- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 16,343
- Reaction score
- 7,623
-I think its an open and shut case that Rivers has been a better QB up to this point. (Again, the only way to disagree is to give Manning credit for the Champ and Rivers blame for not having one, and I disagree there)
I want to agree with you so badly on this point, because I really don't like the way the Mannings handled that draft and because Rivers is a warrior and because I really don't like Eli (hey, I live in Manhattan and have to put up with the Manningomania--do you have any idea how bad it was to have to listen to the street celebrations and the horns honking on the night of "that game"?), but I can't get past the ring and Rivers' mediocre post season performance AT THIS STAGE in their careers. I just can't get past that, as well as you and others have stated your case here today. Yes, at this stage, before we have the full body of work of either Rivers or Manning, the ring does matter. There, I said it.
-I agree that average is an excellent description of Manning.
No bout adoubt it.
-I strenuously disagree that they gave him 6 years and 98 mill as a thank you for the team winning a SB and it doesnt come with heavy expectations. I would bet that if you told the Giants they would not win another SB with Manning at QB they would not have offered that contract.
I was being sarcastic. Of course, they didn't intend to do that, just as the Knicks didn't intend to wreck their cap status for years by paying Jordan money to Patrick Ewing.
-I will say that it is not unreasonable that the Giants believe Manning can DEVELOP INTO a top tier QB. I will agree that if you feel that will happen you have to give this type of contract. (For the most part, the top 5 guys all will be at or near the highest paid at some point, then fall when the next guy gets extneded) If the argument is the contract is justified by the likelihood he will earn it, I say thats reasonable, although I dont believe he will earn it. If we say it is justified based on his career to date, I'd say not much could be further from the truth.
Agreed
Why is it unfair to say he is closer to Dilfer than Brady/Montana? I dont think its debatable.
That doesn't mean he has to end up that way, it means thats where he is now. I think its the opposite of what you said. Today he is Dilfer-like but has the chance to be Brady-like. You implied he is more Brady-like but in time could prove to be Dilfer-like. We arent writing his epitath, just judging where he is at so far.
Depends on who's in the spectrum from Joe to Trent. If it's all QB's who've played in the last 30 years, then no, he isn't closer to Trent--not way up towards the Joe/Tommy end of the spectrum, but past the midway point. If it's the premium names we've been tossing around in this discussion, then yes he is closer to Trent.
Please see above. Thanks.