Brady is the best according to NY Daily News

[Ring 6]

I agree. The ONLY thing Eli has over Rivers is the Super Bowl ring. And he got that ring in a game where he didn't actually play well and his defense shutdown the best offense arguably ever for most of the game. As much as I hate to admit it, Rivers is clearly the better QB. I don't hate Eli. I would rather be able to say that he is better QB.

Well there is always hope, because Rivers has yet to prove he can get it done in a big game, and EVERYTHING about him that you hate is consistent with being a guy who always fails in the big game.

 

[Rob0729]

I stick by what I said about Brees, both positive and wondering. As for the kind of fan who would make the referenced argument, I've heard a lot of positions articulated that I otherwise can't fathom when folks talk about their teams, so I'll stick by what I wrote in that regard as well.

I just disagree on Rivers. To me, your argument still reads like a list of excuses and there's nothing you say that alters the view I put forward in my other post. Where we really disagree here is on the precedence that "winning" takes over "if's," "might's" and "would have's." But, this horse is beat dead and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I take your point that you were exercising hyperbole re Dilfer and Marino.

I'm sorry, but I can't see your point about Eli vs. Rivers when all the numbers don't support the argument and all you have in Eli's favor is the Super Bowl win. Everything else is in Rivers' direction. I don't think saying that Rivers playing with his ACL removed is a typical excuse.

When Peyton won his championship, my opinion of him didn't change all that much. I still think Marino is better than many of the other top all time QBs like Elway who won multiple championships. Talent-wise and production on the field, Eli is an inferior QB to Rivers. Two more wins in the 2007 playoffs isn't going to make me change my mind. If there was more production in the playoffs by Eli, then I could see it. But one Super Bowl win does not make an inferior QB better in my mind.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well there is always hope, because Rivers has yet to prove he can get it done in a big game, and EVERYTHING about him that you hate is consistent with being a guy who always fails in the big game.

It wasn't the fault of Rivers that Troy Brown got that ball back, and Rivers has beaten the Colts in the playoffs.

 

[Rob0729]

Well there is always hope, because Rivers has yet to prove he can get it done in a big game, and EVERYTHING about him that you hate is consistent with being a guy who always fails in the big game.

I still don't know if Eli can win the big game either. Since he tried to give the victory to the Pats, but since Asante and Meriweather couldn't hold onto the balls right to them he was unable to complete the task. I watched that Super Bowl multiple times and I still don't know how the Pats lost it on that final drive.

You can make a strong argument that the Giants won the Super Bowl in spite of Eli doing what he could to give the Pats the victory.

 

[RobertWeathers]

BTW, Rivers threw for 4009 yards and 34 TDs vs. 11 INTs last year (his best year). Eli's best year was 2005 when he threw for 3762 yards, 28 TDs, and 17 INTs. Eli's production has been declining ever since (although last year he did cut down significantly on the INTs at least until the playoffs). I think five years from now, it will be a joke to even consider Eli in the same class as Rivers. And I hate Rivers and his smugness with a passion. I just think he is a superior QB to Eli.

I agree that Rivers is a better Qb than Eli and most likely when their careers are said and done, will be the superior QB. However, I don't think by citing that his number are in decline is a valid point. Look at the Giants rushing rank & yds in each of the last 4 seasons.

2008- #1 2518 yds
2007- #4 2148 yds
2006- #7-2156 yds
2005- #6 2009 yds

My point is that Coughlin loves his running game and likes balance. Always has. That certainly takes away from passing yds. Is he doing it b/c he knows Eli can't carry a team like Rivers? Don't know.

This is a big year for Eli. Without, Plax and Toomer it'll be interesting to see how well he performs and leads the team.

 

[BritPat]

Phillip Rivers has had his critics, me amongst them, and with good reason. He's acted like a whiny ***** so far in his career, and has been very immature and childish.

But he's also a winner. I used to think he was over-rated garbage, but he's improved markedly over the last couple of years, blimey, last year he was the offense for the Chargers at times. The guy also has guts, he displayed that for all to see in Foxboro in 2007.

He's a better QB than Eli, and by some distance.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

He is, however, closer to Dilfer, as a QB who happened to be on a SB Champ than to Brady, Montana, etc, great QBs who led their teams to Championships.
Frankly, Eli has a lot more career in front of him than behind him. IMO, if his play doesnt improve, he wont see another title, and will go down as a mediocre QB. He certainly has the chance to BUILD ON that championship, but it alone doesnt separate him, IMO, from other QBs who play better but havent been on a champion as of yet.
Part of crediting QBs with the success of the team is having that success be sustained and not a one shot deal, which is usually despite the QB. He has a Manning-esque 0-3 playoff record outside of that 2007 season.
If Eli's last name was Washington, he'd be considered a high draft pick who has yet to prove himself.

I have somehow boxed myself into a corner of defending Eli, when all I was originally trying to say was that Gary Myers risked going against the tide of popular opinion in NY in his article by putting Drew Brees above Eli, a positioning with which I thoroughly agreed.

When you say "other QB's who play better but...", I agree with you if you're referring to Brees without a doubt. Disagree if you're putting Rivers in the same breath (and, I hasten to add, "at this point," as Rivers will have plenty of opportunities to demonstrate that he is superior to Eli).

In yesterday's thread, I argued that the Giants had made a major error by giving a Peyton/Brady contract to an average QB. So, I agree with you there 100%. This is a "thanks for the memories" contract, not a "build for the future" deal.

As to where Eli ends up on the spectrum between Montana/Brady and Dilfer, he clearly doesn't belong in the same breath with Joe and Tommy. Is he closer to Trent today? That's probably a little unfair. Could he end up closer to Trent when we have the advantage of being able to evaluate his entire career, sure, I'd agree with that.

 

[Ring 6]

Whats funny is we are commenting on Eli Mannings 42-29 record, and how impressive that is and Tom Brady has more than twice as many wins and 5 fewer losses. (87-24)
To put that in perspective if Eli Manning would have to win his next 64 starts, 4 straight undefeated season to pass Brady in win %.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm sorry, but I can't see your point about Eli vs. Rivers when all the numbers don't support the argument and all you have in Eli's favor is the Super Bowl win. Everything else is in Rivers' direction. I don't think saying that Rivers playing with his ACL removed is a typical excuse.

When Peyton won his championship, my opinion of him didn't change all that much. I still think Marino is better than many of the other top all time QBs like Elway who won multiple championships. Talent-wise and production on the field, Eli is an inferior QB to Rivers. Two more wins in the 2007 playoffs isn't going to make me change my mind. If there was more production in the playoffs by Eli, then I could see it. But one Super Bowl win does not make an inferior QB better in my mind.

Hey, I agreed to disagree on Rivers.

But when you say that "all you have in Eli's favor is the Super Bowl win," that's a pretty big "all you have" when, in the 43 years that the SB has been played, of the thousands of guys who have taken snaps over center, only 27 have won a Super Bowl, Trent Dilfer aside!

Rivers is a young guy and will have ample opportunity to move ahead of Eli (who, as I have said a couple of times now, I don't even freakin' like and am amazed that I'm defending here), but for now the "one Super Bowl win" is not trivial as I compare the two QB's. At this point, that means something. Rivers is 3-3 in post season play and has thrown as many INT's as TD's in those games. That's not to say he won't end his career with a fistful of rings; it just says what is the case today.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Whats funny is we are commenting on Eli Mannings 42-29 record, and how impressive that is and Tom Brady has more than twice as many wins and 5 fewer losses. (87-24)
To put that in perspective if Eli Manning would have to win his next 64 starts, 4 straight undefeated season to pass Brady in win %.

Exactly. What's more, Eli has thrown almost as many INT's as TD's (74 vs. 98). The contract is ridiculous and the Giants will regret it. Donovan is a much better QB than Eli and nobody's even arguing about him...

 

[Deus Irae]

Hey, I agreed to disagree on Rivers.

But when you say that "all you have in Eli's favor is the Super Bowl win," that's a pretty big "all you have" when, in the 43 years that the SB has been played, of the thousands of guys who have taken snaps over center, only 27 have won a Super Bowl, Trent Dilfer aside!

Rivers is a young guy and will have ample opportunity to move ahead of Eli (who, as I have said a couple of times now, I don't even freakin' like and am amazed that I'm defending here), but for now the "one Super Bowl win" is not trivial as I compare the two QB's. At this point, that means something. Rivers is 3-3 in post season play and has thrown as many INT's as TD's in those games. That's not to say he won't end his career with a fistful of rings; it just says what is the case today.

The problem is that there's no "Trent Dilfer aside". Schroeder, Johnson, Dilfer, Rypien, McMahon..... mediocrities (and worse) have won several Super Bowls.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Whats funny is we are commenting on Eli Mannings 42-29 record, and how impressive that is and Tom Brady has more than twice as many wins and 5 fewer losses. (87-24)
To put that in perspective if Eli Manning would have to win his next 64 starts, 4 straight undefeated season to pass Brady in win %.

Not to mention Eli needs to rip off 11 straight playoff wins to equal TB's 14-3 mark.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The problem is that there's no "Trent Dilfer aside". Schroeder, Johnson, Dilfer, Rypien, McMahon..... mediocrities (and worse) have won several Super Bowls.

Yes, but the difference is that they all had years afterwards to prove that those wins weren't flukes and couldn't. Eli's career is still a work in progress after only four seasons as a starter. I have no desire to argue that Eli won't end up being remembered like those guys, but the book is still being written.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, but the difference is that they all had years afterwards to prove that those wins weren't flukes and couldn't. Eli's career is still a work in progress after only four seasons as a starter. I have no desire to argue that Eli won't end up being remembered like those guys, but the book is still being written.

The question is about who is best right now, not how history will rate Manning over the course of his entire career. Right now, Manning is a player with only one season of better than 77 passer rating. He's been a stiff for most of his career, nevermind being good/great. Frankly, one could make a very legitimate argument for a player like Cassel or Ryan over Manning if you wanted to be strict about numbers and the use of "now", but it's acknowledged, if unwritten, that history plays a part in the evaluation. That history, though, and the need to look to some in the case of players like Ryan and Cassel, must be short term in order for any evaluation to be worthwhile.

The other problem with the arguments you've been making is that you've contradicted yourself. It's about the player rather than the team when you knock Warner despite his great 2008 numbers, and it's about player rather than the team when you point to Manning's playoff appearances in years where he basically sucked. Yet, somehow, it's not about the player rather than the team when Dilfer wins a Super Bowl. I just can't go down that path, because it so clearly is about arguing from a fixed notion rather than arguing from the facts.

If Warner gets 'blamed' for a lousy team and Manning gets 'saved' by a good/great team, then Dilfer is better than Marino because he won a Super Bowl. It's just the natural progression of the argument.

 

[Rob0729]

Hey, I agreed to disagree on Rivers.

But when you say that "all you have in Eli's favor is the Super Bowl win," that's a pretty big "all you have" when, in the 43 years that the SB has been played, of the thousands of guys who have taken snaps over center, only 27 have won a Super Bowl, Trent Dilfer aside!

Rivers is a young guy and will have ample opportunity to move ahead of Eli (who, as I have said a couple of times now, I don't even freakin' like and am amazed that I'm defending here), but for now the "one Super Bowl win" is not trivial as I compare the two QB's. At this point, that means something. Rivers is 3-3 in post season play and has thrown as many INT's as TD's in those games. That's not to say he won't end his career with a fistful of rings; it just says what is the case today.

You put far too much weight on single Super Bowl wins. Plenty of QBs who have won Super Bowls were not among the best QBs of their generation including Dilfer, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Jim Punkett, Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler, and Brad Johnson. Let's not overrate this achievement. Other than Plunkett and Rypien, would you really be satisfied if any of these guys were (in their prime) your franchise QB and be willing to give them a big long term contract? Even Plunkett and Rypien were more average with great players around them than the QB who carried them to multiple Super Bowls (heck, Gibbs proved he could win Super Bowls with three different QBs during the Redskins era of Super Bowls and the Raiders won three years earlier than Plunkett's first Super Bowl with Ken Stabler).

 

[Rob0729]

Yes, but the difference is that they all had years afterwards to prove that those wins weren't flukes and couldn't. Eli's career is still a work in progress after only four seasons as a starter. I have no desire to argue that Eli won't end up being remembered like those guys, but the book is still being written.

Well, you just made the argument why you can't use the Super Bowl argument against Rivers. They have only been starters for a handful of years. There is no reason not to believe that Rivers won't finish his career with more rings than Eli. You can't use the shortness of his career as an argument against comparing him to the one time average or mediocre Super Bowl winners and then hold it against Rivers who has been in the league as long as Eli.

The fact of the matter is until Eli proves otherwise, I think his Super Bowl win is no more impressive than the guys Deus or I mentioned. I would say at least some of them had unremarkable careers otherwise and I wouldn't use their Super Bowl win as a point to push them above slightly better QBs from their era. And I won't do it for Eli until he gives me reasons to believe otherwise.

 

[Ring 6]

I have somehow boxed myself into a corner of defending Eli, when all I was originally trying to say was that Gary Myers risked going against the tide of popular opinion in NY in his article by putting Drew Brees above Eli, a positioning with which I thoroughly agreed.

When you say "other QB's who play better but...", I agree with you if you're referring to Brees without a doubt. Disagree if you're putting Rivers in the same breath (and, I hasten to add, "at this point," as Rivers will have plenty of opportunities to demonstrate that he is superior to Eli).

In yesterday's thread, I argued that the Giants had made a major error by giving a Peyton/Brady contract to an average QB. So, I agree with you there 100%. This is a "thanks for the memories" contract, not a "build for the future" deal.

As to where Eli ends up on the spectrum between Montana/Brady and Dilfer, he clearly doesn't belong in the same breath with Joe and Tommy. Is he closer to Trent today? That's probably a little unfair. Could he end up closer to Trent when we have the advantage of being able to evaluate his entire career, sure, I'd agree with that.

-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 agree that average is an excellent description of Manning.
-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 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.

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.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Well, you just made the argument why you can't use the Super Bowl argument against Rivers. They have only been starters for a handful of years. There is no reason not to believe that Rivers won't finish his career with more rings than Eli. You can't use the shortness of his career as an argument against comparing him to the one time average or mediocre Super Bowl winners and then hold it against Rivers who has been in the league as long as Eli.

The fact of the matter is until Eli proves otherwise, I think his Super Bowl win is no more impressive than the guys Deus or I mentioned. I would say at least some of them had unremarkable careers otherwise and I wouldn't use their Super Bowl win as a point to push them above slightly better QBs from their era. And I won't do it for Eli until he gives me reasons to believe otherwise.

This discussion is facinating. There have been many HoF QBs who have never won SBs (Fouts, Marino, Kelley, etc). and many QBs that are considered great in the context of being winners, but from a statistical standpoint, above average QBs (Bradshaw, Aikman, Griese). Prior to 2007, you could make the arguement that Brady was more in the company of Bradshaw and Aikman than Marino, Fouts, etc.

IMO great QBs are players who lead teams to successes (stating the obvious) in a wide variety of settings and situations such as 3rd down conv., 4th qtr come from behind victories, wins in the rain, in the snow, on the road, playoff games and SBs.

A coach one said that a QB's success is measured by the number of pelts he has.

Rivers leading the Chargers to the AFCCC with a bum knee is a pelt.

Eli winning 3 road playoff games and a SB is a pelt x 4.

Dilfer has a a couple of pelts.

Brady & Montana need their own respective walk-in closets for their pelt collection.

My .02$

 

[Ring 6]

It wasn't the fault of Rivers that Troy Brown got that ball back, and Rivers has beaten the Colts in the playoffs.

If your standard is to be able to find an excuse, no one ever fails.

 

[Ring 6]

This discussion is facinating. There have been many HoF QBs who have never won SBs (Fouts, Marino, Kelley, etc). and many QBs that are considered great in the context of being winners, but from a statistical standpoint, above average QBs (Bradshaw, Aikman, Griese). Prior to 2007, you could make the arguement that Brady was more in the company of Bradshaw and Aikman than Marino, Fouts, etc.

IMO great QBs are players who lead teams to successes (stating the obvious) in a wide variety of settings and situations such as 3rd down conv., 4th qtr come from behind victories, wins in the rain, in the snow, on the road, playoff games and SBs.

A coach one said that a QB's success is measured by the number of pelts he has.

Rivers leading the Chargers to the AFCCC with a bum knee is a pelt.

Eli winning 3 road playoff games and a SB is a pelt x 4.

Dilfer has a a couple of pelts.

Brady & Montana need their own respective walk-in closets for their pelt collection.

My .02$

Rivers came out of the game where his team was led to the AFCC game.

I don't understand why there are so many comments about Rivers playing in that AFCC game making him something special. He played hurt. Many players do. I dont find it so special. Had he played well, that might be a different story.