Extra Points
News and commentary from around the Web

Giants Bench Manning, Will Start Jones

When the New York Giants drafted Duke quarterback Daniel Jones sixth overall last April, it was inevitable that he would take Eli Manning's starting job sooner or later, even after general manager Dave Gettleman later said he would mind having Jones on the bench for a few years. Well, two games into the season, the change has been made -- the Giants announced today that Jones would be starting in Tampa Bay against the Buccaneers. 

In two games, Manning completed 63 percent of his passes for 6.2 yards per throw with two touchdowns, two interceptions, and two sacks. He is currently tied for third in the NFL in pass attempts and fourth in lowest sack rate, but not in the top 20 in any other significant passing rate stat.

View Full Article

Comments

68 comments, Last at 25 Sep 2019, 10:49pm

1 I hate NY media

The HOF debate is going to tedious, but if your argument includes the point “He did this in NEW YORK CITY”, then you should you should climb out of your own butthole and realize that the other 99.25% of the country doesn’t give a damn about you or your floppy bland pizza.

6 Super Bowl MVPs are a single…

Super Bowl MVPs are a single game award. The HOF should be a reward for an entire career. Not to mention that Eli only won those awards because the Super Bowl MVP is frequently just the 'Winning QB Award'. Scoring 17 points against the 11th ranked defense in the league is not a great achievement. Four years later it was 21 points against the 30th ranked defense, which is even less impressive. He avoided turnovers in those games, but they were more game manager performances than anything else.

14 I was rooting for the Pates…

I was rooting for the Pates in 2007, for a slew of reasons.

  1. Fuck the surviving 13-0 Dolphins guys
  2. The 2007 Pates were the first team to run more than 50% of plays out of shotgun, an innovation that has made football inarguably better for all of us. Sure, it seems inevitable that someone else would have done it, but they didn't.
  3.  This was before everyone hated the Pates, so calling that victory a moral Good is revisionist as hell

24 I kind of wanted them to win…

I kind of wanted them to win just so that Moss would have a ring, but everyone else I knew did indeed hate the Patriots and was ecstatic that the Giants won. Clearly that's not a representative sample (it's a bunch of English NFL fans of various seemingly random teams mostly living in Oxford) but even online I did not get the impression that hating the Pats was unusual at that time.

28 I was wanting to see them…

I was wanting to see them win too, mostly for reasons of I wanted to see an undefeated team. I forget off the top of my head if the 0-16 Lions were before or after this, but around this time commentators were saying "no NFL team will ever go 19-0 or 0-16". I hate the Pats now, but back then it'd've been cool to see it. Plus, the '72 Dolphins popping the cork on the champagne thing every year is ridiculous.

45 hadn't realized we're at Yahoo! Sports

"cheating in the 2002 SB"?

That allegation was withdrawn a long, long time ago.  That is, if you mean the "taped the walkthrough" allegation, which was always pathetic.

Turned out the flunky who set up the cameras around the practice field never bothered to notice that they weren't even plugged in.

And this is the kind of nonsense Pats' fans have had to deal with for a long, long time.  

The "taped the walkthrough" allegation was the rare one that was actually retracted by the media outlet involved, complete with apology to the Patriots. 

Anybody who still believes this nonsense is willfully choosing to do so, despite not only a complete lack of supporting evidence, but a thorough refutation of the charge.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/01/24/put-patriots-rams-walkthrough-tape-to-bed-super-bowl/

The Rams lost to the Patriots because Mike Martz is a bad head coach, Bill Belichick is a great head coach, and the Rams simply didn't take the Patriots seriously as an opponent until well into the second half.  

I had thought this was a data-driven website.  That is largely true, but clearly some of the denizens don't feel so constrained themselves.  

p.s. Marshall Faulk is a dummy

23 I completely agree about the…

In reply to by atworkforu

I completely agree about the narcissism of the NY fans/media.  Perhaps the ultimate example is using the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" to describe a home run that decided a game between two teams from NYC.  They should have called it the "Shot Heard 'Round the City" -- but I'm not sure the average New Yorker sees any meaningful difference in those two phrases.

2 If Eli makes the Hall of…

If Eli makes the Hall of Fame with his .500 record, the Hall of Fame will be instantly rendered meaningless.

46 historical importance

The Jets' victory over the Colts in Super Bowl III had massive historical importance as it showed that the AFL was a league on equal standing to the NFL.  Without that victory (and the win by the Chiefs the following year), the entire history of the NFL might well have been different.

And, FWIW, the biggest knock on Namath isn't his W-L.  It's his basic passing stats, including an interception rate that would make QB coaches cry in today's NFL.  There are certainly better QBs not in the Hall of Fame (Ken Anderson, Bert Jones, etc.)  But I'm OK with including Namath.

As for Eli, his argument is basically "I beat the Pats".  At some point we should look more closely into the Plunkett-Eli comparison.  Plunkett is the only QB with two SB wins who isn't in the Hall of Fame.  The general argument against him is his body of work, which included some terrible play for the Pats before the Raiders resurrected his career.  

I suspect the Manning connection and the love of the NY media will push Eli through into the Hall.  I just think it's worth shaming them while they do so.  

55 the knock on Namath is…

the knock on Namath is applying modern notions of 'efficiency' on a different era with different rules;  he's basically the antithesis of sam bradford, a guy who never took sacks and threw deep all the time, but he was above average to elite in any/a (probably the single best quarterback stat) for the first decade-plus of his career

8 QB records are all about the individuals, right?

After all, it's an individual sport, and no one else is on the field to block, run, catch or tackle, so ... wait, what?

There are arguments against Eli's HoF case that I believe are credible, but this is so far from being one that I wonder what agenda it is trying to serve.

12 I have no agenda. The point…

I have no agenda. The point is that he was an incredibly average QB who won 2 Super Bowls playing in “New York”.  Neither of which he played particularly well. Oh yeah, his name is Manning. 

If his name were Eli Plunkett or Eli Flacco, he doesn’t make the finalists list. 

I do think a 500 record should be held against him. My God, he played with some very talented teams. His father wishes he had that kind of surrounding talent. 

50 I don't think Manning…

I don't think Manning deserves to be in the HOF, based on his individual statistics, but if you're going to consider his total win-loss record as a major reason he shouldn't be, I think you should also give him more credit for the 2 Super Bowl wins.

47 the horror, the horror

Jones is in while Bob Kraft is on the outside, in spite of a 6-3 title advantage.

Not that Kraft has helped himself any this past offseason.  (Really, Bob?  A strip mall massage parlor?  Too cheap to hire a $100/hour escort?)  

7 Eli's HoF case depends on why you think the HoF exists

Eli's HoF case depends entirely on what you think the purpose of the Hall should be:

If you think that the HoF should tell the story of the NFL, I think a pretty reasonable case can be made that he should be in. The Giants' two Super Bowl victories over NE -- particularly the first -- are significant stories. The Super Bowl MVP awards that Manning received along the way almost certainly overstate his role, but he nevertheless made meaningful contributions that, due to his position, carry an out-sized portion of the narrative for those teams.

If you think that the HoF should be a place to recognize the best players in league history (as I do), then Eli clearly doesn't belong, and I suspect few people would disagree. Even so, just to quickly make that case: Eli started for significant time in 15 seasons. In those 15 seasons, here's how he did by:

  • DYAR: five seasons in top-10 (best rank was 8th); five seasons ranked 20th or worse
  • DVOA: three seasons in top-10 (best rank was 9th); six seasons ranked 20th or worse
  • ANY/A: three in top-10 (best was 5th -- other two were 10th). (I'm not willing to put in the time/effort to figure out how many seasons he was 20th or worse.)

By these measures, for the course of a season, at his very best, Eli was a slightly-above-average starting QB. For most of his career, he hasn't even been that.

His longevity/durability do say something positive about his career, but there are 10 other players who have made 5000 pass attempts in the course of his career, and Eli generally does not compare favorably to that group.

Much more subjective, but perhaps more damning: I root for a perennially-inept team that has faced Eli twice per year for his whole career. In that time, I have never feared what Eli might do against them; in fact, in their particularly bad seasons, I've looked forward to their games against the Giants because I always felt there was a chance Eli might lend a hand in keeping them in the game.

9 2nded

This is the correct argument; If it's truly a hall of "fame" Eli undoubtably belongs - his story is one of a handful that defined a decade in the NFL. If it's truly a hall of "greatest ever football players" Eli has no place there. All the major sports split this decision baseball leaning toward excellence, Hockey & Basketball leaning toward fame, Eli will be a testament to how the NFL HOF looks at itself more than anything else.

43 Agreed. But the HoF already…

In reply to by sbond101

Agreed. But the HoF already made it's decision. It is clearly the hall of "fame", not excellence. Of course, there's a bit of excellence blended in, but it's very heavily in the "fame" side.

13 There has to be, at best, a…

There has to be, at best, a blending of the two, but weighted heavily towards being the best.  Let’s say Peyton, Cooper, or Eli sires an NFL QB. Maybe he plays 6 years for the Cardinals, makes the Pro Bowl, and loses a Super Bowl. Shit, let’s say he’s Rex Grossman or Tony Eason. 

He’s a third generation NFL QB Manning. He’s famous. Do we put him in the Hall because of that?

The story of the NFL can be told just fine without Eli’s inclusion. You’d be hard pressed, I think, to find him ever being a top 6 QB in the NFL during his career. 

To be fair, I find QBs and RBs massively over-represented in the HOF, so I have a high bar. I mean, how many all-time greats can there be at one position?

30 You don't need to imagine;…

You don't need to imagine; Tony Eason has a kid who is a decent QB -- Jacob Eason. In a lot of ways, Jacob Eason is who Eli was as a college QB -- someone raised as a QB by a pro who never quite made it.

I don't think Eli has a case if he never wins anything. But it's hard to tell the story of the NFL without him (and really, the duels between Tom Brady and the Manning Brothers, as well as the intertwined fate of Phil Rivers.) Everyone else with 2 SB MVPs is a first-ballot HOFer.

(As for how many greats can there be? Get back to me when we finally finish inducting everyone who ever played on the line of scrimmage for the 1960s Packers)

 

21 I think the argument is a…

I think the argument is a lot easier for the second approach. Even if the HOF is about telling the story of the NFL, there's a much easier way to do it: have exhibits that tell the story. Inducting Eli won't tell the story of Super Bowls 42 and 47. Take the first of those. Eli won Super Bowl MVP, but that game wasn't just about Eli Manning, it was also about Michael Strahan and Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiora and David Tyree and Plaxico Burress. Michael Strahan had a Hall of Fame career and is in the Hall of Fame as a result, but nobody would entertain the idea of David Tyree in the Hall of Fame as an individual inductee on the basis of the helmet catch, and I don't think any of the other guys belong there either. I haven't been to Canton, but I think it would be perfectly appropriate to have an exhibit about the helmet catch or about how the Giants pass rush helped produce one of the biggest upsets in sports. Those would tell the story. Giving Eli a bust because he happened to be Forrest Gump doesn't.

10 I don't disagree with either…

I don't disagree with either of your italicized statements, but I would add that in addition to his two SB victories, Manning is 7th all-time in yardage and 8th in TD passes. Clearly that's largely a function of longevity, and of course it doesn't mean that he was ever "elite" at any given time, but counting stats definitely matter in the eyes of HOF voters across the sporting landscape...as they should, IMHO.

As a statistical aside, Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger are 6-7-8 in some order in both career passing yards and passing TDs. If Manning, who is 8 yards behind Ben, doesn't get back on the field prior to the 8th-place Rivers catching the two of them in late Oct/early Nov, there will likely be a moment that all three of them are within 10 career passing yards of each other.

All in all, quite a QB class (best ever?). Interesting that two of them may have their careers as starters end the same week. If Rivers is superstitious (aside from his religiosity), he might want to be ultra-cautious this week :)

Sorry, this comment was meant to be a reply to dmb

11 Agreed that counting stats…

Agreed that counting stats matter to voters, though I'm a little less convinced that they "should" in this case. To me, if counting stats are racked up due to an extended period of strong play, even if the player wasn't superlative for his whole career, then the stats might bolster the player's case. However, I don't think that's the situation here.

You make a good point about the class of 2004 QBs, we're clearly nearing the end of an era for the league, if we haven't already arrived there.

16 There's an argument to be…

There's an argument to be made that Eli is the 4th best QB in that draft, after Rivers, Roeth, and Schaub. Schaub had a higher peak than Eli, that lasted slightly longer. The only real argument Eli has over Schaub is his longevity, and I personally don't see that as a huge positive for him. Extended mediocrity is not impressive to me.

17 Well, Schaub's best 5 years…

Well, Schaub's best 5 years are indeed pretty comparable to Manning's, stat-wise. But his 6th and 7th best years sucked (combined 19 TD, 23 INT), and at no other time was he deemed worthy of any significant playing time. Being maybe the 15th-20th QB in the league for an additional decade is miles better than not being good enough to play at all.

Looked at another way: is there a Giant fan alive who wishes they'd drafted Schaub with the #1 pick? 

Not to drag to a bunch of baggage into this (and yet, here we go...) but this kind of comment strikes me as an all-too-common overreaction to what seem to me to be straw man arguments about "how great everybody thinks Eli is". In reality, I don't think anyone but the most blinkered Giants homers thinks he's that great*, but I think he's a lot better than folks who make comments like this claim he is. 

 

*Of course, there are Pat-fan-baiters who love to cite stuff like Eli is 2-0 over Brady in SBs, but that's not the same as legitimately thinking he's great.

18 Well, Schaub's best 5 years…

Well, Schaub's best 5 years are indeed pretty comparable to Manning's, stat-wise. But his 6th and 7th best years sucked (combined 19 TD, 23 INT), and at no other time was he deemed worthy of any significant playing time. Being maybe the 15th-20th QB in the league for an additional decade is miles better than not being good enough to play at all.

Looked at another way: is there a Giant fan alive who wishes they'd drafted Schaub with the #1 pick? 

Not to drag to a bunch of baggage into this (and yet, here we go...) but this kind of comment strikes me as an all-too-common overreaction to what seem to me to be straw man arguments about "how great everybody thinks Eli is". In reality, I don't think anyone but the most blinkered Giants homers thinks he's that great*, but I think he's a lot better than folks who make comments like this claim he is. 

 

*Of course, there are Pat-fan-baiters who love to cite stuff like Eli is 2-0 over Brady in SBs, but that's not the same as legitimately thinking he's great.

40 A large part of Eli being so…

A large part of Eli being so high on those lists is the enormous increase in league average passing stats. 

 

Last I checked, the average offense passes for something like 1000 more yards than it did in 2000. 

 

Most of the players above Eli on that list are his contemparies. 

 

 

 

 

25 All in all, quite a QB class…

All in all, quite a QB class (best ever?)

1983 (Marino, Elway, Kelly, O'Brien, Eason) is pretty clearly ahead of it, I think. And there are others that you might make a case for if you prefer one top tier all time great and one or two very good players to two great players and two pretty good ones.

59 Don't forget Todd Blackledge…

Don't forget Todd Blackledge!

 

(Chiefs fans certainly haven't.)

 

Seriously, I can't believe we'll ever see a QB draft class again that produces that sort of success - 3 Hall of Fame inductees, 11 Super Bowl appearances (even if Elway's the only one with rings), and basically the defining QBs of an entire generation in the NFL.

61 1983 also had Tony Eason and…

1983 also had Tony Eason and Ken O'Brien.

PFR suggests 1971 edges it by a hair, with Ken Anderson, Joe Thiesman, Jim Plunkett, Dan Pastorini, Archie Manning, and Lynn Dickey. Smaller peak, but three borderline Hall guys.

In order:

1971 - Anderson, Thiesman, Plunkett, Pastorini, Manning, Dickey

1983 - Marino, Elway, Kelly, O'Brien, Eason, Blackledge

2004 - Rivers*, Roethlisberger*, Manning*, Schaub, Losman

2005 - Rodgers*, Smith, Fitzpatrick*, Campbell, Cassel, Orton, Anderson

1987 - Gannon, Testaverde, Harbaugh, Beuerlein, Miller, Majkowski

1957 - Dawson, Jurgenson, Brodie, Kemp, Plum

1973 - Fouts, Jaworski, Ferguson, Jones, Strock

 

2004 and 2005 can still move up. 2004 is only 48 behind 1971 and 45 behind 1983. 2005 is 61 and 64 behind.

Amusingly, 2004 is lot like 1983, whereas 2005 is a lot like 1971.

19 I will be thrilled if he…

I will be thrilled if he doesn't make the HOF.
A dubious candidate with insane post-season acolades recently made the hall in Terrell Davis. Manning is dubious for no peak. Davis is dubious for no longevity. Post-season heroics supposedly won voters over to Davis (and I think they shouldn't have), but my god he was so iconic in 97 and 98. Mannings post-seasons included one incredibly iconic moment, but only that.

I think the best measure of HoF is most valuable players. While I think there should be adjustments for the value of the position, roughly proportional representation is not crazy for a team sport like football. For Eli's career there are 75 HoF spots. If being great at QB is roughly 2 times as good as the typical position, that would mean 5 or 6 QBs from his era. (and excluding favre and only counting a small part of Warner's credit for 2004 on) Brees, Brady, Rodgers, big brother (though only about 2/3 of a position because of time overlap), and imo Roethlisberger are all undeniably superior choices. That leaves under normal hall constraints about one slot for Rivers, Ryan, Romo, Wilson and Manning to fight over. I like using slots, because it clarifies and honestly... he is not an insane candidate, though I would prefer to reward different play.

22 I'm surprised to see even…

I'm surprised to see even tepid support for Eli's HOF case. I think QBs are actually underrepresented in the HOF, and I still wouldn't vote for Eli. Has there ever been a DC who lay awake at night, worrying about how to stop Eli?  His case seems to be almost entirely based on the stupid "Count the Ringzzz!!!!!!!!!!" garbage.

Also, I find the argument that the "fame" in "Hall of Fame" should be taken literally to be very weak. If that's the criteria, why not induct Bo Jackson? Back in the late '80s and early '90s, he was far more famous than Eli has ever been. Or what about Herschel Walker? You can't "tell the story" of the NFL without telling the story of the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys, and you can't tell that story without talking about the star that tempted the Vikings to sell their soul to the devil...uh, I mean, Jerry Jones.

58 Well, Bo almost certainly…

Well, Bo almost certainly would have been a HOFer if he had stayed healthy and if he had focused on football, instead of trying to play baseball at the same time.  But those are huge "ifs" that he can't possibly overcome.  I'm about as big of a believer in "quality over quantity" as you'll find, but there has to be a limit.  For example, if Mahomes retired right now, he's nowhere near a HOFer, even though his career, on a per-game basis, might be the best in NFL history (and certainly better than Bo's).

As for Walker, you can actually make a better case for him than some of the RBs that are in Canton, especially if you include his USFL career (it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the NFL Hall of Fame).  But there's almost no chance he gets in, and that's probably for the best, IMO.

But I'll admit those may not be the best examples, so how about Jim McMahon, or William Perry?  You can't tell the story of the NFL without the '85 Bears, considered by many the greatest team ever, and you can't tell the story of the '85 Bears without McMahon and Perry.  So, should they get into Canton, too?

27 Eli will get into the Hall…

Eli will get into the Hall of Fame for the same reason Troy Aikman did. The NFL Hall of Fame is not the Baseball Hall of Fame where they actually take "X is better than Y who is our benchmark, therefore he should get in" seriously.

I'd much rather discuss how a coach once got fired for benching Eli, and now we're in week 3 of an NFL season and he gets benched.

34 For full context, Ben McAdoo…

For full context, Ben McAdoo was fired for being 2-10 and for replacing the QB who had started 210 consecutive games for the corpse of Geno Smith.

It may have been the last straw, but the camel was already well-burdened.

35 You can't argue on one hand…

You can't argue on one hand the QB is the most important player in the game as all this football sabermetrics bullcrap on this site does, and then completely divorce that player's performance from the 2-10 record. The Giants (and Eli Manning, Eli Manning's agent, and the New York sports media) at the time tried to do that by firing a coach midseason, with the impetus for the firing clearly being he benched his starting QB that was playing poorly.

All this action being so early on in WEEK 3 after a preseason of practice does is in part (notice the phrase there "in part") vindicate McAdoo's decision to bench Manning at the time, for which he got fired for, even if as you say it was a well-burdened camel.

Those couple weeks should seriously be visited and talked about in greater detail by Giants fans and the New York sports media today. They chose to stay with their Super Bowl-winning QB, and we're how many ever months on, they've lost their best receiver Odell Beckham, and they're no further forward in resolving the QB position, having largely wasted preseason practice with Eli as their stated #1.

36 How much credit do you want…

How much credit do you want to give McAdoo for events that occurred two years later?

On a per-pass basis, Geno was the 7th worst QB that year (-2 DYAR per pass). Manning was basically neutral (weakly positive DYAR, weakly negative DVOA). It would have been one thing if they benched Eli for a wunderkind. But they benched him for a backup Jets QB.

It's one thing to bench Favre for Rodgers. It's another to bench him for Kyle Orton.

38 Ben McAdoo was fired for…

Ben McAdoo was fired for benching Eli Manning for Geno Smith, but Jerry Reese was fired for making it possible to bench Eli Manning for Geno Smith rather than Patrick Mahomes or Carson Wentz. (Like McAdoo, I'm guessing he was fired for a lot of other stuff too.)

37 I agree with the other…

I agree with the other posters above and will double down on it. As a fan of his brother, I mildly rooted for him not to be a bust given the enormous hype. But I never rooted for him on Sundays unless he faced Ne(Sorry Pats fans).

But I'm appalled by the defenses of his HOF case. Even his ardent supporters would agree, on net, hes an above average qb(I'm not convinced he was even that for all that long), but because of his "story", he needs to be in the hall of fame. Excuse me??? Ok, why not add Tyree to that list. Why not add Mike Jones from the Rams to that list. Why not add Santonio Holmes?

This is pretty naked case of media narrative trumping logic and expecting everyone to just shut up and choke it down. This is only done for quarterbacks and only done if they have famous last names and play in NYC(something else thats made up to me. The jets have stunk for years and no one cares.).

Great for Eli and the Manning family that they get to have two hall of famers at the dinner table(I would argue his father has a much better case), but sad for the reputation of the NFL.

41 Because it was Eli who "beat…

Because it was Eli who "beat" Tom Brady. Just like Sanchez was the only qb to "beat" Manning and Brady on the road. 

 

I'm happy in a way. Eli will serve as another bullet point in the ridiculousness of the ringzzz argument. For years, people have moved the goal posts on Flacco and Dilfer by saying -ok, one is luck, but TWO is definitely validation. 

42 Let's not be ridiculous in…

Let's not be ridiculous in the other direction.

He's 43rd all-time in career AV. Of the 42 ahead of him, 41 are either already in the Hall or are active/ineligible. The other is Ken Anderson -- twice a finalist and widely regarded as the most glaring exclusion. Eli is basically Ken Anderson, except with two rings and the franchise player for the biggest media market.

The line where career AV rank stops being more likely to put you into the hall than not is around 110.

 

The argument about Eli vs Matt Ryan is kind of fascinating, though.

51 I guess this gets into a…

I guess this gets into a discussion about how much longevity plays into a hall of fame career. Eli was an above average player for half his career and something around average to below for the second half. Now his career spanned a long time which is unusual and a tremendous accomplishment, but I don't see that as hall of fame worthy. 

53 Repeat, meaningful success at the highest level

Ignore the SB MVPs. Those are arbitrary and driven by narratives. But do ask: in the past twenty seasons, which QBs have won multiple SBs in which they played well instead of being a horrible drag their team had to overcome?

Eli Manning. Tom Brady.

That’s it.

If we were talking about the Hall of Playoff Fame, Eli would get in on the first ballot, and rightly so. We’re not, so it’s an interesting problem.

60 Focus

In reply to by nat

I think it's surprising the number of people for whom playoffs doesn't seem to matter at all; Obviously the "RINGZZZ" argument is silly, but he had two really good playoff runs (especially in 2011) - and that definitely counts for something. I think after consideration what should happen here is that there should be HOF exhibit dedicated to the 2007 (and maybe also to the 2011) Giants to tell that story - but Eli himself should not be added to the HOF. But it's quite close whether his longevity should put him over the line (my view is that his crap-tastic second half of career probably keeps him out).

62 My biggest issue with the…

In reply to by sbond101

My biggest issue with the playoffs is that its such a small sample size and its not really predictive of anything. If it were, say like the NBA, I'd be more sympathetic to weighting it higher. But its not and time after time we've seen players like Flacco and Sanchez fool us. 

63 The playoffs definitely…

In reply to by sbond101

The playoffs definitely matter to me.  In fact, I tend to weight each postseason game as the equivalent of about 4 regular season games (since there are 16 regular season games, and a maximum of 4 postseason games).  But even if you count each of Eli's SB runs as a great regular season, I think he still comes up well short.  Those would be his only two great seasons, to go along with about 4 good-but-not-great seasons, and ten seasons that were mediocre (or worse).  That doesn't seem like the career profile of a HOF-caliber QB.

Contrast that to someone like Matt Ryan, who seems to be considered by many commenters here at FO as a "borderline" HOF candidate.  Ryan, despite having played 3 fewer years than Eli, already has at least 4 seasons that are significantly better than any season Eli has had.  And Ryan only has 1 season (2009) that is worse than Eli's average season.  But the real clincher is that Ryan has actually been much better than Eli in the playoffs!  In 12 postseason games, Eli has 6.12 ANY/A.  In 10 postseason games, Ryan has 6.92 ANY/A.  Ryan also has a higher completion percentage (67.5 to 60.5), a higher TD percentage (5.7 to 4.5), and a lower INT percentage (2.0 to 2.3).  Literally the only arguments for Eli getting in over Ryan are the "COUNT THE RINGZZZ!!!!!!!!!!" bullshit, or the even bigger "NEW YORK CITY!!!!!" bullshit.

The point of all this is that, if Ryan is (as many here seem to think) a "borderline" HOF candidate, then Eli belongs nowhere near Canton, regardless of the "postseason heroics" on his resume.

57 All-Franchise?

I'm curious for how many franchises Eli would have been their best all-time QB.

As a for instance:
For the Bears? Yes.
For the Colts? No.

64 If we are doing the…

In reply to by Aaron Brooks G…

If we are doing the liberalization of the rules(ie post 1978 and on).

 

Its actually more than I would have initially thought. The for sure's...Arizona, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City(won't be for much longer), Cleveland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Oakland, Cincinnati, Jets, and Giants.

 

The maybe's are the Redskins, Vikings, Rams, and Texans. 

 

A lot depends on how much you value peak and longevity as the Cardinals, Rams, Chiefs, and  Raiders got better individual seasons out of their signal callers, but not long enough. 

66 Watching Tiki and Ronde…

Watching Tiki and Ronde Barber announce the TB Giants game I wondered if Eli and Peyton are the best brothers to play in the NFL. Tiki and and Ronde obviously win best twins. But do Bruce and Clay Mathews have an argument over the Mannings. Bruce may be the best OL of all time Peyton is certainly close to the best QB of all time. So it probably comes down to Eli vs Clay. I think Eli was an OK QB with a few good years and more baddish years, I don't remember Clay at all.