Theres been at least 3 kids who had their cancer go into remission since Gardner became the starting QB. I’m just saying …
You break the bank for championships. Eli has twice as many rings as your elite Rodgers, for example. Money well spent.
I hope this Thursday Night game puts to rest the idea that Jimmy G is mediocre.
Your steadfastness, despite years and years of evidence of the mediocrity from Eli, is a breath of fresh air. But keep up the “Eli must be better than Rodgers” mantra, because that’s golden.
He’s good, I think if he was asked to do more he could.
I have never once in the 16 years I’ve been posting here claimed that Eli is better than Rodgers. Not once.
What I have done, repeatedly, is point out the glaring flaw in your pet theory that only elite QBs are worth spending money on. I’ll take Eli’s two rings over Rodgers’ one every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
We don’t know that yet. Just grabbing the first pre-draft 2019 rookie QB list off Google…2019 NFL Draft: Ranking the Top QBs Ready to Be Rookie Starters | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report
From that list, in the 2019 draft we had:
- Ryan Finley
- Jarrett Stidham
- Gardner Minshew
- Jordan Ta’amu
- Brett Rypien
- Daniel Jones
- Will Grier
- Kyler Murray
- Drew Lock
- Dwayne Haskins
There’s the 3 first rounders. Two of which look like they are going to not suck, one who very much looks like he will suck. Then from the rest, we’ve only seen Minshew play and he’s magically been good. But the sample size is 1, looking at historic trends you usually get 0-1 league average QB per draft after the first round…ergo, none of the rest of the guys can be expected to hold down a starting job if they ever even see the field. The sample size grows to 2 this week, we’ll see.
You keep trotting out the “Eli has two rings” as if that is proof of something other than Eli has two rings. I’m simply pointing out that rings, or wins, are a horrible way to judge how good a QB is.
You continue to trot out this idea that Eli getting paid somehow disproves something, but, for the life of me, I don’t get it.
Of course. Two championships are better than one. But, again, that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. Eli is still a very average quarterback over his career, and the fact that the Giants paid him didn’t result in championships.
You are obsessed with elite QBs as if that’s an end into itself. I don’t particularly care about having an elite QB. I root for my team to win championships, not to have good passing stats during the regular season. I’m a Giants fan, which is similar to a Bears fan. I hang my hat on defense, not passing.
You continually trot out the “overpaid!” canard as if teams like the Giants did something wrong or made a mistake because they didn’t post (even remotely) Rodgers-esque passing stats during Eli’s career. My point is that Rodgers-esque passing stats are quite literally worthless. They don’t matter at all, even a little. Winning championships is the only thing that matters.
The Giants clearly and undeniably did not make a mistake by paying Eli because Eli greatly contributed to two Superbowl rings. Not like Big Ben’s first ring where he stunk up the joint but the rest of the team carried him. Eli was a significant part of both wins.
You don’t pay QBs to put up pretty numbers in the regular season. You pay them to win rings. Eli delivered in spades.
My point is that what you’re saying is irrelevant to why you pay QBs big money. The Giants believed they could win championships with Eli, so they spent a ton of draft capital to trade for him and then tons of cash to keep him. They were proven correct by the two rings.
There’s no point in having that QB debate with someone who’s team has not actually had to look for a QB for nearly 30 years. Super easy to sit on Mount Pious and throw rocks saying how easy it is to just grab a QB any old place.
Ummmmm. OK? I kinda assume all fans want their team to win championships, but hey, you do you.
Just so I understand your point, nothing matters except winning championships. How you win, salary cap concerns, whether one player is better than another, long term effects. None of that matters or is even worth debating. As long as a team wins a championship, everything they did before and after is all good because they won that championship. Winning a championship automatically makes every decision the team made or will make, absolutely correct.
Interesting take.
Ad hominems based on fandom now? Insightful as always, Omni.
Reading your posts I kinda assume you don’t really care about championships, but instead only care about passing stats during the regular season. Which is incredibly bizarre to me.
Just so I understand your point, you’re saying that a team that won two championships did something wrong because their regular season passing stats weren’t “elite”? And the better way to go – your team, with the elite passing stats – resulted in only one championship.
Interesting take.
Let me (re)ask it another way:
The Giants organization believed they could win championships with Eli Manning, so they spent a ton of draft capital to get him and paid him fair market wage for a franchise quarterback (ie: tons of money) to keep him.
Were they proven right or wrong?
Absolutely bizarre. I know of not one fan who cares about passing stats more than championships. I’m not sure why you seem to have reached the conclusion that I do, but, hey, as I said, you do you.
Not just the regular season passing stats, but if you want to boil it down, sure. I believe that they made a mistake making Eli Manning the highest paid player ever in the NFL. I also believe the fact that they won two championships (both with a defense that held the Patriots to under 17 points) with him as a QB does not negate that fact. Just as I think the Ravens made a mistake overpaying Joe Flacco after his run of 4 very good games. Just as I think the Jags overpaid for Nick Foles, another Super Bowl winning QB.
See, now you’re just making things up to make yourself feel better.
Here’s a question, a bit of a tangent but I think a somewhat relevant philosophical question. Do you differentiate between making bad decisions and making mistakes? I’m honestly curious.
I do draw a distinction. Let’s say you have a chance to trade for a great tight end, let’s say a generational talent is feuding with his team and wants out, and they want to get rid of a headache so they’re willing to trade him for less than his usual value. Plus they are struggling with cap space.
You have plenty of cap space and want to upgrade your offense. So you set up a trade, giving one of your struggling rookie tight ends and a 3rd round pick in return for a 5th round pick and this great tight end. By the numbers you made a great deal; you can afford him, you didn’t give up a player that’s helping you, your draft pick options aren’t that much worse and you can upgrade your offense immediately. Plus your QB played with him in college and they have a great rapport.
In the middle of his first game with you he suffers a horrible back injury from a collision while blocking on a run play and is carted off the field. Damage is so severe he can never play again.
Meanwhile the rookie you traded continues to learn with his new team and in his second year has a breakout season, becoming a rising star.
Did you make a mistake? Clearly you’d have been better not doing the trade because you end up much worse off. Was it the wrong decision? With all of the information you had at the time, not knowing what the future holds, it was the most sensible decision and seemed like a great deal.
Sometimes in these discussions it’s helpful to differentiate between what you consider a mistake based on the results, and what you consider to be a bad decision based on all of the information available at the time. Sometimes giving a big contract seems like a good decision but it’s ultimately a mistake. I feel like the Foles signing may be an example.
You’re ignoring my direct question. The Giants did NOT sign and keep Eli because they believed he could put up great passing stats. They signed and kept him because they believed he could win championships.
Were they right or wrong?
As for Eli being the current highest paid player in the history of the NFL, that’s a function of longevity and timing. If a different QB with a 16-year career as a starter (he was the starter week 1 this year, so this year counts) ended his career in 2015 he’d have made less than Eli; if this hypothetical QB ended his career in 2021 he’d have made more than Eli. That’s just how it works.
Your complaint is with the system, not the teams, but you then “blame” the teams for it. That’s intellectually dishonest.
Teams don’t get to choose between paying a player a ton or paying them less. They get to choose between paying fair market value or losing the player altogether. Regardless of passing stats, Eli was absolutely their franchise QB. That’s not even debatable. They paid him fair market value for a franchise QB, no more, no less.
Actually, I’m wrong about that. Google says Peyton Manning holds the all-time record for career earnings. Huh.
EDIT: Google is giving me conflicting information. Some sites say Eli is the highest, some say Peyton.
Plus that Nationwide money sure helps.
This necessarily implies that the Giants would have won 2 Super Bowls had they not traded up/drafted/signed Eli and instead spun the cheap QB wheel of fun and hoped for the best. It’s quite the trope.
The entire NFL, scouts, coaches, GMs, owners, most serious analysts, have agreed upon the idea that finding a competent QB is hard, that paying a good-to-great QB the market rate makes sense, and that gambling with unknown quantities at the most important position in the sport is foolhardy. Yet Hamlet has it all figured out, everyone should fire their QB, draft Gardner Minshew and invest that savings in defense. Ta da!