfect passer rating in a game. No matter how you feel about that, it's an extremely rare and high level distinction. Eli had a really good post season run once where he played great throughout. But aside from that, I think plenty of average to mediocre QB's can have a super high level game. Jay Cutler can have an incredible game every once in a while.

Well having a really good postseason run and winning a superbowl is not something I see being done by a lot of average QBs.  And Eli has played above average for stretches longer than a game or two.

He is also bad for long stretches.  But below average for 75% of his career seems awfully silly to me.

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Well having a really good postseason run and winning a superbowl is not something I see being done by a lot of average QBs.  And Eli has played above average for stretches longer than a game or two.

He is also bad for long stretches.  But below average for 75% of his career seems awfully silly to me.

Joe Flacco had a better statistical post season run literally a year later and I would not call him above average. 

[Jlowe22]

Just now, lancerman said:

Joe Flacco had a better statistical post season run literally a year later and I would not call him above average. 

Yea, so we have Joe Flacco and Eli Manning.

[Danger]

Just now, lancerman said:

Joe Namath was one of the best and most renowned QB's of his era. Can't say that for Eli. 

The only reason Joe Namath is in because of the promise to beat the Packers.

Passer Rating by year (NFL and AFL)
1965: 15th of 25
1966: 15th of 29
1967: 9th of 28
1968: 12th of 28
1969: 13th of 32
1970: 27th of 31
1971: 12th of 31
1972: 12th of 27
1973: 14th of 29
1974: 12th of 32
1975: 27th of 30
1976: 29th of 31
1977: 25th of 28


Dude broke the top 10 ONE time. He wasn't a good QB

[lancerman]

Just now, Danger said:

The only reason Joe Namath is in because of the promise to beat the Packers.

Passer Rating by year (NFL and AFL)
1965: 15th of 25
1966: 15th of 29
1967: 9th of 28
1968: 12th of 28
1969: 13th of 32
1970: 27th of 31
1971: 12th of 31
1972: 12th of 27
1973: 14th of 29
1974: 12th of 32
1975: 27th of 30
1976: 29th of 31
1977: 25th of 28


Dude broke the top 10 ONE time. He wasn't a good QB

It was the Colts and I already wen through this. He was legitimately the best or 2nd best QB in AFL  history (Eli was never even top 5 in his career). He had an AFL MVP (Eli never was).  He had multiple All Pro's in the AFL and one in the NFL (Eli never has). He led the NFL in yards and TD's (Eli never did). He was legitimately regarded as one of the best QB's of his era even outside of his Super Bowl year.

[MightyMouse07]

25 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Sorry this is flat out wrong. Joe Namath was easily the best or second best QB in AFL history (you could argue Dawson). He was an AFL MVP twice, multi time All Pro in the AFL, had a year where he led the NFL in both passing yards and TD's (Eli's only ever led in interceptions) and was probably a top 3 QB in his era after Starr and Unitas (again maybe throw Dawson in there). Eli's literally not even top 5 of his era (Brady, Brees, Peyton, Rodgers, Ben are all easily ahead of him). 

So because he was the shiniest turd of the era he got into the HOF? I know it’s a different era but his numbers are atrocious. He wasn’t even a winner.  He had more loses than wins as a QB.  Trash is harsh so I’ll reccant that note. 

 

If someone like Namath can get in then Eli will get in there too. The big moments are what people are going to remember and that’s all Eli will need. HOF is about what you contributed to the league and the impact you had on the league. I’d say Eli had enough impact to get him into the HOF even if I don’t like it. 

[Danger]

The numbers strongly suggest otherwise, but sure.

[lancerman]

It was a different era and he had different peers. Namath was easily regarded as one of the best of his era and had accolades that coincided with it. Eli was never regarded as such, never had those accolades, and compared worse compared to his peers.

[lancerman]

12 minutes ago, MightyMouse07 said:

So because he was the shiniest turd of the era he got into the HOF? I know it’s a different era but his numbers are atrocious. He wasn’t even a winner.  He had more loses than wins as a QB.  Trash is harsh so I’ll reccant that note. 

 

If someone like Namath can get in then Eli will get in there too. The big moments are what people are going to remember and that’s all Eli will need. HOF is about what you contributed to the league and the impact you had on the league. I’d say Eli had enough impact to get him into the HOF even if I don’t like it. 

If you want to ignore era, then Romo, Rivers, Flacco, Ryan, Wilson, Smith, Newton, Palmer, and Tannehill all have an argument to be in the HOF when you compare their stats to the standards of previous era's. Eli played in a different era with a different standard of excellence and different requirements to be an elite QB based off the competition and the rules. For the period Namath played in there was Unitas and Starr as the only QB's you could say were without question superior to him. Sure you could argue Jurgenson and Dawson (but they are in the HOF). I can without question say Brady, P. Manning, Brees, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger were without question superior to Eli and there isn't anything to debate about it. I could already seriously argue that Rivers and Romo who won't make the HOF were considered better QB's for more of their career than Eli. Flacco who is the closest thing Eli has to a peer won't get in the HOF. 

It's the same thing as the Aikman argument. For most of career Aikman was considered easily a top 5 QB you had Marino, Favre, and Young as definitley ahead of him. Then you could argue Kelly and Moon (but both are in the Hall of Fame anyways).