Rex Ryan Looks Depleted...

[DuderinoN703]

It's not fair to compare stats, 2 totally different eras. Both are similar QBs, #1 overall picks, struggled early, helped teams win 2 Sbs in short amount of time, won SB MVPs, neither made an all pro team.

So it isn't fair to compare stats but it's fair to compare everything else which you think supports your claim he isn't elite. Of course.

It's easier to win a SB MVP, again one great game can get you that award but you need greatness throughout 16 to win a league MVP.

Either way you're good

Doug Williams(and if he didn't win it Timmy Smith would have won that one), Larry Brown, Desmond Howard, Dexter jackson, Deion Branch, Eli Manning. None of these players were/are great players, they happened to have great games or make big plays in the SB. The award does skew towards QBs which is why Doug and Eli won their SB MVP awards but Eli is as elite as those other players were- elite for a day.

Did any of those players win two Super Bowl MVPs?

 

[The New Guy]

The NE D blew a 14 pt lead in the 4th qtr for the first and ONLY time in history. I always gave NE's D credit for keeping them in that game but when it was winning time they folded- did the Giants D blow a huge 4th qtr lead in either SB?

As great as Eli's drives were they weren't close to Brady's in that SB b/c he got the ball at his 17 w/ NO timeouts. Time was not a factor in Eli's drives.

The NE D blew a 4th quarter lead because they had very little help from Brady. He had 145 passing yards the entire game. I really don't care when the opponent scores their points. 1st quarter, 3rd quarter, 4th quarter, it doesn't matter. All that matters is the point total. You can complain about 14 4th quarter points, but the D held the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scored a TD. If Brady and the O could have scored more than 10 points, they still would have had a lead. The D only allowed a total of 17 points the entire game, and scored a TD. You can't ask for anything more against an O like the Rams.

The Giants were up 9-0 after 1 quarter before NE scored 17 unanswered points in the 2nd and 3 quarters. How is that better than allowing 14 points in the 4th when you held them to just 3 for the other 3 quarters? The point total is the same. The only difference is NE's D scored a TD while the Giants D scored a safety. The Giants D played great, but I give Eli more credit than I give Brady for what he did throughout the game. Brady had just 145 passing yards the entire game. That is only 12 more yards than they got on the ground. He missed 11 passes on 27 attempts. On top of that, the D spotted him 7 points. Eli threw for 296 yards while the team ran for 114 yards. Eli missed 10 passes on 40 attempts.

Brady had less time on his game winning drive, but the game was tied. If he doesn't get in FG range, the game goes to overtime. Eli's team was losing and they started on their own 12 with 3:39 and 1 timeout.

I don't know how you can say Brady (145 passing yards) is the main reason NE won when the D held the Rams to 17 points and scored 7, and then turn around with a straight face and say the Giants D is the main reason they won when they held NE to 17 points and scored 2 points when Eli throws for 296 yards. It's just crazy.

 

[nyjunc]

So it isn't fair to compare stats but it's fair to compare everything else which you think supports your claim he isn't elite. Of course.



Either way you're good



Did any of those players win two Super Bowl MVPs?

I think you know this game well enough to know you can't compare QB stats of today to QB stats of the 70s and early 80s. We all know how grat dan was, he only threw for 30 or more TDs FOUR times in his 17 year career and 2 of them were exactly 30. Drew Brees in 10 years has 4 30+ TD seasons, Brees also has a 65.9 comp % while Marino had a 59.4, Brees threw less INts per year and he's won a SB so that must mean Brees is better, right? Do you see how silly it is to compare players of different eras? and Dan nearly played in Drew's era, Plunkett was retired was retired almost 20 years before Eli took an NFL snap.

Nope and none of those players had D's shut down all time great offenses or balls stick to helmets either.

The NE D blew a 4th quarter lead because they had very little help from Brady. He had 145 passing yards the entire game. I really don't care when the opponent scores their points. 1st quarter, 3rd quarter, 4th quarter, it doesn't matter. All that matters is the point total. You can complain about 14 4th quarter points, but the D held the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scored a TD. If Brady and the O could have scored more than 10 points, they still would have had a lead. The D only allowed a total of 17 points the entire game, and scored a TD. You can't ask for anything more against an O like the Rams.

The Giants were up 9-0 after 1 quarter before NE scored 17 unanswered points in the 2nd and 3 quarters. How is that better than allowing 14 points in the 4th when you held them to just 3 for the other 3 quarters? The point total is the same. The only difference is NE's D scored a TD while the Giants D scored a safety. The Giants D played great, but I give Eli more credit than I give Brady for what he did throughout the game. Brady had just 145 passing yards the entire game. That is only 12 more yards than they got on the ground. He missed 11 passes on 27 attempts. On top of that, the D spotted him 7 points. Eli threw for 296 yards while the team ran for 114 yards. Eli missed 10 passes on 40 attempts.

Brady had less time on his game winning drive, but the game was tied. If he doesn't get in FG range, the game goes to overtime. Eli's team was losing and they started on their own 12 with 3:39 and 1 timeout.

I don't know how you can say Brady (145 passing yards) is the main reason NE won when the D held the Rams to 17 points and scored 7, and then turn around with a straight face and say the Giants D is the main reason they won when they held NE to 17 points and scored 2 points when Eli throws for 296 yards. It's just crazy.

so it was the fault of the offense why the D blew a historic 4thg qt lead? was the O turning it over and putting the D in bad spots? SL got the ball at their 23 for their first TD, the next one after a poor punt they got it on their 45 so they had good FP but they got it w/ 1:51 to play and 3 plays and 21 seconds later the game was tied. Clearly the fault of the offense.:lol2:

The Giant D held down the pats Os, where were all the points by the Giant O? if they scored more they don't need late game drives- it works both ways.

The Gianst were up 9-0 b/c the DEFENSE got a safety to put them up 2-0 and gave the Giants the ball right back after they had just punted.

so you think allowing 17 pts over the 2nd and 3rd qtrs and not allowing a point in the 1st and 4th is worse than allowing 14 4th qtr pts to blow a 14 pt lead? Something never done before or since. really?

If that game gets to OT and SL wisn the toss they are winning the SB, Brady had more pressure than any QB b/c he was a 1st year starter and had no timeouts while SL had all the momentum having just tied the game.

who cares about pass yds? Warner had 365 in that SB loss to NE.

I never said Brady uis the main reason they won, I said Brady and the O rescued the D from a historic collapse. The D played great for 3 qtrs, the O didn't turn it over and give SL short fields but the O helped them get a 14-3 lead and when the game was on the line after the D blew a 14 pt lead the O came through to win it.

 

[DisturbedShifty]

I really wish we had a resident Patriots troll.

 

[nyjunc]

I really wish we had a resident Patriots troll.

stop w/ the troll stuff, I'm more knowledgable than 90% of the board and I don't just accept the homer views spewed at me.

 

[DisturbedShifty]

stop w/ the troll stuff, I'm more knowledgable than 90% of the board and I don't just accept the homer views spewed at me.

Who called you a troll? I sure as a **** didn't. It was a generalization. It wasn't directed at you or anybody. The point was that we need a Pats fan in here to defend the Patriots. Especially against your "elite" opinions.

And you being 90% more knowledgeable than he rest of this board is pure opinion as well.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

 

[DuderinoN703]

I think you know this game well enough to know you can't compare QB stats of today to QB stats of the 70s and early 80s.

Yes, I need to meet you in person and have you teach me all things NFL b/c I'm a dunce regarding NFL knowledge. The funny thing is you mentioning Plunkett in the first place. You can't compare stats between Plunkett and Manning but it's fair to compare their careers? If their stats can't be compared b/c of different eras, it makes no sense that they can be compared in any way no matter what the subject.

We all know how grat dan was, he only threw for 30 or more TDs FOUR times in his 17 year career and 2 of them were exactly 30.

I don't understand why you nitpick about him throwing for 30 TDs in a year just four times. Why isn't his total career production the number we're focusing on?

Drew Brees in 10 years has 4 30+ TD seasons, Brees also has a 65.9 comp % while Marino had a 59.4, Brees threw less INts per year and he's won a SB so that must mean Brees is better, right? Do you see how silly it is to compare players of different eras? and Dan nearly played in Drew's era, Plunkett was retired was retired almost 20 years before Eli took an NFL snap.

Drew Brees has the potential to match or surpass Dan's stats if he plays another 5-7 years. If the two players stats are similar, I think it's fair to compare them.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------

Who called you a troll? I sure as a **** didn't. It was a generalization. It wasn't directed at you or anybody. The point was that we need a Pats fan in here to defend the Patriots. Especially against your "elite" opinions.

And you being 90% more knowledgeable than he rest of this board is pure opinion as well.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

I agree. We've had some Pats fan here and there but none of them are regulars. It would make the discussion a bit more balanced.

 

[nyjunc]

Yes, I need to meet you in person and have you teach me all things NFL b/c I'm a dunce regarding NFL knowledge. The funny thing is you mentioning Plunkett in the first place. You can't compare stats between Plunkett and Manning but it's fair to compare their careers? If their stats can't be compared b/c of different eras, it makes no sense that they can be compared in any way no matter what the subject.



I don't understand why you nitpick about him throwing for 30 TDs in a year just four times. Why isn't his total career production the number we're focusing on?



Drew Brees has the potential to match or surpass Dan's stats if he plays another 5-7 years. If the two players stats are similar, I think it's fair to compare them.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------



I agree. We've had some Pats fan here and there but none of them are regulars. It would make the discussion a bit more balanced.

I mentioned Plunkett in the first place b/c he is a perfect comparison to Eli, 2 time SB champ, SB MVP but never an elite QB.

You can't compare strict #s, you can compare how they do against their peers.

Eli has been a starter for 7 full seasons, Plunkett was one for 9 full seasons:

Top 10 in pass yds: Plunkett 5, Eli 4
Top 10 in pass TDs: Plunkett 3, Eli 6
Top 10 in rating: Plunkett 2, Eli 1
Top 10 INTs(top 10 is bad): Plunkett 7, Eli 5
top 10 in comp %: plunkett 1, Eli 1

VERY similar. #1 overall picks, struggled early, won 2 SBs in relatively short span, won SB MVPs- NOT elite.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm illustrating the difference in eras. I KNOW Marino is a top 5 all time QB, I KNOW he was much better than Brees- #s don't tell us that.

 

[DuderinoN703]

I mentioned Plunkett in the first place b/c he is a perfect comparison to Eli, 2 time SB champ, SB MVP but never an elite QB.

You can't compare strict #s, you can compare how they do against their peers.

So he's a perfect comparison yet you can't compare what you call strict numbers. Strict numbers which happen to be the common stats with how you can judge a player. You also say you can't compare players from two different era but now you can compare how they did against their peers......who are all from the two different eras.

This is illogical.

 

[The New Guy]

so it was the fault of the offense why the D blew a historic 4thg qt lead? was the O turning it over and putting the D in bad spots? SL got the ball at their 23 for their first TD, the next one after a poor punt they got it on their 45 so they had good FP but they got it w/ 1:51 to play and 3 plays and 21 seconds later the game was tied. Clearly the fault of the offense.:lol2:

Yes, it is the O's fault for not scoring more points. The O scored just 10 points which isn't going to cut it in most games, let alone against a high powered Rams O. They are lucky they were still tied thanks to the D holding the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scoring a defensive TD.

The Giant D held down the pats Os, where were all the points by the Giant O? if they scored more they don't need late game drives- it works both ways.

I'm not blaming the Giants D for losing a lead like you are blaming the Pats D. The Giants scored 7 in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions, so it is a little different. The Pats held the Rams to just 3 points after 9 possessions, so the O had plenty of time to build a larger lead. I'm not blaming the Pats D for losing a lead even when they gave up 14 4th quarter points because they held the other team to a total of 17 and scored a TD. It is the O's fault for not putting up more than 10 points.

The Gianst were up 9-0 b/c the DEFENSE got a safety to put them up 2-0 and gave the Giants the ball right back after they had just punted.

The Giants got the ball back on their own 22 after the safety and scored the TD. The Safety punt did not result in good FP for the Giants.

It just boggles my mind how you give the Giants D more credit than you give the Pats D credit. The Pats were up 17-3 becasue the D scored a TD on an INT return. After that, they recovered a fumble and returned it to the Rams 40 which led to another TD. After that, they intercepted another pass and returned it to Rams 33 (which resulted in a FG) Every score for the Pats (before the game winning drive) was in large part because of the D. More than the Giants D who you say played a bigger role in the win than Eli.

so you think allowing 17 pts over the 2nd and 3rd qtrs and not allowing a point in the 1st and 4th is worse than allowing 14 4th qtr pts to blow a 14 pt lead? Something never done before or since. really?

No, I don't think it is worse. It was a great performance by the Giants D, just like it was a great performance by NE's D. You are the one who thinks the Pats D was worse because of when the points came (14 in the 4th). I don't care when the points come. The point total is what is most important. The Giants allowed 17 points. The Pats allowed 17 points. The Giants D scored a safety. The Pats D scored a TD.

who cares about pass yds? Warner had 365 in that SB loss to NE.

I thought we were talking about who played a bigger role in the win. You said the Giants D was more of the reason for the Giants win than Eli was, yet said Brady was more of a reason for the win than the Pats D was. The Pats D had the better game since they allowed the same amount of points as the Giants, but scored a TD instead of a safety.

For your statement to hold any water, Brady would have to have had a much better game than Eli did. Both threw for 1 TD and no Ints, so this is where the passing yards come in. Brady threw for just 145 yards while Eli threw for 297.

I never said Brady uis the main reason they won, I said Brady and the O rescued the D from a historic collapse. The D played great for 3 qtrs, the O didn't turn it over and give SL short fields but the O helped them get a 14-3 lead and when the game was on the line after the D blew a 14 pt lead the O came through to win it.

You claimed Brady was more of a reason for the win against the Rams than the Pats D was. You then said that Justin Tuck and the Giants D was more of a reason for the Giants win against the Pats than Eli was. It is a total contradiction. Especially when Eli out played Brady and the Pats D outplayed the Giants D. You can keep saying they gave up 14 points in the 4th, but they held them to 17 total points and scored a TD on D. That is better than holding a team to 17 points and scoring a safety on D.

 

[nyjunc]

Yes, it is the O's fault for not scoring more points. The O scored just 10 points which isn't going to cut it in most games, let alone against a high powered Rams O. They are lucky they were still tied thanks to the D holding the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scoring a defensive TD.



They scored 7 in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions, so it is a little different than a team holding the other team to just 3 points for 3 quarters, but I pretty much agree. Had Eli thrown for just 145 yards and had the Giants scored a TD on D instead of a safety, I would say the D was more of a reason for the win than Eli. But that is not the case.



The Giants got the ball back on their own 22 after the safety and scored the TD. The Safety punt did not result in good FP for the Giants.

It just boggles my mind how you give the Giants D more credit than you give the Pats D credit. The Pats were up 17-3 becasue the D scored a TD on an INT return. After that, they recovered a fumble and returned it to the Rams 40 which led to another TD. After that, they intercepted another pass and returned it to Rams 33 (which resulted in a FG) Every score for the Pats (before the game winning drive) was in large part because of the D. More than the Giants D who you say played a bigger role in the win than Eli.



No, I don't think it is worse. It was a great performance by the Giants D, just like it was a great performance by NE's D. You are the one who thinks the Pats D was worse because of when the points came (14 in the 4th). I don't care when the points come. The point total is what is most important. The Giants allowed 17 points. The Pats allowed 17 points. The Giants D scored a safety. The Pats D scored a TD.



I thought we were talking about who played a bigger role in the win. You said the Giants D was more of the reason for the Giants win than Eli was, yet said Brady was more of a reason for the win than the Pats D was. The Pats D had the better game since they allowed the same amount of points as the Giants, but scored a TD instead of a safety.

For your statement to hold any water, Brady would have to have had a much better game than Eli did. Both threw for 1 TD and no Ints, so this is where the passing yards come in. Brady threw for just 145 yards while Eli threw for 297.





You claimed Brady was more of a reason for the win against the Rams than the Pats D was. You then said that Justin Tuck and the Giants D was more of a reason for the Giants win against the Pats than Eli was. It is a total contradiction. Especially when Eli out played Brady and the Pats D outplayed the Giants D. You can keep saying they gave up 14 points in the 4th, but they held them to 17 total points and scored a TD on D. That is better than holding a team to 17 points and scoring a safety on D.

You know the Giants O only scored 10 until late in SB XLII and only scored 13 until late in XLVI, right?

NYG held the most explosive O in history to 7 pts through 3 qtrs in XLII, is that much difference than 3? did NYG give up a 14 pt lead in the 4th?

They didn't get great FP after the safety but they got pts from the D and got the ball back w/ momentum.

The Giants D played a better offense and did a better job against those offenses. The Past D did a great job for 3 qtrs but an atrocuois one in the 4th erasing almost all the good they had done to that point.

There's no doubt the Giants D played a bigger role, holding NE to 14 pts in XLII and 17 in XLVI- Incredible.

You can't have a great performance blowing a 14 pt 4th qtr lead becoming the only D in SB history to do that. Great for 3 qtrs but not a great game.

Brady had NO TOs, was inside his 20 w/ a minute to play and he was a 1st year starting QB knowing if he turns it over they lose the SB or if it gets to OT and SL wins the toss they lose the SB.

I never claimed Brady was more of a reason, the D kept them in it and Brady and the O won it.

The Giant D was the biggest reason the Giants won it but Eli led 2 great drives and gets his share of credit too.

 

[DuderinoN703]

I mentioned Plunkett in the first place b/c he is a perfect comparison to Eli, 2 time SB champ, SB MVP but never an elite QB.

You can't compare strict #s, you can compare how they do against their peers.

Eli has been a starter for 7 full seasons, Plunkett was one for 9 full seasons:

Top 10 in pass yds: Plunkett 5, Eli 4
Top 10 in pass TDs: Plunkett 3, Eli 6
Top 10 in rating: Plunkett 2, Eli 1
Top 10 INTs(top 10 is bad): Plunkett 7, Eli 5
top 10 in comp %: plunkett 1, Eli 1

VERY similar. #1 overall picks, struggled early, won 2 SBs in relatively short span, won SB MVPs- NOT elite.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm illustrating the difference in eras. I KNOW Marino is a top 5 all time QB, I KNOW he was much better than Brees- #s don't tell us that.

Get back to me in 7 years when Eli Manning is in his last stages of his career. By then he'll have 100+ more TDs, 2,000 more yards, and 1,400 more completions than now. We'll see just how VERY similar they are.

 

[The New Guy]

You know the Giants O only scored 10 until late in SB XLII and only scored 13 until late in XLVI, right?

NYG held the most explosive O in history to 7 pts through 3 qtrs in XLII, is that much difference than 3? did NYG give up a 14 pt lead in the 4th?

They didn't get great FP after the safety but they got pts from the D and got the ball back w/ momentum.

The Giants D played a better offense and did a better job against those offenses. The Past D did a great job for 3 qtrs but an atrocuois one in the 4th erasing almost all the good they had done to that point.

There's no doubt the Giants D played a bigger role, holding NE to 14 pts in XLII and 17 in XLVI- Incredible.

You can't have a great performance blowing a 14 pt 4th qtr lead becoming the only D in SB history to do that. Great for 3 qtrs but not a great game.

Brady had NO TOs, was inside his 20 w/ a minute to play and he was a 1st year starting QB knowing if he turns it over they lose the SB or if it gets to OT and SL wins the toss they lose the SB.

I never claimed Brady was more of a reason, the D kept them in it and Brady and the O won it.

The Giant D was the biggest reason the Giants won it but Eli led 2 great drives and gets his share of credit too.

I'm not blaming the Giants D for losing a lead like you are blaming the Pats D. The Giants had a 9-0 lead in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions, but they get a pass since they held NE to 0 points in the 4th and a total of 17. The Pats D gets a pass on 14 4th quarter points because they only allowed 3 points through 3 quarters. It doesn't matter to me when the other team scores the points. The points total is all that matters. It doesn't matter if you allow 7 in the 1st, 7 in the 2nd and 3 in the 4th, or 0 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 17 in the 4th. The points are worth the same. They allowed a total of 17 points. Same as what the Giants allowed but the Giants didn't score a TD on D like the Pats did.

It is ridiculous to blame the Pats D for losing a lead because they held the other team to a total of 17 and scored a TD while putting the O in scoring position on all but 1 of the other scores.


I am certain you did, but I'm not going to go through all the post to find it. Regardless, if that is how you feel now, what are we talking about then? Whatever credit you want to give to Brady in that game against the Rams, you have to give more to Eli in the game against the Pats because he did more. Whatever credit you want to give to the Giants D, you have to give more to the Pats D since they allowed the same number of points but also scored a TD.

 

[DuderinoN703]

I'm not blaming the Giants D for losing a lead like you are blaming the Pats D. The Giants had a 9-0 lead in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions. I don't know why it matters to you when a team loses the lead. It doesn't matter to me when the other team scores the points. The points total is all that matters. It doesn't matter if you allow 7 in the 1st, 7 in the 2nd and 3 in the 4th, or 0 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 17 in the 4th. The points are worth the same. The Pats held the Rams to just 3 points after 9 possessions so the O had plenty of time to build a larger lead. That is why I blame the Pats O. On top of that, the D scored a TD and played a major role in all of the other points the Pats O scored. They allowed a total of 17 points. Same as what the Giants allowed.

I'm not blaming the Pats D for losing a lead because they held the other team to a total of 17 and scored a TD while putting the O in scoring position on all but 1 of the other scores.



I am certain you did, but I'm not going to go through all the post to find it. Regardless, if that is how you feel now, what are we talking about then? Whatever credit you want to give to Brady in that game against the Rams, you have to give more to Eli in the game against the Pats because he did more. Whatever credit you want to give to the Giants D, you have to give more to the Pats D since they allowed the same number of points but also scored a TD.

1,000 vbookie bucks says this never happens

 

[nyjunc]

Get back to me in 7 years when Eli Manning is in his last stages of his career. By then he'll have 100+ more TDs, 2,000 more yards, and 1,400 more completions than now. We'll see just how VERY similar they are.

we'll see how many top 10 theys have not have much raw production. It's not fair to compare staright #s from players of different eras. as of now they have started around the same # of years, Eli has slight leads in some, Plunkett in others. They are both good QBs who helped their teams win 2 SBs.

Eli has a chance to be great, if he can play like he did in postseason for a full season there wouldn't be any doubt but he's never come close to that.