Jump to content

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

patriotsheatyan

By patriotsheatyan
in NFL General

Recommended Posts

43M

43M

Posted
Posted

Below average?  No.

Average-slightly above average?  Yes.

I feel like Eli is a scapegoat right now though because McAdoo honestly might be one of the most incompetent NFL coaches Ive ever seen outside of maybe Bobby Petrino and Cam Cameron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pugger

Pugger

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Below average?  No.

Average-slightly above average?  Yes.

I feel like Eli is a scapegoat right now though because McAdoo honestly might be one of the most incompetent NFL coaches Ive ever seen outside of maybe Bobby Petrino and Cam Cameron.

If he is just average or slightly above should such a player be considered for the HOF?  Shouldn't it be reserved for more than slightly above average?  His 2 rings are nice but not definitive. We have 7 QBs in there now who are ringless who could be argued were better than Eli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MWil23

MWil23

Posted
Posted

I always love how the "RINGS" argument is applied to QB's on the PRO/CON side but it doesn't apply to other positions.

Roger Craig has 13,100 total rushing/receiving yards, 74 TD, 4 Pro Bowls, and arguably the best season ever from a RB in 1985 with over 1,000 Rush yards (and 5+ YPC) and over 1,000 Receiving yards (92 catches) and 3 Rings.

The selective logic is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Below average?  No.

Average-slightly above average?  Yes.

I feel like Eli is a scapegoat right now though because McAdoo honestly might be one of the most incompetent NFL coaches Ive ever seen outside of maybe Bobby Petrino and Cam Cameron.

I think it's kind of the opposite. I think reckoning for Eli was a long time coming even before the season started and McAdoo being a collosal failure took some heat off Eli because unlike last year where the defense was great you didn't have to look at Eli like he was under the microscope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I always love how the "RINGS" argument is applied to QB's on the PRO/CON side but it doesn't apply to other positions.

Roger Craig has 13,100 total rushing/receiving yards, 74 TD, 4 Pro Bowls, and arguably the best season ever from a RB in 1985 with over 1,000 Rush yards (and 5+ YPC) and over 1,000 Receiving yards (92 catches) and 3 Rings.

The selective logic is laughable.

Because historically great QB's winning Super Bowls is the rule. Dan Marino is an exception. If you went through a list of the top 50 QB's ever, I'd be willing to bet over 90 percent had a Super Bowl or NFL title or a the minimum at least played in the game once. I mean hell in the top 10 alone only Marino doesn't have one and that's largely because he played a guy who had 

You cant say that about nearly any other position. So we look at overall stats there a lot more. 

For better or worse a great QB can win a Super Bowl without great WR's or a great running game. Jerry Rice could never a win a Super Bowl without a great QB. Owens went once with McNabb. Moss's first appearance was with Brady and his second was with Kaep playing out of his mind. 

Its also kind of funny because of you ask Jerry Rice why he's better than Moss, he'll say "because I have rings". I know that because he literally said that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MWil23

MWil23

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Because historically great QB's winning Super Bowls is the rule. Dan Marino is an exception. If you went through a list of the top 50 QB's ever, I'd be willing to bet over 90 percent had a Super Bowl or NFL title or a the minimum at least played in the game once. I mean hell in the top 10 alone only Marino doesn't have one and that's largely because he played a guy who had 

You cant say that about nearly any other position. So we look at overall stats there a lot more. 

For better or worse a great QB can win a Super Bowl without great WR's or a great running game. Jerry Rice could never a win a Super Bowl without a great QB. Owens went once with McNabb. Moss's first appearance was with Brady and his second was with Kaep playing out of his mind. 

Its also kind of funny because of you ask Jerry Rice why he's better than Moss, he'll say "because I have rings". I know that because he literally said that. 

So what do you do about the 80's Redskins and Giants? How about the '85 Bears? Same era, same logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

So what do you do about the 80's Redskins and Giants? How about the '85 Bears? Same era, same logic.

85 Bears won with a great defense. The most common way to win a Super Bowl is with a great QB and a solid team. The second most common way is with a great defense. Same with 2000 Ravens and 2013 Seahawks (though their QB is actually great and one of the most efficient ever). The 80's Giants also had a great defense. One of the 80's Redskins titles was won with Joe Theisman who won the league MVP the next year. Even Rypien was playing at an All Pro level for the Redskins third, he just didn't sustain it.

I said it happens the majority of the time. You are kind of cherry picking exceptions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MWil23

MWil23

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, lancerman said:

85 Bears won with a great defense. The most common way to win a Super Bowl is with a great QB and a solid team. The second most common way is with a great defense. Same with 2000 Ravens and 2013 Seahawks (though their QB is actually great and one of the most efficient ever). The 80's Giants also had a great defense. One of the 80's Redskins titles was won with Joe Theisman who won the league MVP the next year. Even Rypien was playing at an All Pro level for the Redskins third, he just didn't sustain it.

I said it happens the majority of the time. You are kind of cherry picking exceptions 

I literally gave you 6 Super Bowl Champions in a 10 year timeframe, during which Roger Craig played (same era). That's called a majority, which is far from cherry picking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lancerman

lancerman

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

I literally gave you 6 Super Bowl Champions in a 10 year timeframe, during which Roger Craig played (same era). That's called a majority, which is far from cherry picking.

Out of 51 Super Bowls 

Brady has 5 wins plus two appearances

Montana has 4 wins

Bradshaw has 4 wins

Starr has 2 wins

Aikman has 3

Marino has an appeance

Kelly has 4 appeances

Tarkenton has 3 appearances 

Staubach has 2 wins and multiple appearances.

Elway has 2 wins and 3 more appearances

Theismann has a win.

Favre has a win and an appearance.

Peyton Manning had two wins and two appearances (if you want to complain about his last one he still has a win and 2 appearances in his prime)

Rodgers has a win

Brees has a win

Ben has 2 wins and an appearance

Warner has a win and two appearances. 

Griese has two wins 

Unitas has a win and an appearance

Dawson has a win and an appearance 

Flacco won one off the best statistical playoff run ever

Eli got one off one of the best statistical playoff runs ever

In recent memory Cam and Ryan both made appearances off MVP years. 

Namath who was a great in his era got one. If you don't want to count him fine.

The majority of Super Bowl history is littered with great QB's

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hunter2_1

Hunter2_1

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, NeptunePenguins said:

I think he gets in the HOF in sometime for a few reasons.

1: He is Eli "Manning" aka that last name helps a lot.

2: QB of the Giants team that beat the Patriots in the Superbowl not once, but twice. 

3: One of those teams included the 18-0 Pats.

I personally wouldn't vote him in myself, but since it is the Hall of "Fame" and not the Hall of "Great" he makes it in after some years.

Though take away his last name, and change the context of his two Superbowl victories(He beats some random 12-4 team twice instead of the Patriots) then he would have no chance. 

In the end, I don't believe he is a Hall of Fame QB, but he will probably get voted in anyway.

Do they take surnames/family into consideration? If so, I'm glad I have ZERO interest in the HOF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...