PDA

View Full Version : Which NFC east has the BEST offensive unit as a whole?


Pages : [1] 2

jsagan77
08-25-2006, 09:11 PM
This is a tough question. I ask you to relinquish all homerism and make an unbiased decision.

The Unseen
08-25-2006, 09:13 PM
Giants. Not a hard decision for me. The only glaring question is QB, which can be improved with experience.

jsagan77
08-25-2006, 09:14 PM
I don't think that the Giants have a ? at QB, Eli is great...

Dillen
08-25-2006, 09:15 PM
I don't think that the Giants have a ? at QB, Eli is great...
Yeah, him and his 51% completion with like 15 picks.

jsagan77
08-25-2006, 09:16 PM
in his first starting year??? That is pretty damn good considering he led the highest scoring offense..

The Unseen
08-25-2006, 09:16 PM
He can throw yards and TDs, but he has trouble completing passes, and to the right people. That can be corrected with time and experience.

Number 10
08-25-2006, 09:17 PM
I don't think that the Giants have a ? at QB, Eli is great...

No he's not.

jsagan77
08-25-2006, 09:19 PM
I don't think that the Giants have a ? at QB, Eli is great...

No he's not.

I'll trade you.. Strait up, Brunell for Eli??

Number 10
08-25-2006, 09:20 PM
I don't think that the Giants have a ? at QB, Eli is great...

No he's not.

I'll trade you.. Strait up, Brunell for Eli??

Eli is better than Brunell, yes. But he is not a great QB yet.

Smooth Criminal
08-25-2006, 09:37 PM
I'll take the Giants here. They have a very good line, a great TE, good tall reciever, a powerful runningback and a QB that should improve into a great QB this year.

Basileus777
08-25-2006, 09:57 PM
Its between the Skins and Giants, but I'd give the edge to the Giants. Brunell is more of a question mark than Eli, and Portis' injury concerns leaave the Skins offense in doubt.

JustJoe2k5
08-25-2006, 10:20 PM
Washington Redskins probably have the most talent on offense, but the New York Giants will likely be better because they have chemistry.

Redskins will have to play without Clinton Portis for a few games and have two new wide receivers to work into the offense.

Giants have basically the same offense and Eli Manning has one more offseason of practice with them.

draftguru151
08-25-2006, 11:24 PM
Redskins and I don't think it is close. They have possible the best OL in the league, and the best OT duo if nothing else. Brunell had a pro bowl caliber season last year. The have a good trio of WRs in Moss, Randle El, and Lloyd. Cooley is a great TE, and Sellers is a very good FB. Oh yea, and I forgot they have a top 5 RB (if not higher) in Clinton Portis.

jsagan77
08-25-2006, 11:36 PM
Redskins and I don't think it is close. They have possible the best OL in the league, and the best OT duo if nothing else. Brunell had a pro bowl caliber season last year. The have a good trio of WRs in Moss, Randle El, and Lloyd. Cooley is a great TE, and Sellers is a very good FB. Oh yea, and I forgot they have a top 5 RB (if not higher) in Clinton Portis.

You forgot TJ Duckett, Christian Fauria, and David Patten..

Number 10
08-25-2006, 11:48 PM
Redskins and I don't think it is close. They have possible the best OL in the league, and the best OT duo if nothing else. Brunell had a pro bowl caliber season last year. The have a good trio of WRs in Moss, Randle El, and Lloyd. Cooley is a great TE, and Sellers is a very good FB. Oh yea, and I forgot they have a top 5 RB (if not higher) in Clinton Portis.

You forgot TJ Duckett, Christian Fauria, and David Patten..

No he didn't. :lol:


I think the Redskins offense is a notch below both the Giants and Cowboys.

bearsfan_51
08-26-2006, 12:49 AM
The Cowboys could easily be the best or the worst, their offense is in that much flux.

For the record I voted Giants, they have a nice blend of run and pass.

cunningham06
08-26-2006, 01:14 AM
He can throw yards and TDs, but he has trouble completing passes, and to the right people. That can be corrected with time and experience.

Exactly, as of right now Manning last season was somewhat Collinsesque last season, putting up lots of yardage with low accuracy and without a great td/int ratio.

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2006, 01:17 AM
I dont expect Eli to be any better this year, in fact I think he will be the Giants downfall. From what I've seen in preseason, Eli doesnt look to be anymore accurate than he was last season.

slightlyaraiderfan
08-26-2006, 01:36 AM
This is a tough question. I ask you to relinquish all homerism and make an unbiased decision.
That's like asking me to stop being so dang awesome, it's just not going to happen.

Ward
08-26-2006, 11:23 AM
IMO the team with the best line has the best potential offense. So I vote Washington.

08-26-2006, 11:30 AM
IMO the team with the best line has the best potential offense. So I vote Washington.Thats who I voted for, with that O-Line, their RB, their 3 good recievers and an above average QB, they get my nod.

Geo
08-26-2006, 11:47 AM
Right now, you have to say it's the Giants.

The Redskins have a chance to usurp them with their talent and Al Saunders, but it remains to be seen if things come to together and work as the season progresses.

I wouldn't count out the Eagles from making a push, but the WRs would have to step up when called upon to do so, not to mention Brian Westbrook staying healthy.

Between their OL and Totally Obnoxious, I don't like the 'Boys chances of moving above the bottom half of this list.

That's like asking me to stop being so dang awesome, it's just not going to happen.
http://www.colossusblog.com/mt/archives/images/napoleon_d.jpg

Vikes99ej
08-26-2006, 11:54 AM
I'd say the Redskins. Portis, Moss, and Cooley make for a pretty good offense.

bigbluedefense
08-26-2006, 11:58 AM
Im going to go with the Giants, then the Redskins in 2nd place. The skins have the best oline, but I think their WR set is a bit exaggerrated. Lloyd isn't that great at all, and Randle El is a glorified slot receiver. Al Saunders is vastly overrated (I have yet to see a coordinator run or catch a ball), I don't see how he is going to vastly improve a unit that was already pretty good.

I have concerns with Brunell's durability. And quite frankly, the skins first unit offense hasn't looked good at all in preseason. I think they have the best young RB of this group in Portis, but for this year alone I think Portis and Barber are equivalents. 2 years from now its Portis easy, but this year, its a tie or Barber gets the edge. Moss is a stud, but again, I have concerns about their qb. The oline is easily the best, followed by Philly's.

I expect Eli Manning to prove all the haters wrong and make the leap this year, Shockey is the best TE in the division imo, followed by Witten, Burress is solid, im not as high on him as others but he's still good. Toomer is a great possession receiver and Carter/Moss will stretch the defense. Ultimately its a tie talent wise, with the Giants getting an edge because I take Eli any day over Brunell. Even if Eli doesn't improve, the Eli of now is still better than the Brunell of now. But I highly doubt you won't see an improvement from Eli. He has a lot of haters, and I can't wait until he proves all of them wrong. Ive never seen a young qb get so much hate in my life.

The Unseen
08-26-2006, 01:22 PM
Ive never seen a young qb get so much hate in my life.

Maybe you should come to Jacksonville. Leftwich gets so much crap it's ridiculous.

bearsfan_51
08-26-2006, 01:33 PM
Ive never seen a young qb get so much hate in my life.
That's because he's a *****. I don't like players demanding who can and cannot draft them, and I will never like Eli because of that. It's not like people just decided to dislike Eli, he brought it on himself.

As for his abilities as a player, he had a decent season last year. I think the people that hate on him go overboard but I think the people that defend him go way overboard too. At this point in his career his little better than mediocre and untill he makes that next step it's too presumptuous to assume that he will.

Shane P. Hallam
08-26-2006, 01:33 PM
Gotta be Giants

Brunell is old, and he has injury issues and was non-existent sometimes. Lloyd and Randle El are both a bit overrated.

Bledsoe is older, but this mostly falls on the O-line and injury prone RBs.

I think the Eagles should get more credit. They have enough WRs to be efficent, and McNabb and the O-line is excellent. I guess the RB and Wr position pull them down in most peoples eyes.

Giants have Eli, a developing QB, Tiki who is a solid Runner who can do it anywhere, and now a deep threat at WR in Moss, great tall guy in Burress, and just solid player in Toomer. I think the O-line isn't great, but it is underrated some.

Geo
08-26-2006, 01:41 PM
At this point in his career his [sic] little better than mediocre and untill he makes that next step it's too presumptuous to assume that he will.
Manning lead his team to an 11-5 record and a division title, in one of the toughest division in football, in his first full year of starting. He had 3,762 passing yards, 24 TDs, and 17 INTs.

I'd say that he's more than just a "little better than mediocre." :lol:

bigbluedefense
08-26-2006, 01:51 PM
At this point in his career his [sic] little better than mediocre and untill he makes that next step it's too presumptuous to assume that he will.
Manning lead his team to an 11-5 record and a division title, in one of the toughest division in football, in his first full year of starting. He had 3,762 passing yards, 24 TDs, and 17 INTs.

I'd say that he's more than just a "little better than mediocre." :lol:

And broke most Giant records for a qb in just his first year starting. If thats a little better than mediocre, whats mediocre?

I understand he gets alot of hate for what he did on draft day, and rightfully so, but like I said previously, if you hate Eli Manning, you have to hate John Elway as well. And most people who hate Eli, don't hate Elway which makes them hypocritical. I know bearsfan hates Elway as well, so he's not a hypocrite, but alot of people are.

08-26-2006, 02:18 PM
Redskins have best OL, best WR's, best RB and brunell is 2nd best QB. its the redskins

Number 10
08-26-2006, 02:22 PM
Redskins have best OL, best WR's, best RB and brunell is 2nd best QB. its the redskins

Just curious, but who is the best QB? Because you are either saying Brunell is better than Manning or Brunell is better than McNabb.

08-26-2006, 02:25 PM
Redskins have best OL, best WR's, best RB and brunell is 2nd best QB. its the redskins

Just curious, but who is the best QB? Because you are either saying Brunell is better than Manning or Brunell is better than McNabb.

manning and brunell are equal IMO i meant to put 2nd or 3rd best. Mcnabb is the 3rd best QB in the NFL IMO

Smooth Criminal
08-26-2006, 02:55 PM
Manning is better than Brunell. This year Manning will improve again and Brunell is still old as hell. Most players at his age don't get better with age.

And I'lll take the Giants recievers over the Redskins. Moss is a better than Burress sure but the trio of Burress, Tommer and Moss is better than Moss, Lloyd and Randle El.

draftguru151
08-26-2006, 03:55 PM
IMO the team with the best line has the best potential offense. So I vote Washington.

That is also why I went with Washington. You win games in the trenches.

jsagan77
08-26-2006, 04:23 PM
Manning is better than Brunell. This year Manning will improve again and Brunell is still old as hell. Most players at his age don't get better with age.

And I'lll take the Giants recievers over the Redskins. Moss is a better than Burress sure but the trio of Burress, Tommer and Moss is better than Moss, Lloyd and Randle El.

I can't believe you just said that...

Burress, Tommer, and lil moss, we can even add Carter, couldn't hold

Santana, Lloyd(better hands that any of them), ARE or Patten jock straps.. It is easily the deepest in the NFC east.

They aren't even close to the Boys trio of Owens, Glenn and Crayton.....
[/b]

GermanSaint
08-26-2006, 04:26 PM
washington just for the versatily

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2006, 04:30 PM
The Cowboys are the only team with two legit stars at WR. Brandon Lloyd has made some circus catches but hasnt had a great year yet and Toomer, is not consistant anymore, you never know what guy is gonna show up to the game.

08-26-2006, 04:32 PM
The Cowboys are the only team with two legit stars at WR. Brandon Lloyd has made some circus catches but hasnt had a great year yet and Toomer, is not consistant anymore, you never know what guy is gonna show up to the game.

Name them

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2006, 04:37 PM
The Cowboys are the only team with two legit stars at WR. Brandon Lloyd has made some circus catches but hasnt had a great year yet and Toomer, is not consistant anymore, you never know what guy is gonna show up to the game.

Name them

T.O. and Terry Glenn. Are the best one-two punch in the NFC East, no logical argument can be made against this.

Number 10
08-26-2006, 04:45 PM
The Cowboys are the only team with two legit stars at WR. Brandon Lloyd has made some circus catches but hasnt had a great year yet and Toomer, is not consistant anymore, you never know what guy is gonna show up to the game.

Name them

T.O. and Terry Glenn. Are the best one-two punch in the NFC East, no logical argument can be made against this.

Worst QB. Arguably the worst line. 3rd best RB. A couple of good WRs does not make an offense great.

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2006, 04:47 PM
Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Dillen
08-26-2006, 04:50 PM
Worst QB. Arguably the worst line. 3rd best RB. A couple of good WRs does not make an offense great.
They have arguably the worst RBs too...if Buckhalter is healthy. So they'll probably have the 3rd best RBs.

Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.
Because Bledsoe is a statue stuck behind a horrible line. He has no mobility WHATSOEVER. If he doesnt get sacked atleast 50 times this year I will be shocked.

Number 10
08-26-2006, 04:54 PM
Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Eli has much more presence in the pocket than Bledsoe does. He avoids pressure very well and he knows when to get rid of the ball. His is still on his way to the top of his game while Bledsoe is either at the peak of his career or the downfall. They both have strong arms with often inaccuracies but Eli looks better at the top of his game than Bledsoe does at the top of his game.

You could make a case for Bledsoe being better than Brunell, but Brunell makes less mistakes.

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2006, 05:02 PM
I'm sick of hearing that the Cowboys line is so bad. They have a completly different O-Line this year, there is no way of knowing if they will be lousy as of right now. Former Pro Bowler Flozell Adams is now healthy, we have a new LG, we have a new C, Marco Rivera is at 100%, and we have a new RT.

As for Bledsoe, he may not be mobile but, he is the most accurate QB in the NFC East, yes even better than Mcnabb. T.O. and the new double TE offense is only going to give him more time and is only going to help him.

Lets do a comparison. (I'll exclude Mcnabb because, he didnt play everygame last year)

2005 stats

Bledsoe 300-499 60.1% 3639 yards 23 Tds 17 INTS

Brunell 262-454 57.7% 3050 yards 23 Tds 10 INTS

Manning 294-557 52.8% 3762 yards 24 Tds 17 INTS

All three put up similar numbers last year but, what stands out is bledsoe's completeion percentage. This is without T.O. what do you think he will do with him?

My QB rankings:

1. Mcnabb
2. Bledsoe
3. Brunell
4. Manning (I'm telling you if he didnt have the 6'5 Plax, he wouldnt have thrown for over 50%.)

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2006, 05:04 PM
Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Eli has much more presence in the pocket than Bledsoe does. He avoids pressure very well and he knows when to get rid of the ball. His is still on his way to the top of his game while Bledsoe is either at the peak of his career or the downfall. They both have strong arms with often inaccuracies but Eli looks better at the top of his game than Bledsoe does at the top of his game.

You could make a case for Bledsoe being better than Brunell, but Brunell makes less mistakes.

Bledsoe is never inaccurate, he makes all the throws. Eli still needs a lot of work with his accruarcy. Will Eli be a top QB in a few years? yes, but as of right now he is not as good as Bledsoe.

Number 10
08-26-2006, 05:12 PM
Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Eli has much more presence in the pocket than Bledsoe does. He avoids pressure very well and he knows when to get rid of the ball. His is still on his way to the top of his game while Bledsoe is either at the peak of his career or the downfall. They both have strong arms with often inaccuracies but Eli looks better at the top of his game than Bledsoe does at the top of his game.

You could make a case for Bledsoe being better than Brunell, but Brunell makes less mistakes.

Bledsoe is never inaccurate, he makes all the throws. Eli still needs a lot of work with his accruarcy. Will Eli be a top QB in a few years? yes, but as of right now he is not as good as Bledsoe.

I disagree but I'm not getting into an argument over it. I respect the Cowboys and I think they will join us in the playoffs.

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2006, 05:16 PM
Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Eli has much more presence in the pocket than Bledsoe does. He avoids pressure very well and he knows when to get rid of the ball. His is still on his way to the top of his game while Bledsoe is either at the peak of his career or the downfall. They both have strong arms with often inaccuracies but Eli looks better at the top of his game than Bledsoe does at the top of his game.

You could make a case for Bledsoe being better than Brunell, but Brunell makes less mistakes.

Bledsoe is never inaccurate, he makes all the throws. Eli still needs a lot of work with his accruarcy. Will Eli be a top QB in a few years? yes, but as of right now he is not as good as Bledsoe.

I disagree but I'm not getting into an argument over it. I respect the Cowboys and I think they will join us in the playoffs.

I dont want to get into an argument either, I have nothing against you guys.

D-Unit
08-26-2006, 08:24 PM
The only thing holding the Cowboys offense back is a kicker.

draftguru151
08-26-2006, 08:44 PM
Next season I will take Bledsoe over Eli and day of the week.

08-27-2006, 05:40 AM
The only thing holding the Cowboys offense back is a kicker.

you have the 3rd best in the league :?

M.O.T.H.
08-27-2006, 06:38 AM
The only thing holding the Cowboys offense back is a kicker.

you have the 3rd best in the league :?

Trust me he is not the same Vanderjagt he was in Indy. Anyway, he is injured right now and his job is in jeopardy.

duckseason
08-27-2006, 07:33 AM
Vanderjagt is the single player on the Cowboys who I dislike. I despise him.
I wish we still had Larry Allen so we'd have someone to smack him in his punk-ass face.

DMWSackMachine
08-28-2006, 02:07 PM
There are a lot of people living in the past in this thread. Here's how I would rank each offensive position in the division by team:

QB:
1. Philly
1a. Dallas
3. NYG
4. Washington

Commentary:
McNabb is a helluva talent, and has done some awesome things in his time. But think about this for a second. Bledsoe is the guy that gets the wrap for throwing awful Ints and costing his team games. Everyone remembers the Seattle game last year when he threw that horrible pass that set up the game winning FG for the Hawks.....but McNabb threw horrible interceptions that cost his team the game in TWO CONSECUTIVE GAMES. First against Washington directly to the LB inside the 10 yard line when they were going in to tie the game, and then right to Roy for a return TD that basically killed their season, and yet Bledsoe is the bad decision maker. Give me a break. As for Manning, he is young and still very much in his developmental stages. BBD brought up the point of how many yards and TDs he had in his first season as a starter....well gues what? He threw more passes than any other QB in the league besides Favre and Collins, two players on bad teams that were always behind. His YPA (which is a much more accurate indicator of success) was 17th in the league behind such stalwarts as McCown, Dilfer and on par with (you guessed it) Brunell and Aaron Brooks. He was also 23rd in passer rating and had a horrid comp %. And you don't want to get started on more intricate and in-depth stats like KC Joyner. So, if you simply want to go off of total #s, fine. Just know that they are hollow. And Brunell....he is a fossil. He was horrible in 03 and 04. He had a nice 5 or 6 game run last season in the middle of the year before returning to form at the end of the season. Oh, and what a coincedence, he has looked downright dreadful in each preseason game.....you make the call.

RB:
1. NYG
2. Wash
3. Dallas
4. Philly

This position is tricky. I base my rankings off of Tiki being close to what he was last year, but we all know how quickly old RBs fall off post 30 yrs old. Clinton Portis is overrated on this forum, although he is a fine player. His ypc have been flat bad the last two years, considering that he has had a great O-Line to run behind, and a coach who is dedicated to feeding him the ball. He just hasn't been that great, although he is still a very good player. If the Redskins hadn't acquired Duckett (which I think is a great move for this season, although compensation for him was a joke) I would have considered bumping them down a spot. Dallas has a really good thing going with Julius Jones - who has as much potential as anyone this side of Reggie Bush - and a solid excellent all around back in MB3. They are being overlooked this year, and are going to make some people stand up and take notice. Philly is ranked last, but Westbrook is actually the best player at the position in this division when everything is going right. The fact that he is injury prone and maybe a little bit fragile bumps him down, and the lack of a banger to complement him proves the undoing of them for this spot. All in all, probably the closest position from top to bottom in the division. Not a lot of difference between no. 1 and no. 4, and each team could be in any spot by the end of the year.

O-Line:

1. Washington
2. Giants
3. Philly
4. Dallas

Commentary:
Washington is the clear favorite here, and after them the other 3 teams are closely grouped and possibly interchangeable. Dallas has gotten crap for being so bad last year, but that is mainly the media latching onto something and riding it for all its worth. Flozell, at least in pre injury form, is the best LT in the division, and that should count for something, plus steps have been taken to solidify the RT spot, and the interior of the line is shaping up to actually be a strength of the team. Philly could really make a leap up this year, but right now they just have too much youth and inexperience on the inside to put them higher. Thomas and Runyan have both taken hits in their level of play the last two years, and are winding down their careers, imo. Luckily they already have Justice and Andrews waiting in the wings to take their place. The Giants have some nice guys, and thier line could improve this season, but I just think that Petitgout is average at best, and in order to have a really fine OLine, you must have at least a "good" LT.

TE:
1. Dallas
2. NYG
3. Philly
4. Washington

Commentary:
There has been lot of debate about TEs in the last 6 months on this forum. Witten and Shockey have been central to the debate. While it is no contest that Shockey is the better athlete and has more potential, he often seems to zone out and have mental lapses. Witten, meanwhile is such a great technician, so fundamentally sound. He has really refined his game to the point where he has no weaknesses, and is as good in the run game as the pass game. Overall quality I would say is a push between the two, with Shockey being the more explosive player and Witten being the more consistent and fundamentally sound. I give the overall edge to Dallas because of the depth and well roundedness of their TE corps. Fasano is a good looking young guy that could develop into a highly productive player, while Hannam is a solid player on the rise. Meanwhile, Philly and Washington are nearly equal, but I give the Skins the edge by virtue of their depth and versatility. LJ has more potential, and when he is on he is as good a pass catcher as any in the division, but he has been plagued by inconsistency in the past.

WR:
1. Dallas
2. NYG
3. Wash
4. Philly

Commentary:
Dallas is clearly the best here. TO is the best all around WR in the game right now, and Glenn is good enough to be a no. 1 on half the teams in the league. While Crayton is a nice looking youngster on the rise. I give the Giants the nod because I think that Burress is a better player than Moss, by a wide margin and because the consistency that Toomer brings will make a huge difference over the erratic Lloyd. Randle El is almost a non-factor, imo, and will be exposed as such by the end of the season. Philly lags way behind at this position, and it may ultimately end up being their downfall for the year. I laugh at how much stature Santana Moss has built up from one excellent season in the league. He has played 5 or 6 years now, and has had one very nice season, and another good one that was composed of 5 great games, and 11 non-existent ones. And yet everyone wants to make him out as a superstar. Its gonna be funny watching it all fall down.

I know there are gonna be a lot of pi$$ed off people who read this, but I believe that I made a very solid case for my points. Rather than just blast off at your mouths, at least try to respond with equal composure and substantial evidence. I know that's a lot to ask, but sometimes you just have to believe in things even when you know they aren't likely to happen.....

Jdallas
08-28-2006, 02:37 PM
I think it's a 2 team race between the Cowboys and the Giants. I don't like Brunell at QB at all and I think McNabb is very overrated. The Giants are more of a sure thing, but if the Cowboys offensive line is improved like I think it should be they'll be the best.

bigbluedefense
08-28-2006, 03:50 PM
There are a lot of people living in the past in this thread. Here's how I would rank each offensive position in the division by team:

QB:
1. Philly
1a. Dallas
3. NYG
4. Washington

Commentary:
McNabb is a helluva talent, and has done some awesome things in his time. But think about this for a second. Bledsoe is the guy that gets the wrap for throwing awful Ints and costing his team games. Everyone remembers the Seattle game last year when he threw that horrible pass that set up the game winning FG for the Hawks.....but McNabb threw horrible interceptions that cost his team the game in TWO CONSECUTIVE GAMES. First against Washington directly to the LB inside the 10 yard line when they were going in to tie the game, and then right to Roy for a return TD that basically killed their season, and yet Bledsoe is the bad decision maker. Give me a break. As for Manning, he is young and still very much in his developmental stages. BBD brought up the point of how many yards and TDs he had in his first season as a starter....well gues what? He threw more passes than any other QB in the league besides Favre and Collins, two players on bad teams that were always behind. His YPA (which is a much more accurate indicator of success) was 17th in the league behind such stalwarts as McCown, Dilfer and on par with (you guessed it) Brunell and Aaron Brooks. He was also 23rd in passer rating and had a horrid comp %. And you don't want to get started on more intricate and in-depth stats like KC Joyner. So, if you simply want to go off of total #s, fine. Just know that they are hollow. And Brunell....he is a fossil. He was horrible in 03 and 04. He had a nice 5 or 6 game run last season in the middle of the year before returning to form at the end of the season. Oh, and what a coincedence, he has looked downright dreadful in each preseason game.....you make the call.

RB:
1. NYG
2. Wash
3. Dallas
4. Philly

This position is tricky. I base my rankings off of Tiki being close to what he was last year, but we all know how quickly old RBs fall off post 30 yrs old. Clinton Portis is overrated on this forum, although he is a fine player. His ypc have been flat bad the last two years, considering that he has had a great O-Line to run behind, and a coach who is dedicated to feeding him the ball. He just hasn't been that great, although he is still a very good player. If the Redskins hadn't acquired Duckett (which I think is a great move for this season, although compensation for him was a joke) I would have considered bumping them down a spot. Dallas has a really good thing going with Julius Jones - who has as much potential as anyone this side of Reggie Bush - and a solid excellent all around back in MB3. They are being overlooked this year, and are going to make some people stand up and take notice. Philly is ranked last, but Westbrook is actually the best player at the position in this division when everything is going right. The fact that he is injury prone and maybe a little bit fragile bumps him down, and the lack of a banger to complement him proves the undoing of them for this spot. All in all, probably the closest position from top to bottom in the division. Not a lot of difference between no. 1 and no. 4, and each team could be in any spot by the end of the year.

O-Line:

1. Washington
2. Giants
3. Philly
4. Dallas

Commentary:
Washington is the clear favorite here, and after them the other 3 teams are closely grouped and possibly interchangeable. Dallas has gotten crap for being so bad last year, but that is mainly the media latching onto something and riding it for all its worth. Flozell, at least in pre injury form, is the best LT in the division, and that should count for something, plus steps have been taken to solidify the RT spot, and the interior of the line is shaping up to actually be a strength of the team. Philly could really make a leap up this year, but right now they just have too much youth and inexperience on the inside to put them higher. Thomas and Runyan have both taken hits in their level of play the last two years, and are winding down their careers, imo. Luckily they already have Justice and Andrews waiting in the wings to take their place. The Giants have some nice guys, and thier line could improve this season, but I just think that Petitgout is average at best, and in order to have a really fine OLine, you must have at least a "good" LT.

TE:
1. Dallas
2. NYG
3. Philly
4. Washington

Commentary:
There has been lot of debate about TEs in the last 6 months on this forum. Witten and Shockey have been central to the debate. While it is no contest that Shockey is the better athlete and has more potential, he often seems to zone out and have mental lapses. Witten, meanwhile is such a great technician, so fundamentally sound. He has really refined his game to the point where he has no weaknesses, and is as good in the run game as the pass game. Overall quality I would say is a push between the two, with Shockey being the more explosive player and Witten being the more consistent and fundamentally sound. I give the overall edge to Dallas because of the depth and well roundedness of their TE corps. Fasano is a good looking young guy that could develop into a highly productive player, while Hannam is a solid player on the rise. Meanwhile, Philly and Washington are nearly equal, but I give the Skins the edge by virtue of their depth and versatility. LJ has more potential, and when he is on he is as good a pass catcher as any in the division, but he has been plagued by inconsistency in the past.

WR:
1. Dallas
2. NYG
3. Wash
4. Philly

Commentary:
Dallas is clearly the best here. TO is the best all around WR in the game right now, and Glenn is good enough to be a no. 1 on half the teams in the league. While Crayton is a nice looking youngster on the rise. I give the Giants the nod because I think that Burress is a better player than Moss, by a wide margin and because the consistency that Toomer brings will make a huge difference over the erratic Lloyd. Randle El is almost a non-factor, imo, and will be exposed as such by the end of the season. Philly lags way behind at this position, and it may ultimately end up being their downfall for the year. I laugh at how much stature Santana Moss has built up from one excellent season in the league. He has played 5 or 6 years now, and has had one very nice season, and another good one that was composed of 5 great games, and 11 non-existent ones. And yet everyone wants to make him out as a superstar. Its gonna be funny watching it all fall down.

I know there are gonna be a lot of pi$$ed off people who read this, but I believe that I made a very solid case for my points. Rather than just blast off at your mouths, at least try to respond with equal composure and substantial evidence. I know that's a lot to ask, but sometimes you just have to believe in things even when you know they aren't likely to happen.....

As always youve provided great commentary. Its hard to argue with a well thought out analysis like the one you provided. Im pretty much in agreement with almost all of it. The qb thing can be debated for months, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. Unlike McNabb, Bledsoe, and Brunell who have already established themselves and are either at their peak already or in decline, Manning is on the rise so its hard to project what exactly is gonna happen with him. I agree with everything youve said about McNabb and Brunell and Bledsoe, I feel the exact same way. I also feel that Bledsoe is the most accurate deepball qb in the league...and I stand by that statement. But in terms of Manning, we're just gonna have to disagree there. I think this year he establishes himself, its hard to prove it with past stats when youre talking about a developing qb, so I can't back it up with factual information, but thats still how I feel.

Everything else is spot on. Im gonna rank the Eagles oline ahead of the Giants, and behind the Redskins. McKenzie has not been as good at RT as we wouldve hoped, and Luke Petitgout is Luke Petitgout. Philly has Runyen who still has some in the tank, an up and coming LT in Justice, Shawn Andrews whos set to have a big year, and better overall depth imo.

Dallas has better depth at TE so they have the best there. I believe Shockey is better than Witten, and I also agree with your assessment on them. Witten is more consistent, but I would take Shockey's game changing ability over Witten. Its not talked about much, but many in NY constantly complain about Coughlin's playbook. Its horrible, I won't get into specifics, but its much too vertical and hinders Manning and Shockey alot by restricting some of their strengths. Shockey is not being used properly by Coughlin.

In terms of WR, Dallas has the best WR in Owens. In terms of WR set however, I gotta give it to the Giants. Dallas has Owens and Glenn. But outside those 2, there is a lack of depth. Youve talked about it much in the Dallas boards as well about how Parcells is looking for a 3rd WR. The Giants have Plax, Toomer (who is still ok, not as good as before, but still solid), and Sinorice and Carter at slot. I know Sinorice and Carter aren't Pro Bowlers, but they are still much better than what Dallas has.

Overall I like your evaluation, its pretty spot on. We're both in agreement that Washington is vastly overrated. We both agree that Dallas has the better TE set. We disagree slightly on oline, and we disagree on qb and WR set. But thats not unusual, after all, we are fans of division rivals, so we aren't going to agree on everything.

Moses
08-28-2006, 04:02 PM
I would rate the teams like this:

1. Washington Redskins
2. New York Giants
3. Dallas Cowboys
4. Philadelia Eagles

Redskins have the best offensive line and the best running back in Clinton Portis. Santana Moss is an elite wide receiver and Brunell can get the job done behind center. Also, Chris Cooley is a great option as an H-Back or as a TE. They also have good depth at WR with Antwaan Randel El and Brandon Lloyd filling in the #2 and #3 spots.

The Giants have a great young QB in Eli Manning who is developing into one of the league's elite. Barber, although aging, seems to be hitting the peak of his career and is effective as a runner and receiver. The offensive line is good but they don't match the Redskins. Buress and Toomer are a decent 1-2 punch but Burress can disappear and their is little talent beyond them. Shockey can be great at TE but he has trouble with consistency at times.


Dallas's offensive line is the worst in the division and it will hurt both their running and passing game. The running back by committee approach should work well enough with both Jones and Barber making significant impacts. The WRs are obviously led by Terrell Owens who is the best WR in the game today (on the field). Glenn is a great #2 option but the depth beyond Glenn is adequate at best. Bledsoe is a veteran who is underrated but he does make his fair share of mistakes. Witten is a good TE that is a consistent target for Bledsoe.

The Eagles offence depends on the divisions best quarterback, Donovan McNabb. With him in the game, the Eagles always have a chance to win. The offensive line is solid and generally provides good pass protection although some of the struggles in the running game can be attributed to them. The backfield is quite weak with only Westbrook and Moats. The upside is that Westbrook is an effective utility back and is very good at catching the ball out of the backfield. The biggest weakness of this team is the wide receivers which lack any proven threat beyond newly acquired Donte Stallworth. Reggie Brown will have to step up and become the #1 receiver which is asking a lot of a 2nd year player.

Texico From Mexico
08-28-2006, 04:22 PM
Stupid Argument...this Superbowl was bought and paid for by Jerry Jones, barring major injury. Time to start arguing about next year. Shessh...

DMWSackMachine
08-28-2006, 04:50 PM
As always youve provided great commentary. Its hard to argue with a well thought out analysis like the one you provided. Im pretty much in agreement with almost all of it. The qb thing can be debated for months, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. Unlike McNabb, Bledsoe, and Brunell who have already established themselves and are either at their peak already or in decline, Manning is on the rise so its hard to project what exactly is gonna happen with him. I agree with everything youve said about McNabb and Brunell and Bledsoe, I feel the exact same way. I also feel that Bledsoe is the most accurate deepball qb in the league...and I stand by that statement. But in terms of Manning, we're just gonna have to disagree there. I think this year he establishes himself, its hard to prove it with past stats when youre talking about a developing qb, so I can't back it up with factual information, but thats still how I feel.

Everything else is spot on. Im gonna rank the Eagles oline ahead of the Giants, and behind the Redskins. McKenzie has not been as good at RT as we wouldve hoped, and Luke Petitgout is Luke Petitgout. Philly has Runyen who still has some in the tank, an up and coming LT in Justice, Shawn Andrews whos set to have a big year, and better overall depth imo.

Dallas has better depth at TE so they have the best there. I believe Shockey is better than Witten, and I also agree with your assessment on them. Witten is more consistent, but I would take Shockey's game changing ability over Witten. Its not talked about much, but many in NY constantly complain about Coughlin's playbook. Its horrible, I won't get into specifics, but its much too vertical and hinders Manning and Shockey alot by restricting some of their strengths. Shockey is not being used properly by Coughlin.

In terms of WR, Dallas has the best WR in Owens. In terms of WR set however, I gotta give it to the Giants. Dallas has Owens and Glenn. But outside those 2, there is a lack of depth. Youve talked about it much in the Dallas boards as well about how Parcells is looking for a 3rd WR. The Giants have Plax, Toomer (who is still ok, not as good as before, but still solid), and Sinorice and Carter at slot. I know Sinorice and Carter aren't Pro Bowlers, but they are still much better than what Dallas has.

Overall I like your evaluation, its pretty spot on. We're both in agreement that Washington is vastly overrated. We both agree that Dallas has the better TE set. We disagree slightly on oline, and we disagree on qb and WR set. But thats not unusual, after all, we are fans of division rivals, so we aren't going to agree on everything.

Thanks for the props, and I had a feeling you'd know where I'm coming from. I actually think we see eye-to-eye on the TE thing. It's really a pick-your-flavor scenario. Shockey makes some plays that Witten will never be able to make, while Witten is more reliable and better at the technical aspects of the position. I'd say that are pretty close, and while the Cowboys have the better corps, each team has personnel that suit what it does offensively. So we are pretty much in agreement.

The WR issue is the one where I think your homer had the keyboard. I mean, at least as is, it's pretty obvious that TO>>Burress and Glenn>>>Toomer. Unless you have a 3rd WR that is mind-bogglingly good, then that would easily decide the position. But I still feel like you are off base in regard to your assessment of our depth. Patrick Crayton has a chance to be a really good player in this league, and is excellent as a 3rd WR in our offense. Now, if he continues to have injury concerns then that might change things, but he is obviously already a nice player. He torched the combo of Marcus Trufant(whom everyone seems to really love), Kelly Jennings, and Herndon for Seattle in week 1 of the preseason before spraining his ankle. He was a key player for us in the first 6 games last season before he got hurt, and this is just his third year in the league.

As for Carter and Moss.....I'm not sure how your making your assessment. Moss hasn't done anything in preseason to merit that high of regard. Carter (though I admit to not knowing a whole lot about him) isn't much more than a speed merchant up to this point in his career. If you want to talk potential, then I would like to bring up some of our young guys that have been impressing in camp and preseason, but that would be a little premature because we all know that preseason doesn't necessarily mean jack crap. So I can't say that I see your point here. Maybe in a year or two you will be right, but at this point it just doesn't look like the Giants have a lot at this particular position, although they may have a lot of promise.

In regard to Eli, I don't want you to think that I am ripping him. All I was saying is that you have to guard against using totals like you did. They can be very deceptive. That said, I really do like him. I think the comparisons to Peyton are way off, and that he will likely never be the supremely cerebral player that his brother is. However, he does have a moxy to him that Peyton lacks. A certain ability to maintain his composure and persevere. I like him, as a player, quite a bit and I think he will turn out to be great. But for this season, you can't really say much due to the level of uncertainty regarding his progress. I think he will take a big step, and that he has a chance to be great. But right now I only rank him at no. 3 because Brunell is D-U-N, done. That said, I hope he turns out to be a bust. The last thing we need is another great QB in our division. :twisted:

DMWSackMachine
08-28-2006, 05:23 PM
I would rate the teams like this:

1. Washington Redskins
2. New York Giants
3. Dallas Cowboys
4. Philadelia Eagles

Redskins have the best offensive line and the best running back in Clinton Portis. Santana Moss is an elite wide receiver and Brunell can get the job done behind center. Also, Chris Cooley is a great option as an H-Back or as a TE. They also have good depth at WR with Antwaan Randel El and Brandon Lloyd filling in the #2 and #3 spots.

The Giants have a great young QB in Eli Manning who is developing into one of the league's elite. Barber, although aging, seems to be hitting the peak of his career and is effective as a runner and receiver. The offensive line is good but they don't match the Redskins. Buress and Toomer are a decent 1-2 punch but Burress can disappear and their is little talent beyond them. Shockey can be great at TE but he has trouble with consistency at times.


Dallas's offensive line is the worst in the division and it will hurt both their running and passing game. The running back by committee approach should work well enough with both Jones and Barber making significant impacts. The WRs are obviously led by Terrell Owens who is the best WR in the game today (on the field). Glenn is a great #2 option but the depth beyond Glenn is adequate at best. Bledsoe is a veteran who is underrated but he does make his fair share of mistakes. Witten is a good TE that is a consistent target for Bledsoe.

The Eagles offence depends on the divisions best quarterback, Donovan McNabb. With him in the game, the Eagles always have a chance to win. The offensive line is solid and generally provides good pass protection although some of the struggles in the running game can be attributed to them. The backfield is quite weak with only Westbrook and Moats. The upside is that Westbrook is an effective utility back and is very good at catching the ball out of the backfield. The biggest weakness of this team is the wide receivers which lack any proven threat beyond newly acquired Donte Stallworth. Reggie Brown will have to step up and become the #1 receiver which is asking a lot of a 2nd year player.


I hate to say this to someone whom I regard as a generally astute poster, but that post sounds like you read "Cliff Notes: NFC East Football 2006" or something. For example, you said this :

Redskins have the best offensive line and the best running back in Clinton Portis

And yet, for each of the last two years, Tiki Barber has dominated him in terms of yardage and ypc. AND the Redskins pretty clearly have a better O line than the G-men do. So if they have both the best runner and the best blockers, then why don't they play the best? Bears mentioning, you would think, and yet people just run their mouths off and say that Portis is the best without giving it a second thought.

Next you said:

Dallas's offensive line is the worst in the division and it will hurt both their running and passing game.....Bledsoe is a veteran who is underrated but he does make his fair share of mistakes.

Each of these statements are considered the "book" on the O Line and Bledsoe, respectively. Yet you (and everyone else who peddles these two philosophies) ignore some extremely relevant facts. First, of this "worst line" that ended the season by giving up 38 sacks in 10 games highlighted by a staggering 8 sacks against the Skins weak pass rush, there will be 4 new starters from the line that started those 10 games, as well as the 5th starter being a completely different player after struggling from back problems that developed prior to last season. So I don't know exactly how that means that we're the "worst line in the division" when you, me, Parcells and the rest of the NFL has no idea exactly how good we'll be. All I know is we will be substantially improved from a line that was devastated by injury throughout the season. Secondly, you say Bledsoe "makes his fair share of mistakes", implying that he is a bad decision maker who often "goes off the reservation" with frequency. Well, I don't know how you form your opinion on the matter, but as a fan that watched nearly every offensive play last year, most of them multiple times, I can say that Bledsoe's decision making was one of his biggest assets. Everyone jumps to mention the Seahawks game when he threw the game ending Int and everything, but they forget the Charger, 49ers, NYG, Panther, Eagles and Chiefs games when he took the offense down the field late in the 4th quarter or overtime for the winning scores. Also, a certain professional statistician who has broken down every play of every game and categorized and classified every QB decision names Bledsoe as the 3rd best decision maker in the league last year.

Of course, all these facts do not fit into the "generally held consensus" that has formed out of media reports, political cow-towing and hyperbole machine that surround the sport, so they obviously cannot be true. Of course, this time last year the Eagles were the clear favorites in the NFC, the Patriots were the hands down best team in the league, Culpepper was set for a monster season, the Seahawks couldn't put it all together, the Bears were floundering in incompetence and the Redskins were a lock to send their top 5 pick to the Broncos for Jason Campbell..... good thing that won't happen this season.

Dillen
08-28-2006, 05:30 PM
The offensive line is solid and generally provides good pass protection although some of the struggles in the running game can be attributed to them. The backfield is quite weak with only Westbrook and Moats.
I dont like this argument for three reasons.

One, people need to remember what happened at the end of last year. Hank Fraley is not a good run blocker, at all. When he went on IR, they put in Jamaal Jackson. He is an absolute mauler. The first game Jackson was in the Eagles ran for over 150 yards against the Cowboys.

Two, the bad running game last year was hardly the RBs fault, although some of the blame goes to them. It pains me to say it, but once Westbrook got his big extension he ran a lot harder. Anyways, back to not blaming the RBs. Last years offensive line was horrible at run blocking. Tra Thomas is a premier pass blocking LT. He's an average run blocker. Artis Hicks is a good pass blocking guard, and he's a below average run blocker. Hank Fraley is just an extremely smart G/C who is an above average pass blocker but below average run blocker. Again, referring to the Dallas game. That game, Todd Herremans was the LT. Adrien Clarke the LG. JJax the C. They're all run blockers. They dominated Dallas that entire game. This year Thomas is back at LT but Herremans is at LG and Jackson is the full time center. The run blocking will be much better, and if Westbrook wasnt injury prone he'd easily be a 1000 yard rusher.

Third, right now Buckhalter is healthy. Thomas Tapeh was a 5th rounder going into his 3rd year who is a RB/FB. Jason Davis was used as a runner in college. The Eagles have 'big backs.'

LonghornsLegend
08-28-2006, 09:18 PM
jus had to point out and say Thanks and preciate it to everyone who provided well thought out answers and not just rambling on about how their favorite team is the best...


although I agree most arent respecting the ceiling of julius jones in a full season, along with a great backup, and on top of that, which rb's wouldnt prosper from having TO on the field, TO is just a large enough of a target and focus to make an offense number one

Moses
08-28-2006, 10:08 PM
I would rate the teams like this:

1. Washington Redskins
2. New York Giants
3. Dallas Cowboys
4. Philadelia Eagles

Redskins have the best offensive line and the best running back in Clinton Portis. Santana Moss is an elite wide receiver and Brunell can get the job done behind center. Also, Chris Cooley is a great option as an H-Back or as a TE. They also have good depth at WR with Antwaan Randel El and Brandon Lloyd filling in the #2 and #3 spots.

The Giants have a great young QB in Eli Manning who is developing into one of the league's elite. Barber, although aging, seems to be hitting the peak of his career and is effective as a runner and receiver. The offensive line is good but they don't match the Redskins. Buress and Toomer are a decent 1-2 punch but Burress can disappear and their is little talent beyond them. Shockey can be great at TE but he has trouble with consistency at times.


Dallas's offensive line is the worst in the division and it will hurt both their running and passing game. The running back by committee approach should work well enough with both Jones and Barber making significant impacts. The WRs are obviously led by Terrell Owens who is the best WR in the game today (on the field). Glenn is a great #2 option but the depth beyond Glenn is adequate at best. Bledsoe is a veteran who is underrated but he does make his fair share of mistakes. Witten is a good TE that is a consistent target for Bledsoe.

The Eagles offence depends on the divisions best quarterback, Donovan McNabb. With him in the game, the Eagles always have a chance to win. The offensive line is solid and generally provides good pass protection although some of the struggles in the running game can be attributed to them. The backfield is quite weak with only Westbrook and Moats. The upside is that Westbrook is an effective utility back and is very good at catching the ball out of the backfield. The biggest weakness of this team is the wide receivers which lack any proven threat beyond newly acquired Donte Stallworth. Reggie Brown will have to step up and become the #1 receiver which is asking a lot of a 2nd year player.


I hate to say this to someone whom I regard as a generally astute poster, but that post sounds like you read "Cliff Notes: NFC East Football 2006" or something. For example, you said this :

Redskins have the best offensive line and the best running back in Clinton Portis

And yet, for each of the last two years, Tiki Barber has dominated him in terms of yardage and ypc. AND the Redskins pretty clearly have a better O line than the G-men do. So if they have both the best runner and the best blockers, then why don't they play the best? Bears mentioning, you would think, and yet people just run their mouths off and say that Portis is the best without giving it a second thought.

Next you said:

Dallas's offensive line is the worst in the division and it will hurt both their running and passing game.....Bledsoe is a veteran who is underrated but he does make his fair share of mistakes.

Each of these statements are considered the "book" on the O Line and Bledsoe, respectively. Yet you (and everyone else who peddles these two philosophies) ignore some extremely relevant facts. First, of this "worst line" that ended the season by giving up 38 sacks in 10 games highlighted by a staggering 8 sacks against the Skins weak pass rush, there will be 4 new starters from the line that started those 10 games, as well as the 5th starter being a completely different player after struggling from back problems that developed prior to last season. So I don't know exactly how that means that we're the "worst line in the division" when you, me, Parcells and the rest of the NFL has no idea exactly how good we'll be. All I know is we will be substantially improved from a line that was devastated by injury throughout the season. Secondly, you say Bledsoe "makes his fair share of mistakes", implying that he is a bad decision maker who often "goes off the reservation" with frequency. Well, I don't know how you form your opinion on the matter, but as a fan that watched nearly every offensive play last year, most of them multiple times, I can say that Bledsoe's decision making was one of his biggest assets. Everyone jumps to mention the Seahawks game when he threw the game ending Int and everything, but they forget the Charger, 49ers, NYG, Panther, Eagles and Chiefs games when he took the offense down the field late in the 4th quarter or overtime for the winning scores. Also, a certain professional statistician who has broken down every play of every game and categorized and classified every QB decision names Bledsoe as the 3rd best decision maker in the league last year.

Of course, all these facts do not fit into the "generally held consensus" that has formed out of media reports, political cow-towing and hyperbole machine that surround the sport, so they obviously cannot be true. Of course, this time last year the Eagles were the clear favorites in the NFC, the Patriots were the hands down best team in the league, Culpepper was set for a monster season, the Seahawks couldn't put it all together, the Bears were floundering in incompetence and the Redskins were a lock to send their top 5 pick to the Broncos for Jason Campbell..... good thing that won't happen this season.

Most of your arguments are based off stats from years past. I'm looking ahead to this year. I personally feel that Portis is a better back than Barber. Both are great backs but I think Portis has the edge at this point in their careers. This opinion is simply based on watching both play and seeing how much they help their teams. Barber helps out more in the passing game but I think it's pretty special what Portis can accomplish along the ground. Again, I'm of the opinion that stats rarely tell the whole story and simply comparing YPC, total yards, etc. is pointless.

As far as Dallas' line goes, it's obviously too early to tell for sure if they're going to be the worst but I wouldn't hesitate in saying that they are the biggest question mark in the division. What line would you argue has more questions than the Cowboys?

As far as Bledsoe goes, I've just noticed that he can be erratic at times. On one drive he'll look like the best QB in the league orchaestrating a picture perfect drive downfield resulting in 6 points. Then on the next drive he'll look like a rookie who doesn't grasp the playbook. I think he's extremely talented he just seems to lack focus at times. Maybe I'm missing something, but he's obviously made his fair share of mistakes if he threw 17 INTs last season.

Moses
08-28-2006, 10:11 PM
The offensive line is solid and generally provides good pass protection although some of the struggles in the running game can be attributed to them. The backfield is quite weak with only Westbrook and Moats.
I dont like this argument for three reasons.

One, people need to remember what happened at the end of last year. Hank Fraley is not a good run blocker, at all. When he went on IR, they put in Jamaal Jackson. He is an absolute mauler. The first game Jackson was in the Eagles ran for over 150 yards against the Cowboys.

Two, the bad running game last year was hardly the RBs fault, although some of the blame goes to them. It pains me to say it, but once Westbrook got his big extension he ran a lot harder. Anyways, back to not blaming the RBs. Last years offensive line was horrible at run blocking. Tra Thomas is a premier pass blocking LT. He's an average run blocker. Artis Hicks is a good pass blocking guard, and he's a below average run blocker. Hank Fraley is just an extremely smart G/C who is an above average pass blocker but below average run blocker. Again, referring to the Dallas game. That game, Todd Herremans was the LT. Adrien Clarke the LG. JJax the C. They're all run blockers. They dominated Dallas that entire game. This year Thomas is back at LT but Herremans is at LG and Jackson is the full time center. The run blocking will be much better, and if Westbrook wasnt injury prone he'd easily be a 1000 yard rusher.

Third, right now Buckhalter is healthy. Thomas Tapeh was a 5th rounder going into his 3rd year who is a RB/FB. Jason Davis was used as a runner in college. The Eagles have 'big backs.'

The Eagles' biggest problem with their running game last season was obviously the fact that they didn't run the football enough. Reid simply wouldn't give the ball to the RBs enough to create an effective running game.

Like I said, neither Moats or Westbrook are even in the same league in terms of running as Portis, Barber, or even the Jones/Barber combo in Dallas. The RBs in Philadelphia are clearly a big step below anybody else in the division.

LonghornsLegend
08-28-2006, 10:17 PM
i wouldnt argue with portis over tiki, some are going off last year, some are going with age and where their heading in their career....portis is so young its scary for what he's done and how he's added on weight with keeping lightning speed...he is capable of a 1,700 yd rushing and 500 yd passing year, never know when it could happen but he hasnt even peaked yet, Tiki had a great year last year, but he's one year older and so are his legs, as far as being the workhorse he was last year its hard to see him doing that again, but the chances of a career year anytime in the future has got to be portis

njx9
08-28-2006, 10:24 PM
i don't really know enough about any of these teams to have an opinion, but i more wanted to give some props to DMW, Moses, bigblue and Dillen for actually reading each other's arguments and responding point by point to flaws (real or not) that people pointed out. i like reading this kind of commentary on divisions i don't know much about.

cunningham06
08-28-2006, 10:25 PM
The offensive line is solid and generally provides good pass protection although some of the struggles in the running game can be attributed to them. The backfield is quite weak with only Westbrook and Moats.
I dont like this argument for three reasons.

One, people need to remember what happened at the end of last year. Hank Fraley is not a good run blocker, at all. When he went on IR, they put in Jamaal Jackson. He is an absolute mauler. The first game Jackson was in the Eagles ran for over 150 yards against the Cowboys.

Two, the bad running game last year was hardly the RBs fault, although some of the blame goes to them. It pains me to say it, but once Westbrook got his big extension he ran a lot harder. Anyways, back to not blaming the RBs. Last years offensive line was horrible at run blocking. Tra Thomas is a premier pass blocking LT. He's an average run blocker. Artis Hicks is a good pass blocking guard, and he's a below average run blocker. Hank Fraley is just an extremely smart G/C who is an above average pass blocker but below average run blocker. Again, referring to the Dallas game. That game, Todd Herremans was the LT. Adrien Clarke the LG. JJax the C. They're all run blockers. They dominated Dallas that entire game. This year Thomas is back at LT but Herremans is at LG and Jackson is the full time center. The run blocking will be much better, and if Westbrook wasnt injury prone he'd easily be a 1000 yard rusher.

Third, right now Buckhalter is healthy. Thomas Tapeh was a 5th rounder going into his 3rd year who is a RB/FB. Jason Davis was used as a runner in college. The Eagles have 'big backs.'

The Eagles' biggest problem with their running game last season was obviously the fact that they didn't run the football enough. Reid simply wouldn't give the ball to the RBs enough to create an effective running game.

Like I said, neither Moats or Westbrook are even in the same league in terms of running as Portis, Barber, or even the Jones/Barber combo in Dallas. The RBs in Philadelphia are clearly a big step below anybody else in the division.

Well you can't really blame them for not calling a lot of running plays because they weren't working. Like Dillen already said our run blocking didn't pick up until midway through the season. Westbrook got dominated when he tried to run against teams with legitimate run defenses in the beginning of the season. Our run game just wasn't working, and it was frustrating every time they tried to run the ball. McNabb was talented enough to accomplish what the running game could not so he got to throw the ball when conventional wisdom would say to run.

As far as the Eagles RB's relating to the Cowboys, I would take Westbrook over Jones in a heartbeat. While he hasn't accomplished as much on the ground he isn't bad at rushing, and is incomparably better at receiving than Jones is. Barber is better than Moats. I'd say the Cowboys and the Eagles are pretty close at RB while either could be better.

Moses
08-28-2006, 10:26 PM
The offensive line is solid and generally provides good pass protection although some of the struggles in the running game can be attributed to them. The backfield is quite weak with only Westbrook and Moats.
I dont like this argument for three reasons.

One, people need to remember what happened at the end of last year. Hank Fraley is not a good run blocker, at all. When he went on IR, they put in Jamaal Jackson. He is an absolute mauler. The first game Jackson was in the Eagles ran for over 150 yards against the Cowboys.

Two, the bad running game last year was hardly the RBs fault, although some of the blame goes to them. It pains me to say it, but once Westbrook got his big extension he ran a lot harder. Anyways, back to not blaming the RBs. Last years offensive line was horrible at run blocking. Tra Thomas is a premier pass blocking LT. He's an average run blocker. Artis Hicks is a good pass blocking guard, and he's a below average run blocker. Hank Fraley is just an extremely smart G/C who is an above average pass blocker but below average run blocker. Again, referring to the Dallas game. That game, Todd Herremans was the LT. Adrien Clarke the LG. JJax the C. They're all run blockers. They dominated Dallas that entire game. This year Thomas is back at LT but Herremans is at LG and Jackson is the full time center. The run blocking will be much better, and if Westbrook wasnt injury prone he'd easily be a 1000 yard rusher.

Third, right now Buckhalter is healthy. Thomas Tapeh was a 5th rounder going into his 3rd year who is a RB/FB. Jason Davis was used as a runner in college. The Eagles have 'big backs.'

The Eagles' biggest problem with their running game last season was obviously the fact that they didn't run the football enough. Reid simply wouldn't give the ball to the RBs enough to create an effective running game.

Like I said, neither Moats or Westbrook are even in the same league in terms of running as Portis, Barber, or even the Jones/Barber combo in Dallas. The RBs in Philadelphia are clearly a big step below anybody else in the division.

Well you can't really blame them for not calling a lot of running plays because they weren't working. Like Dillen already said our run blocking didn't pick up until midway through the season. Westbrook got dominated when he tried to run against teams with legitimate run defenses in the beginning of the season. Our run game just wasn't working, and it was frustrating every time they tried to run the ball. McNabb was talented enough to accomplish what the running game could not so he got to throw the ball when conventional wisdom would say to run.

As far as the Eagles RB's relating to the Cowboys, I would take Westbrook over Jones in a heartbeat. While he hasn't accomplished as much on the ground he isn't bad at rushing, and is incomparably better at receiving than Jones is. Barber is better than Moats. I'd say the Cowboys and the Eagles are pretty close at RB while either could be better.

Westbrook is very unimpressive on running plays from what I've seen and I would take both Jones and Barber over him. Obviously he's more effective in the passing game but that's not going to help the Eagles dismal running attack.

Number 10
08-28-2006, 11:04 PM
i wouldnt argue with portis over tiki, some are going off last year, some are going with age and where their heading in their career....portis is so young its scary for what he's done and how he's added on weight with keeping lightning speed...he is capable of a 1,700 yd rushing and 500 yd passing year, never know when it could happen but he hasnt even peaked yet, Tiki had a great year last year, but he's one year older and so are his legs, as far as being the workhorse he was last year its hard to see him doing that again, but the chances of a career year anytime in the future has got to be portis

What many fail to realize is that Tiki does not have the normal amount of wear and tear on his body as other backs his age do. Early on in his career, he was never an every down back and it basically wasn't until Ron Dayne was a goner that Tiki was given every down responsibility, which was 5-6 years into his career. Combine that with the fact that he keeps himself in absolutely amazing shape every offseason and you have to be under the impression that he still has at least another 2-3 top notch seasons left in the tank if he can avoid the injury bug.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 06:49 AM
i wouldnt argue with portis over tiki, some are going off last year, some are going with age and where their heading in their career....portis is so young its scary for what he's done and how he's added on weight with keeping lightning speed...he is capable of a 1,700 yd rushing and 500 yd passing year, never know when it could happen but he hasnt even peaked yet, Tiki had a great year last year, but he's one year older and so are his legs, as far as being the workhorse he was last year its hard to see him doing that again, but the chances of a career year anytime in the future has got to be portis

What many fail to realize is that Tiki does not have the normal amount of wear and tear on his body as other backs his age do. Early on in his career, he was never an every down back and it basically wasn't until Ron Dayne was a goner that Tiki was given every down responsibility, which was 5-6 years into his career. Combine that with the fact that he keeps himself in absolutely amazing shape every offseason and you have to be under the impression that he still has at least another 2-3 top notch seasons left in the tank if he can avoid the injury bug.

I wouldnt doubt he has another 2-3 great years left, maybe more but, hasnt he recently discussed retiring? Some say his heart has been elsewhere and that this may be his last season.

Jughead10
08-29-2006, 07:09 AM
i wouldnt argue with portis over tiki, some are going off last year, some are going with age and where their heading in their career....portis is so young its scary for what he's done and how he's added on weight with keeping lightning speed...he is capable of a 1,700 yd rushing and 500 yd passing year, never know when it could happen but he hasnt even peaked yet, Tiki had a great year last year, but he's one year older and so are his legs, as far as being the workhorse he was last year its hard to see him doing that again, but the chances of a career year anytime in the future has got to be portis

What many fail to realize is that Tiki does not have the normal amount of wear and tear on his body as other backs his age do. Early on in his career, he was never an every down back and it basically wasn't until Ron Dayne was a goner that Tiki was given every down responsibility, which was 5-6 years into his career. Combine that with the fact that he keeps himself in absolutely amazing shape every offseason and you have to be under the impression that he still has at least another 2-3 top notch seasons left in the tank if he can avoid the injury bug.

I wouldnt doubt he has another 2-3 great years left, maybe more but, hasnt he recently discussed retiring? Some say his heart has been elsewhere and that this may be his last season.

He has. I fear him retiring at the top of his game much more than I do his body breaking down like Curtis Martin. I think Tiki has two great years left. Hopefully he stays for 2007. I think he will then call it quits after that.

DMWSackMachine
08-29-2006, 11:01 AM
Most of your arguments are based off stats from years past. I'm looking ahead to this year. I personally feel that Portis is a better back than Barber. Both are great backs but I think Portis has the edge at this point in their careers. This opinion is simply based on watching both play and seeing how much they help their teams. Barber helps out more in the passing game but I think it's pretty special what Portis can accomplish along the ground. Again, I'm of the opinion that stats rarely tell the whole story and simply comparing YPC, total yards, etc. is pointless.

So someone brings cold hard facts to the table regarding the way things have been, and somehow a "gut feeling" overrules that? Don't get me wrong, because I am not one of those guys that hides behind numbers and touts stats as being the be-all and end-all of arguments. However, there are times when stats do tell the whole story. Barber didn't just narrowly edge out Portis the last two years, he DESTROYED him. Portis has not been an efficient runner since he left Denver. There have only been one or two games that I've watched Portis and said "wow, he looks unstoppable right now". But when he was in Denver, that's how he looked almost every single game. He was a monster. Tiki, on the other hand, has looked that way in several games. He has been the life blood of that team for two straight years. There is just no way to argue that Portis has been a better back than Barber in recent times, and if he hasn't been better in recent times, then you have to come up with a solid argument as to why it will be different this season. You, nor anyone else with your opinion, has come up with a satisfactory answer to this question. So, imo, the burden of proof lies upon you.

As far as Dallas' line goes, it's obviously too early to tell for sure if they're going to be the worst but I wouldn't hesitate in saying that they are the biggest question mark in the division. What line would you argue has more questions than the Cowboys?

Much better. They definitely have the most question marks, and I can live with that. However, the Eagles also have three new starters on the interior, and their two Tackles are coming back from season ending injuries, so that is a question laden team as well. But I can deal much easier with being labeled as a "question filled" line as opposed to the "worst" one. There is a lot of potential there for us to be successful, and we do have two Pro Bowl lineman along with probably the most coveted young guard from FA. So there is some pieces that offer promise, along with a young 7th round tackle that Parcells has positively gushed about.

As far as Bledsoe goes, I've just noticed that he can be erratic at times. On one drive he'll look like the best QB in the league orchaestrating a picture perfect drive downfield resulting in 6 points. Then on the next drive he'll look like a rookie who doesn't grasp the playbook. I think he's extremely talented he just seems to lack focus at times. Maybe I'm missing something, but he's obviously made his fair share of mistakes if he threw 17 INTs last season.

So....Tom Brady threw 14. Does that qualify him for that same moniker? I agree that there have been times when Bledsoe has looked a little shaky. But I strongly disagree with the rap that he has gotten around the league and specifically on this forum. I would take him right now before all but about 8 or 9 QBs in this league; guys that get much more respect than Bledsoe. I also disagree with your characterization. Every QB in the league struggles at times. Even Peyton. Even Brady. But Bledsoe, at least last year, has never looked as bad as you just described him. Every once in a great while he will "go off the reservation" , as Parcells describes it, but his game is very refined. Another thing is that he has had to work behind a really bad offensive line for the last 4 consecutive years. Something that is particularly problematic for him, though every QB would struggle with it.

elway777
08-29-2006, 11:06 AM
This is a tough question. I ask you to relinquish all homerism and make an unbiased decision.


These are NFC east fans were talking about c'mon. :lol:

draftguru151
08-29-2006, 11:38 AM
i don't really know enough about any of these teams to have an opinion, but i more wanted to give some props to DMW, Moses, bigblue and Dillen for actually reading each other's arguments and responding point by point to flaws (real or not) that people pointed out. i like reading this kind of commentary on divisions i don't know much about.

It really is nice to see a thread like this. I expect nothing less from bigblue. You're my boy blue!

johbur
08-29-2006, 11:49 AM
I voted Cowboys (shudder) as they have a QB who's been to a couple of SBs, a young promising run game, an under-rated TE, and excellent WRs. I like their line and expect them to do very well once the season starts.

Moses
08-29-2006, 12:10 PM
Most of your arguments are based off stats from years past. I'm looking ahead to this year. I personally feel that Portis is a better back than Barber. Both are great backs but I think Portis has the edge at this point in their careers. This opinion is simply based on watching both play and seeing how much they help their teams. Barber helps out more in the passing game but I think it's pretty special what Portis can accomplish along the ground. Again, I'm of the opinion that stats rarely tell the whole story and simply comparing YPC, total yards, etc. is pointless.

So someone brings cold hard facts to the table regarding the way things have been, and somehow a "gut feeling" overrules that? Don't get me wrong, because I am not one of those guys that hides behind numbers and touts stats as being the be-all and end-all of arguments. However, there are times when stats do tell the whole story. Barber didn't just narrowly edge out Portis the last two years, he DESTROYED him. Portis has not been an efficient runner since he left Denver. There have only been one or two games that I've watched Portis and said "wow, he looks unstoppable right now". But when he was in Denver, that's how he looked almost every single game. He was a monster. Tiki, on the other hand, has looked that way in several games. He has been the life blood of that team for two straight years. There is just no way to argue that Portis has been a better back than Barber in recent times, and if he hasn't been better in recent times, then you have to come up with a solid argument as to why it will be different this season. You, nor anyone else with your opinion, has come up with a satisfactory answer to this question. So, imo, the burden of proof lies upon you.

As far as Dallas' line goes, it's obviously too early to tell for sure if they're going to be the worst but I wouldn't hesitate in saying that they are the biggest question mark in the division. What line would you argue has more questions than the Cowboys?

Much better. They definitely have the most question marks, and I can live with that. However, the Eagles also have three new starters on the interior, and their two Tackles are coming back from season ending injuries, so that is a question laden team as well. But I can deal much easier with being labeled as a "question filled" line as opposed to the "worst" one. There is a lot of potential there for us to be successful, and we do have two Pro Bowl lineman along with probably the most coveted young guard from FA. So there is some pieces that offer promise, along with a young 7th round tackle that Parcells has positively gushed about.

As far as Bledsoe goes, I've just noticed that he can be erratic at times. On one drive he'll look like the best QB in the league orchaestrating a picture perfect drive downfield resulting in 6 points. Then on the next drive he'll look like a rookie who doesn't grasp the playbook. I think he's extremely talented he just seems to lack focus at times. Maybe I'm missing something, but he's obviously made his fair share of mistakes if he threw 17 INTs last season.

So....Tom Brady threw 14. Does that qualify him for that same moniker? I agree that there have been times when Bledsoe has looked a little shaky. But I strongly disagree with the rap that he has gotten around the league and specifically on this forum. I would take him right now before all but about 8 or 9 QBs in this league; guys that get much more respect than Bledsoe. I also disagree with your characterization. Every QB in the league struggles at times. Even Peyton. Even Brady. But Bledsoe, at least last year, has never looked as bad as you just described him. Every once in a great while he will "go off the reservation" , as Parcells describes it, but his game is very refined. Another thing is that he has had to work behind a really bad offensive line for the last 4 consecutive years. Something that is particularly problematic for him, though every QB would struggle with it.

In terms of the Portis Vs. Barber debate, it's not a "gut feeling" I'm going on. It's simply who I think is the better overall back. I've watched them both quite a bit and I think Portis is the better runner. He's tough as nails and is an absolute workhorse who can pound the ball while also having the speed and moves to take it the distance on any play. Barber is good too and I like his vision but I don't think he's as good as Portis overall.

As far as Bledsoe goes, I've just noticed a lot of inconsistency in him. I think it's mostly because his highest level of play is up there with the best in the league but his basement is pretty terrible.

Dillen
08-29-2006, 12:11 PM
However, the Eagles also have three new starters on the interior, and their two Tackles are coming back from season ending injuries, so that is a question laden team as well.
It's pretty much the same thing, but you just meesed up on a couple small counts.

The Eagles have 2 new starters on the interior, Herremans and Jackson.

Runyan didnt have a season ending injury. Herremans did, and he played tackle after Tra so it's somewhat the same.

Tra Thomas probably would have been able to play last year but they were precautionary, same thing with Westbrook.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 12:12 PM
Didnt Tra Thomas change his name?

Ward
08-29-2006, 12:13 PM
He goes by William, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! :lol:

Dillen
08-29-2006, 12:19 PM
Didnt Tra Thomas change his name?
Sort of. He was called by Tra, but he was William Thomas III. The third is where Tra came from.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 12:28 PM
Didnt Tra Thomas change his name?
Sort of. He was called by Tra, but he was William Thomas III. The third is where Tra came from.

Interesting, I never knew that. Thanks.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 12:31 PM
Most of your arguments are based off stats from years past. I'm looking ahead to this year. I personally feel that Portis is a better back than Barber. Both are great backs but I think Portis has the edge at this point in their careers. This opinion is simply based on watching both play and seeing how much they help their teams. Barber helps out more in the passing game but I think it's pretty special what Portis can accomplish along the ground. Again, I'm of the opinion that stats rarely tell the whole story and simply comparing YPC, total yards, etc. is pointless.

So someone brings cold hard facts to the table regarding the way things have been, and somehow a "gut feeling" overrules that? Don't get me wrong, because I am not one of those guys that hides behind numbers and touts stats as being the be-all and end-all of arguments. However, there are times when stats do tell the whole story. Barber didn't just narrowly edge out Portis the last two years, he DESTROYED him. Portis has not been an efficient runner since he left Denver. There have only been one or two games that I've watched Portis and said "wow, he looks unstoppable right now". But when he was in Denver, that's how he looked almost every single game. He was a monster. Tiki, on the other hand, has looked that way in several games. He has been the life blood of that team for two straight years. There is just no way to argue that Portis has been a better back than Barber in recent times, and if he hasn't been better in recent times, then you have to come up with a solid argument as to why it will be different this season. You, nor anyone else with your opinion, has come up with a satisfactory answer to this question. So, imo, the burden of proof lies upon you.

As far as Dallas' line goes, it's obviously too early to tell for sure if they're going to be the worst but I wouldn't hesitate in saying that they are the biggest question mark in the division. What line would you argue has more questions than the Cowboys?

Much better. They definitely have the most question marks, and I can live with that. However, the Eagles also have three new starters on the interior, and their two Tackles are coming back from season ending injuries, so that is a question laden team as well. But I can deal much easier with being labeled as a "question filled" line as opposed to the "worst" one. There is a lot of potential there for us to be successful, and we do have two Pro Bowl lineman along with probably the most coveted young guard from FA. So there is some pieces that offer promise, along with a young 7th round tackle that Parcells has positively gushed about.

As far as Bledsoe goes, I've just noticed that he can be erratic at times. On one drive he'll look like the best QB in the league orchaestrating a picture perfect drive downfield resulting in 6 points. Then on the next drive he'll look like a rookie who doesn't grasp the playbook. I think he's extremely talented he just seems to lack focus at times. Maybe I'm missing something, but he's obviously made his fair share of mistakes if he threw 17 INTs last season.

So....Tom Brady threw 14. Does that qualify him for that same moniker? I agree that there have been times when Bledsoe has looked a little shaky. But I strongly disagree with the rap that he has gotten around the league and specifically on this forum. I would take him right now before all but about 8 or 9 QBs in this league; guys that get much more respect than Bledsoe. I also disagree with your characterization. Every QB in the league struggles at times. Even Peyton. Even Brady. But Bledsoe, at least last year, has never looked as bad as you just described him. Every once in a great while he will "go off the reservation" , as Parcells describes it, but his game is very refined. Another thing is that he has had to work behind a really bad offensive line for the last 4 consecutive years. Something that is particularly problematic for him, though every QB would struggle with it.

In terms of the Portis Vs. Barber debate, it's not a "gut feeling" I'm going on. It's simply who I think is the better overall back. I've watched them both quite a bit and I think Portis is the better runner. He's tough as nails and is an absolute workhorse who can pound the ball while also having the speed and moves to take it the distance on any play. Barber is good too and I like his vision but I don't think he's as good as Portis overall.

As far as Bledsoe goes, I've just noticed a lot of inconsistency in him. I think it's mostly because his highest level of play is up there with the best in the league but his basement is pretty terrible.

But Barber puts up better numbers despite Portis having the better line.

draftguru151
08-29-2006, 12:32 PM
Because Tiki was in a system that played to his stength while Portis wasn't.

Jughead10
08-29-2006, 12:35 PM
Because Tiki was in a system that played to his stength while Portis wasn't.

They actually run very similar running plays. It is the passing game that differs between the two teams.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 12:35 PM
Because Tiki was in a system that played to his stength while Portis wasn't.

So you think Portis is better than Tiki?

DMWSackMachine
08-29-2006, 12:41 PM
However, the Eagles also have three new starters on the interior, and their two Tackles are coming back from season ending injuries, so that is a question laden team as well.
It's pretty much the same thing, but you just meesed up on a couple small counts.

The Eagles have 2 new starters on the interior, Herremans and Jackson.

Runyan didnt have a season ending injury. Herremans did, and he played tackle after Tra so it's somewhat the same.

Tra Thomas probably would have been able to play last year but they were precautionary, same thing with Westbrook.

The third guy I was referring to is Shawn Andrews. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that he was not a full time starter last year, and that he only was the regular in the second half. If I'm mistaken, then oh well, but my original point was that there are questions in the interior for them, and having a young guy that hasn't necessarily proven himself yet is a question. He may end up being a star, but he still isn't a proven commodity yet. That's all I was saying.

Dillen
08-29-2006, 12:53 PM
Andrews has been #1 on the depth chart at RG since he was drafted. He was awesome in his rookie preseason and the first half of the Giants game before he broke his leg. He completely dominated Norman Hand, who wasnt washed up at the time.

Andrews was a Pro Bowl alternate last year. Rex Ryan said he's the best guard in the NFL. I dont agree with that yet, but he's pretty proven IMO.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 12:57 PM
Andrews has been #1 on the depth chart at RG since he was drafted. He was awesome in his rookie preseason and the first half of the Giants game before he broke his leg. He completely dominated Norman Hand, who wasnt washed up at the time.

Andrews was a Pro Bowl alternate last year. Rex Ryan said he's the best guard in the NFL. I dont agree with that yet, but he's pretty proven IMO.

Ever since that game I have been in love with Andrews. His initial punch is just as good AS ANY GUARD IN THE NFL. Not the greatest pass protector in the world and he will struggle to get to the second level sometimes, but he still ranks in the top 10 guards in my book.

bigbluedefense
08-29-2006, 01:09 PM
Shawn Andrews is poised to have a career year, mark it down. He is just as good as Snee, and I consider Snee a top 5 guard in the league.

And to answer your counterpoint DMW, I completely understand your point of view on WR set, just hear me out. There is no doubt that TO>>>Plax and Glenn>>>Toomer, but when we talk about WRs, a great WR set has solid potential out of 3 to 4 guys. Outside of TO and Glenn, there isn't any established slot or 4th WR for Dallas. Crayton has been playing great, but even at his best he is not better than Carter. NY's 4 WR set is Plax, Toomer, Sinorice, and Carter. I understand Sinorice hasn't played a down yet, but you pretty much know what youre gonna get out of him, he's a deepball/screen pass slot guy, and Carter seems like he has finally put it all together this year...however I won't project him to be great because I know better with him, he's due for an injury. But either way, Carter/Sinorice as 3 and 4 are much more solid than Crayton and ? that Dallas has. I have confidence that we can run "double wide" man coverage against Dallas's 4 WR set and be successful, because Crayton and ? as the 4 probably won't punish man coverage against Nickel and Dime corners.

However Sinorice and Carter have a lot of potential to beat their respective Man coverages. Thats where I give the edge to NYG. Yes, your starting 2 are better than our starting 2, but its not like our starting 2 is trash. Couple that with the fact that we have better depth at 3 and 4, NY having the best WR set is feasable. But making a case for Dallas is equally feasable. Its another pick your flavor if you think about it. Its like the TE debate reversed, this time you have more star power whereas we will probably have more depth at a comparable level of play.

bsaza2358
08-29-2006, 01:14 PM
Even if you disagree with BBD, you've gotta respect the time and thought he puts into his analysis...

Number 10
08-29-2006, 01:36 PM
Alright I will give my positional rankings for the NFC East

---QB
1-Eagles
2a-Giants
2b-Cowboys
4-Redskins

---RB

1-Giants
2-Redskins
3-Cowboys
4-Eagles

---WR

1-Cowboys
2a-Redskins
2b-Giants
4-Eagles

---TE

1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Redkins
4-Eagles

---OL

1-Redskins
2-Giants
3-Eagles
4-Cowboys

---DE

1-Giants
2-Eagles
3-Redskins
4-Cowboys

---DT/NT

1-Redskins
2-Eagles
3-Cowboys
4-Giants

---OLB

1-Cowboys
2-Giants
3-Redskins
4-Eagles

---MLB/ILB

1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Eagles
4-Redskins

---CB

1-Eagles
2-Cowboys
3-Redskins
4-Giants

---S

1-Redskins
2-Giants
3-Eagles
4-Cowboys

---K

1-Eagles
2a-Giants
2b-Redskins
4-Cowboys

---P

1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Redskins
4-Eagles

---Return Game

1-Eagles
2-Giants
3-Cowboys
4-Redskins

08-29-2006, 01:36 PM
Because Tiki was in a system that played to his stength while Portis wasn't.

They actually run very similar running plays. It is the passing game that differs between the two teams.

I was told that the giants use a cutback running game by one of you giants fans on here. If that is true there running plays are nothing alike.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 01:42 PM
Because Tiki was in a system that played to his stength while Portis wasn't.

They actually run very similar running plays. It is the passing game that differs between the two teams.

I was told that the giants use a cutback running game by one of you giants fans on here. If that is true there running plays are nothing alike.

A lot of plays are not designed for the cutback, but Tiki just has a knack for knowing where the defense will be and where they will not be.

bsaza2358
08-29-2006, 01:47 PM
#10: You have to give more credit to the Eagles O-Line and Safeties. I really think you missed on those rankings, especially with the Safeties. Dawkins and Lewis are arguably the best safety group in the league, and I think they're the best overall in the division. As for O-Line, I would argue they're in a second place tie with the Giants, but that's more a matter of opinion.

With regards to TE's, I think it goes Dallas with Witten, the Washington with Cooley, then Shockey and the Giants. You have to look at overall blocking as well as receiving. Witten is the most complete TE in the division, so I think Dallas is #1.

Jughead10
08-29-2006, 01:53 PM
#10: You have to give more credit to the Eagles O-Line and Safeties. I really think you missed on those rankings, especially with the Safeties. Dawkins and Lewis are arguably the best safety group in the league, and I think they're the best overall in the division. As for O-Line, I would argue they're in a second place tie with the Giants, but that's more a matter of opinion.

With regards to TE's, I think it goes Dallas with Witten, the Washington with Cooley, then Shockey and the Giants. You have to look at overall blocking as well as receiving. Witten is the most complete TE in the division, so I think Dallas is #1.

I gotta agree with this. The Eagles have the best safety tandem in our division and maybe in the NFC altogether. The O-line probably is a push. He might just rate the Giants better because he is used to seeing Strahan own Runyan. :lol: However Runyan is very good in his own right, when not matched up against Strahan.

As far as TE I still have to go with Shockey. Witten is the better blocker but I think everyone is severely underrating Shockey's blocking ability. He isn't the greatest but he is not nearly as bad as everyone thinks. Shockey is such an atheltic freak and great receiver that I think sometimes people just assume he isn't a good blocker when that really isn't the case. Especially not anymore. If we are talking about his rookie season 4 years ago then that is a different story. Coughlin has definately made him a better blocker where Fassel used to just let him do whatever he wanted.

Dillen
08-29-2006, 01:57 PM
---OL
1-Redskins
2-Giants
3-Eagles
4-Cowboys

---MLB/ILB
1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Eagles
4-Redskins


---S
1-Redskins
2-Giants
3-Eagles
4-Cowboys

---P
1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Redskins
4-Eagles

---Return Game
1-Eagles
2-Giants
3-Cowboys
4-Redskins
I agree with everything you did except these.

For OL, I'd put Giants and Eagles 2a and 2b. I think the Eagles starters are better than or have the potential to be better than the Giants line, except all the guys on the Giants are proven to be good.

I'd put the Eagles at 2 or 2a and 2b with the Cowboys MLBs. Bradie James is good but Akin Ayodele is horrible overrated IMO. Trotter is great at stopping the run, and although he isnt a good pass defender, he's taken out in nickel and dime anyways so it doesnt matter as much as it should. Gaither is a real good backup.

I'd put the Eagles as the best safeties in the division, or atleast tied. Adam Archuleta is horribly overrated. He's a watered down version of Michael Lewis, with a bit more playmaking ability. Archuleta is even worse in coverage than Lewis. For the Giants' safeties, Gibril Wilson is real good but I dont understand the hype of Will Demps. He was never that good in Baltimore.

Dirk Johnson is worlds better than Derrick Frost, and Johnson has never been 100% healthy as an Eagle. The stats dont really show it though. Frost has a career 40.2 yard average, with 36 yard net. Dirk has a career 41.2 yard average with a 36.4 net. Frost's average in the preseason is 40.7, and Dirk's is 43.1 yards. Dirk is looking real good.

I dont think the Eagles deserve the #1 return game. If Westbrook was there, than yes but he doesnt return anymore. Bruce Perry is/was the KR but will be cut. JR Reed was a great returner in his rookie year before he tore his perenneal nerve and doesnt seem to have the same explosiveness. Bloom looked good with something like 3 returns, but he's injured and is likely on IR to stash him away for the seasno. Reno is a good PR because he's really sure handed, but has no explosiveness whatsoever even though he led the league in yards per return last year.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 02:00 PM
#10: You have to give more credit to the Eagles O-Line and Safeties. I really think you missed on those rankings, especially with the Safeties. Dawkins and Lewis are arguably the best safety group in the league, and I think they're the best overall in the division. As for O-Line, I would argue they're in a second place tie with the Giants, but that's more a matter of opinion.

With regards to TE's, I think it goes Dallas with Witten, the Washington with Cooley, then Shockey and the Giants. You have to look at overall blocking as well as receiving. Witten is the most complete TE in the division, so I think Dallas is #1.

Safeties---

The Eagles could very well end up being the best in the division, but here is how I approached it. Dawkins vs. Taylor=Taylor wins. Taylor is one of the most supreme freaks in the NFL and his mental side of coverage really came on towards the end of last year. Lewis vs. Archuletta= Tie. I have never liked Lewis and other than his ability to play well in the box, I think he does not have as much to offer as Arch does. Arch is overrated by many of the 'Skins fans on this board because I am very unimpressed with his coverage skills as well. However, he will thrive in the Williams system with his ability to play the the run and blitz, two things Williams loves in his strong safety scheme. If anything, you could call it a tie overall but because I think Taylor is better than Dawkins, I have to give the edge to the 'Skins.

Offensive line....I am interested to see how their OTs play. Plus Andrews, although I really like him, needs to prove that his weaknesses have decreased. The Giants have two guards that have pro bowl aspirations along with a RT that could be considered the best run blocking OT in the division. They have massive depth all over the place and that was the thing that gave them the edge in my book.

And Cooley over Shockey? No way. I can see the Witten over Shockey debate but that has been argued many times over and it always comes down to a draw.

Modano
08-29-2006, 02:35 PM
So Vanderjagt is not better than Feely, Akers and Hall?

I know tha Vanderjagt is a jerk and missed that FG againts Pittsburgh, but he's still one of the best kickers in the league. Feely was very inconsistent in Atlanta and he had a good season last year, that's all.. John Hall is nothing special.. The only one who can be better than Vanderjagt is Akers.. But no way the cowboys have the worst kicker in the division..not anymore..

Jughead10
08-29-2006, 02:36 PM
So Vanderjagt is not better than Feely, Akers and Hall?

I know tha Vanderjagt is a jerk and missed that FG againts Pittsburgh, but he's still one of the best kickers in the league. Feely was very inconsistent in Atlanta and he had a good season last year, that's all.. John Hall is nothing special.. The only one who can be better than Vanderjagt is Akers.. But no way the cowboys have the worst kicker in the division..not anymore..

I thought Vanderjagt might not even make the team.

Modano
08-29-2006, 02:49 PM
So Vanderjagt is not better than Feely, Akers and Hall?

I know tha Vanderjagt is a jerk and missed that FG againts Pittsburgh, but he's still one of the best kickers in the league. Feely was very inconsistent in Atlanta and he had a good season last year, that's all.. John Hall is nothing special.. The only one who can be better than Vanderjagt is Akers.. But no way the cowboys have the worst kicker in the division..not anymore..

I thought Vanderjagt might not even make the team.

I don't.

Vanderjagt will get all the Cowboys field goals this year, unless a meteor strikes him or he really hurts the groin trying to rush his rehab

This is a pretty good point from the Boys Blog..

Canadian_kid16
08-29-2006, 03:04 PM
Anyone who says the Eagles don't have the best safety tandem in the entire league should not be here. I have to say that DAwkins is better than Taylor because IMO, Dawkins has the nuances of playing FS down pat, while Taylor relys more on his athleticm... Michael LEwis is an abosolute best, he can play in coverage and he hits like a tank...The eagles have the best safety tandem in the League...

SeanTaylorRIP
08-29-2006, 03:11 PM
HERE'S MY TAKE ON YOUR RANKINGS

Alright I will give my positional rankings for the NFC East

---QB
1-Eagles
2a-Giants
2b-Cowboys
4-Redskins
I would just have Giants 2 alone, Eli over Bledsoe and Romo anyday, although behind Eli there isn't any depth at all.
---RB

1-Giants
2-Redskins
3-Cowboys
4-Eagles
Tiki Barber, Brandon Jacobs, Jim Finn. Clinton Portis, T.J. Duckett, Ladell Betts, Mike Sellers, skins take RB for sure.
---WR

1-Cowboys
2a-Redskins
2b-Giants
4-Eagles
Pretty much agree here, although without TO Cowboys drop bellow the Skins and Giants. Actually even with TO I would have a 3 way tie with the Skins and Giants having a slight edge over the boys because even with TO you know something during the season is gonna happen.
---TE

1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Redkins
4-Eagles
My personal opinion I would have Witten over Shockey but I'm ok with these ratings.
---OL

1-Redskins
2-Giants
3-Eagles
4-Cowboys
Giants O-Line shouldn't be #2.
---DE

1-Giants
2-Eagles
3-Redskins
4-Cowboys
Obvious Giants have top DE' with 4 studs.
---DT/NT

1-Redskins
2-Eagles
3-Cowboys
4-Giants
Happy to see someone like the interior tandem of pro bowl caliber Cornelius Griffin and Salavea, although Eagles would be my #1.
---OLB

1-Cowboys
2-Giants
3-Redskins
4-Eagles
Yeah, but LaVar is probably gonna suck although Antonio Pierce is the man, but Marcus Washington and Rocky Mcintosh are nothing to sleep on.
---MLB/ILB

1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Eagles
4-Redskins
Eagles should be #1 Trotter is better than Pierce.
---CB

1-Eagles
2-Cowboys
3-Redskins
4-Giants
I agree with these rankings.
---S

1-Redskins
2-Giants
3-Eagles
4-Cowboys
Safety Rankings are way off, Giants are in last place in terms of safeties. Skins and Eagles 1a and 1B, Cowboys next with Roy Williams, and Giants #2, Cmon. For everyone who says Adam Archuleta sucks in coverage Will Demps is horrible in coverage, he's nice on the run but with Baltimore he was getting burned deep all day, he always left Rolle and Reed on an island alone.
---K

1-Eagles
2a-Giants
2b-Redskins
4-Cowboys
I would have Vanderjagt over John Hall anyday, please skins sign a new kicker!
---P

1-Giants
2-Cowboys
3-Redskins
4-Eagles
Derrick Frost is crap, I hate him so I will gladly accept the skins being 4th.
---Return Game

1-Eagles
2-Giants
3-Cowboys
4-Redskins
This is how the rankings should really go for return game:
1)Redskins
2)Cowboys
3)Eagles
4)Giants:Chad Morton is horrible now.

DMWSackMachine
08-29-2006, 03:44 PM
Not to be an ass or anything, but the topic of the thread is the best OFFENSE in the division. We have already had a huge thread devoted to these different defensive arguments, most of which ended up playing out the same way that this thread has started to turn in the last page or so. Is it just me, or isn't this what we have mods for?

draftguru151
08-29-2006, 03:45 PM
Not to be an ass or anything, but the topic of the thread is the best OFFENSE in the division. We have already had a huge thread devoted to these different defensive arguments, most of which ended up playing out the same way that this thread has started to turn in the last page or so. Is it just me, or isn't this what we have mods for?

:? A thread doesn't need to be locked if the subject is changed.

eacantdraft
08-29-2006, 03:50 PM
The Giants have the best offensive unit. The most balanced. Eli still has a way to go before he equals his big brother or Big Ben.

Washington had trouble scoring last season. Philadelphia is very one dimentional on offense. Dallas has Drew Bledsoe, enough said.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 03:58 PM
The Giants have the best offensive unit. The most balanced. Eli still has a way to go before he equals his big brother or Big Ben.

Washington had trouble scoring last season. Philadelphia is very one dimentional on offense. Dallas has Drew Bledsoe, enough said.

What does that even mean?

As for Eli, his accuracy has not improved according to TC stories and watching him in Preseason, I think he is going to be exposed this year.

Dillen
08-29-2006, 04:00 PM
I dont understand why everyone thinks the Eagles are so one dimensional and REFUSE to call running plays. Under Andy Reid, the Eagles offense has always been about 55% pass, 45% run except last year.

SeanTaylorRIP
08-29-2006, 04:04 PM
It's yet to be seen if Westbrook can hold up as an all down back like Deuce Staley did.

Dillen
08-29-2006, 04:10 PM
Duce wasnt a guy who never got injured. He was injured quite a bit prior to 2003 when the Eagles used 3 RBs.

The Eagles have 4 guys that will run the ball, 5 if you include McNabb. An injury to Westbrook would hurt definitely, but he isnt completely irreplacable.

bigbluedefense
08-29-2006, 04:10 PM
The Giants have the best offensive unit. The most balanced. Eli still has a way to go before he equals his big brother or Big Ben.

Washington had trouble scoring last season. Philadelphia is very one dimentional on offense. Dallas has Drew Bledsoe, enough said.

What does that even mean?

As for Eli, his accuracy has not improved according to TC stories and watching him in Preseason, I think he is going to be exposed this year.

Huh? All camp reports indicate he's dramatically improved his accuracy. And outside the Jets game, he's shown it in PS as well. In fact, his completion % wouldve been around 60% against the Jets had it not been for

1. 2 dropped passes
2. A catch and fumble by Burress that they ruled incomplete
3. A pass off his WR's hands into a DB's for an INT

bigbluedefense
08-29-2006, 04:14 PM
The eagles will be much more effective running the ball this year compared to last year. They still won't run as much as they should, but it will be improved.

They got LJ, Westbrook, and now Stallworth in the pass game coupled with McNabb's feet.

And if you haven't noticed...theyve been kicking a$$ in PS.

DO NOT sleep on the Eagles...this team is hungry to prove everyone wrong. And they got their swagger back.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 04:29 PM
The Giants have the best offensive unit. The most balanced. Eli still has a way to go before he equals his big brother or Big Ben.

Washington had trouble scoring last season. Philadelphia is very one dimentional on offense. Dallas has Drew Bledsoe, enough said.

What does that even mean?

As for Eli, his accuracy has not improved according to TC stories and watching him in Preseason, I think he is going to be exposed this year.

Which TC stories have you heard? Eli's accuracy in numbers this year shattered his accuracy numbers in last year's training camp.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 04:34 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 04:38 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

I would like to hear where these reports are coming from. The Giants keep a recording on every single pass thrown in camp and Eli's numbers accuracy wise were far and away better, not a little better.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 04:48 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

I would like to hear where these reports are coming from. The Giants keep a recording on every single pass thrown in camp and Eli's numbers accuracy wise were far and away better, not a little better.

I think what they mean is, Eli will look like a pro bowler one day and then the next day in camp he will be inconsistant again. Perhaps this is why they believe he is a little better, thats all I can think of. I have heard stories of how some days in camp Eli looks downright amazing and somedays he stuggled. So, perhaps some scouts outside of the Giants have a difficult time making a fair assessment on him.

I guess I'll agree with you in saying his accuracy has improved because, it seems as though the good reports out weigh the bad but, i'm still far from sold on Eli.

cunningham06
08-29-2006, 04:49 PM
The eagles will be much more effective running the ball this year compared to last year. They still won't run as much as they should, but it will be improved.

They got LJ, Westbrook, and now Stallworth in the pass game coupled with McNabb's feet.

And if you haven't noticed...theyve been kicking a$$ in PS.

DO NOT sleep on the Eagles...this team is hungry to prove everyone wrong. And they got their swagger back.

SHHHHH!!! Don't clue people into the fact that the Eagles outscored the Superbowl Champions in the first half when the starters were actually playing without their starting RB. I want to see this team surprise people.

Go_Eli
08-29-2006, 05:00 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

Redskin, Cowboy, or Eagles fans telling you that?

And btw...who exactly is overrating Eli Manning? Knowledge Giant fans aren't, knowledge NFL fans, and the media sure aren't. So who exactly is?

DMWSackMachine
08-29-2006, 05:08 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

Redskin, Cowboy, or Eagles fans telling you that?

And btw...who exactly is overrating Eli Manning? Knowledge Giant fans aren't, knowledge NFL fans, and the media sure aren't. So who exactly is?

Go_Eli everyone! Everyone give him a round of applause! :lol:


.....In unrelated knews, reports out of Jersey have a pot calling a kettle black.....

bigbluedefense
08-29-2006, 05:08 PM
How on Earth has Dallas's Poll results skyrocketed? They were a distant 3rd just like 2 hours ago...now they have the most votes? How did that happen in a span of 2 hours?

Ward
08-29-2006, 05:09 PM
How on Earth has Dallas's Poll results skyrocketed? They were a distant 3rd just like 2 hours ago...now they have the most votes? How did that happen in a span of 2 hours?

Polls here can be easily manipulated.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 05:09 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

I would like to hear where these reports are coming from. The Giants keep a recording on every single pass thrown in camp and Eli's numbers accuracy wise were far and away better, not a little better.

I think what they mean is, Eli will look like a pro bowler one day and then the next day in camp he will be inconsistant again. Perhaps this is why they believe he is a little better, thats all I can think of. I have heard stories of how some days in camp Eli looks downright amazing and somedays he stuggled. So, perhaps some scouts outside of the Giants have a difficult time making a fair assessment on him.

I guess I'll agree with you in saying his accuracy has improved because, it seems as though the good reports out weigh the bad but, i'm still far from sold on Eli.

So what you're saying is that he is a young QB that is still progressing? Isn't exactly anything new. Of course he is going to have his good games, and then everyone will jump on his banwagon, and then he will have his bad games, where everyone call him a bust.

Point remains, to say he has not improved in training camp is bogus and either you made that up or someone who told you that made it up. Facts are, he had a much better camp this year than last year and he should improve his numbers this season in comparison to last season.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 05:10 PM
How on Earth has Dallas's Poll results skyrocketed? They were a distant 3rd just like 2 hours ago...now they have the most votes? How did that happen in a span of 2 hours?

You honestly couldn't figure out how?

Ward
08-29-2006, 05:13 PM
I imagine the coward Texico (who's been deleted) is responsible. He bragged to me about have 50+ accounts. So if there's any poll that's ridiculously Cowboy favored, blame that coward.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 05:15 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

Redskin, Cowboy, or Eagles fans telling you that?

And btw...who exactly is overrating Eli Manning? Knowledge Giant fans aren't, knowledge NFL fans, and the media sure aren't. So who exactly is?

Are you kidding? Eli is so grossly overrated it is ridiculous now, there are even so called experts out there that say he is better than Peyton. It's a joke, he has not done anything to show that he is a top QB except throw for a lot of yards and the only reason he did that was because he had Plax catching all his high passes and Tiki catching screens and swings all game. If he didnt have Plax, he wouldnt have thrown for 50% last year and yet some how he is mentioned in the top tier of Qb's now, it doesnt make any sense. Eli, is also terribly overrated among Giants fans on this board, how you can rank him higher than Mccnabb or Bledsoe? You take Bledsoe's and Manning's numbers from last year, all Eli has on him is yards and it's not by many. Eventhough Bledsoe has the additions of a brand new line and arguably the best WR in the league ,T.O., Giants fans will still rank Eli higher :? not very logical at all.

cunningham06
08-29-2006, 05:17 PM
I imagine the coward Texico (who's been deleted) is responsible. He bragged to me about have 50+ accounts. So if there's any poll that's ridiculously Cowboy favored, blame that coward.

ahh that explains why all of the all nfldc player teams were so favored towards the Cowboys. Oh well, I had already had enough of his Who's the Best Player in [insert franchise] history? topics.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 05:19 PM
How on Earth has Dallas's Poll results skyrocketed? They were a distant 3rd just like 2 hours ago...now they have the most votes? How did that happen in a span of 2 hours?

Same thing happened when we were doing that all NFLDC team for LG. Larry Allen was last and then in like a minute he got 20 votes out of knowhere.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 05:22 PM
Well, I've heard differently about Eli, I've heard at times he has looked sharp but, accuracy wise he looks about the same or a little better than last year. The odd thing is, every Giant report about him says he's much improved but, then you go outside of that and other scouts are saying he looks exactly the same and he tends to stare certain guys down. I personally believe Eli, is the most overrated QB in the NFL, I do however believe he will be phenominal one day. I guess you could say the jury is still out on him for this year, Giants say one thing and NFC East scouts say something else, I guess we will see as the regular season comes around.

Redskin, Cowboy, or Eagles fans telling you that?

And btw...who exactly is overrating Eli Manning? Knowledge Giant fans aren't, knowledge NFL fans, and the media sure aren't. So who exactly is?

Are you kidding? Eli is so grossly overrated it is ridiculous now, there are even so called experts out there that say he is better than Peyton. It's a joke, he has not done anything to show that he is a top QB except throw for a lot of yards and the only reason he did that was because he had Plax catching all his high passes and Tiki catching screens and swings all game. If he didnt have Plax, he wouldnt have thrown for 50% last year and yet some how he is mentioned in the top tier of Qb's now, it doesnt make any sense. Eli, is also terribly overrated among Giants fans on this board, how you can rank him higher than Mccnabb or Bledsoe? You take Bledsoe's and Manning's numbers from last year, all Eli has on him is yards and it's not by many. Eventhough Bledsoe has the additions of a brand new line and arguably the best WR in the league ,T.O., Giants fans will still rank Eli higher :? not very logical at all.

Oh brother.

Show me where anyone with credibility ranks Eli over Peyton. Then do with the same with McNabb. Bledsoe and Eli is debatable according to some Cowboys fans.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 05:33 PM
Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 05:42 PM
Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

There is not a single credible poster here that would place Eli anywhere close to the elite QBs in the league. Many will put him in the top 10 and rightfully so. He led the Giants to an 11-5 record while winning the NFC East in his first season as a starter. He played exceptionally well late in games when his team needed him to come through. He went through flashes of absolute dominance but because he is young and green when it somes to the NFL, he will not be considered amonst the elite for awhile. Anyone that puts him in the top 5 is insane and I have yet to see anyone here do it. Please show me where credible sports analysts rank him in the elite class.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 05:59 PM
Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

There is not a single credible poster here that would place Eli anywhere close to the elite QBs in the league. Many will put him in the top 10 and rightfully so. He led the Giants to an 11-5 record while winning the NFC East in his first season as a starter. He played exceptionally well late in games when his team needed him to come through. He went through flashes of absolute dominance but because he is young and green when it somes to the NFL, he will not be considered amonst the elite for awhile. Anyone that puts him in the top 5 is insane and I have yet to see anyone here do it. Please show me where credible sports analysts rank him in the elite class.

I dont think I could find an actual link for you. Just try watching NFL Live, SC, or some kind of show like that, every now and then they'll rank the players and everyone seems to have Eli in the top 5-8 now a days. I'm done with this argument, we are not going to agree on anything. I'm just not as high on him as everyone is, a couple of years down the road, yeah he may be the best. As of of right now, I think too many people are overrating him based on the fact that he threw for so many yards last year, I believe he will have a really tough time and be the Giants downfall this season, we shall see.

I appreciate your thoughts and input.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 06:05 PM
Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

There is not a single credible poster here that would place Eli anywhere close to the elite QBs in the league. Many will put him in the top 10 and rightfully so. He led the Giants to an 11-5 record while winning the NFC East in his first season as a starter. He played exceptionally well late in games when his team needed him to come through. He went through flashes of absolute dominance but because he is young and green when it somes to the NFL, he will not be considered amonst the elite for awhile. Anyone that puts him in the top 5 is insane and I have yet to see anyone here do it. Please show me where credible sports analysts rank him in the elite class.

I dont think I could find an actual link for you. Just try watching NFL Live, SC, or some kind of show like that, every now and then they'll rank the players and everyone seems to have Eli in the top 5-8 now a days. I'm done with this argument, we are not going to agree on anything. I'm just not as high on him as everyone is, a couple of years down the road, yeah he may be the best. As of of right now, I think too many people are overrating him based on the fact that he threw for so many yards last year, I believe he will have a really tough time and be the Giants downfall this season, we shall see.

I appreciate your thoughts and input.

I watch those shows too and NONE OF THEM ever place Eli before Peyton, or any of the other elite QBs in the league. Some he may turn out to be better, but none of them say he is currently better. Ranking him in the top 8 is feasible, I have him between there and 10. I understand that you think he may be awful last year, but understand that your reasoning for calling him overrated is invalid.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 06:26 PM
Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

There is not a single credible poster here that would place Eli anywhere close to the elite QBs in the league. Many will put him in the top 10 and rightfully so. He led the Giants to an 11-5 record while winning the NFC East in his first season as a starter. He played exceptionally well late in games when his team needed him to come through. He went through flashes of absolute dominance but because he is young and green when it somes to the NFL, he will not be considered amonst the elite for awhile. Anyone that puts him in the top 5 is insane and I have yet to see anyone here do it. Please show me where credible sports analysts rank him in the elite class.

I dont think I could find an actual link for you. Just try watching NFL Live, SC, or some kind of show like that, every now and then they'll rank the players and everyone seems to have Eli in the top 5-8 now a days. I'm done with this argument, we are not going to agree on anything. I'm just not as high on him as everyone is, a couple of years down the road, yeah he may be the best. As of of right now, I think too many people are overrating him based on the fact that he threw for so many yards last year, I believe he will have a really tough time and be the Giants downfall this season, we shall see.

I appreciate your thoughts and input.

I watch those shows too and NONE OF THEM ever place Eli before Peyton, or any of the other elite QBs in the league. Some he may turn out to be better, but none of them say he is currently better. Ranking him in the top 8 is feasible, I have him between there and 10. I understand that you think he may be awful last year, but understand that your reasoning for calling him overrated is invalid.

I never said that they ranked him over Peyton, I thought I cleared that up. I've seen him ranked in the top 5 a couple of times and I do believe he is overrated, is he a top 10 Qb? I'm not even sure about that one, his accuracy was abysmal last season and despite his 60% comp. percentage in the preseason he hasnt looked overly impressive or anything. From what I gathered thus far is that he is still the inconsistant Qb he was a year ago, the first game he looked good, second game he looked great, and then the third game he didnt look so hot. Yes, he is probably improved himself in some areas and maybe I'm reading to much into his preseason play but, so far he doesnt look that much better or any more consistant than he was one season ago. Personally, I would take 10 Qb's maybe more in front of Eli at this point. Hey but, thats just me.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 06:55 PM
Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

There is not a single credible poster here that would place Eli anywhere close to the elite QBs in the league. Many will put him in the top 10 and rightfully so. He led the Giants to an 11-5 record while winning the NFC East in his first season as a starter. He played exceptionally well late in games when his team needed him to come through. He went through flashes of absolute dominance but because he is young and green when it somes to the NFL, he will not be considered amonst the elite for awhile. Anyone that puts him in the top 5 is insane and I have yet to see anyone here do it. Please show me where credible sports analysts rank him in the elite class.

I dont think I could find an actual link for you. Just try watching NFL Live, SC, or some kind of show like that, every now and then they'll rank the players and everyone seems to have Eli in the top 5-8 now a days. I'm done with this argument, we are not going to agree on anything. I'm just not as high on him as everyone is, a couple of years down the road, yeah he may be the best. As of of right now, I think too many people are overrating him based on the fact that he threw for so many yards last year, I believe he will have a really tough time and be the Giants downfall this season, we shall see.

I appreciate your thoughts and input.

I watch those shows too and NONE OF THEM ever place Eli before Peyton, or any of the other elite QBs in the league. Some he may turn out to be better, but none of them say he is currently better. Ranking him in the top 8 is feasible, I have him between there and 10. I understand that you think he may be awful last year, but understand that your reasoning for calling him overrated is invalid.

I never said that they ranked him over Peyton, I thought I cleared that up. I've seen him ranked in the top 5 a couple of times and I do believe he is overrated, is he a top 10 Qb? I'm not even sure about that one, his accuracy was abysmal last season and despite his 60% comp. percentage in the preseason he hasnt looked overly impressive or anything. From what I gathered thus far is that he is still the inconsistant Qb he was a year ago, the first game he looked good, second game he looked great, and then the third game he didnt look so hot. Yes, he is probably improved himself in some areas and maybe I'm reading to much into his preseason play but, so far he doesnt look that much better or any more consistant than he was one season ago. Personally, I would take 10 Qb's maybe more in front of Eli at this point. Hey but, thats just me.

Name them. And reasons why.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 07:06 PM
I find it pointless to give you indivisual explanations on each player. Just look at what they have done in the league and there is no way you can rank Eli higher than any of these guys.

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Carson Palmer
4. Matt Hasselback
5. Trent Green
6. Donavan Mcnabb
7. Jake Delhomme
8. Drew Bledsoe
9. Kurt Warner
10. Daunte Culpepper

Look at every Qb here, all have exceptional completion percentages and they all read defenses with ease. I dont know how you can make an argument that Eli is better than any of these Qbs right now.

draftguru151
08-29-2006, 07:30 PM
I would take Kurt off of that and add Big Ben.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 07:33 PM
I would take Kurt off of that and add Big Ben.

i totally spaced on Big Ben but, I'm just saying there are atleast 10 Qbs better than Eli out there.

Number 10
08-29-2006, 11:37 PM
I find it pointless to give you indivisual explanations on each player. Just look at what they have done in the league and there is no way you can rank Eli higher than any of these guys.

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Carson Palmer
4. Matt Hasselback
5. Trent Green
6. Donavan Mcnabb
7. Jake Delhomme
8. Drew Bledsoe
9. Kurt Warner
10. Daunte Culpepper

Look at every Qb here, all have exceptional completion percentages and they all read defenses with ease. I dont know how you can make an argument that Eli is better than any of these Qbs right now.

1-7 is fine.

-Bledsoe vs. Eli has been debated here so many times, ugh. Basically it comes down to the fact that Eli is on his way up, Bledsoe is not. Yes, Bledsoe is more accurate and may even have a better arm, but Eli has the moxy and pocket presence already that Bledsoe does not. I would, as would many other NFL fans, take Eli in a tight spot at the end of a game over Bledsoe any day of the week.

-Kurt Warner? He was benched in New York because of Eli. He is more inconsistent than Eli and despite having monster weapons in Arizona, he can't put together a solid season.

-Daunte Culpepper was one of, if not the worst starting QB in the league when he got hurt last season. I watched 3 of their films and the decisions he made were mind boggling at times. Add his torn up knee into the debate and you can't convince me that he is the QB that threw 40+ TDs. It seems to me that you are living in the past which is unfair because Eli has one full season as a starter.

M.O.T.H.
08-29-2006, 11:50 PM
I find it pointless to give you indivisual explanations on each player. Just look at what they have done in the league and there is no way you can rank Eli higher than any of these guys.

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Carson Palmer
4. Matt Hasselback
5. Trent Green
6. Donavan Mcnabb
7. Jake Delhomme
8. Drew Bledsoe
9. Kurt Warner
10. Daunte Culpepper

Look at every Qb here, all have exceptional completion percentages and they all read defenses with ease. I dont know how you can make an argument that Eli is better than any of these Qbs right now.

1-7 is fine.

-Bledsoe vs. Eli has been debated here so many times, ugh. Basically it comes down to the fact that Eli is on his way up, Bledsoe is not. Yes, Bledsoe is more accurate and may even have a better arm, but Eli has the moxy and pocket presence already that Bledsoe does not. I would, as would many other NFL fans, take Eli in a tight spot at the end of a game over Bledsoe any day of the week.

-Kurt Warner? He was benched in New York because of Eli. He is more inconsistent than Eli and despite having monster weapons in Arizona, he can't put together a solid season.

-Daunte Culpepper was one of, if not the worst starting QB in the league when he got hurt last season. I watched 3 of their films and the decisions he made were mind boggling at times. Add his torn up knee into the debate and you can't convince me that he is the QB that threw 40+ TDs. It seems to me that you are living in the past which is unfair because Eli has one full season as a starter.

Kurt Warner is not inconsistant, he played in only 10 games last season and averaged 273 yards per game and completed an excellent 65%. Warner is one of the most accurate QB's in NFL history, he is far from inconsistant. He just has been injured a lot lately, when healthy he is better than Eli.

I disagree with Daunte, He threw 8 ints in the first two games after that he started to calm down and was playing much better. It didnt help that he was being sacked every time he got the ball, didnt he get sacked 9 times in one game last year? I believe he was sacked like 31 times in 7 games, that is just mind boggling. Anyway, prior to injury he started to look more like himself again, he did finish the year completing 65% of his passes. Once again, i believe when healthy he is better than Eli.

Go_Eli
08-30-2006, 08:58 AM
The thing about the pundits on ESPN is whenever they talk about Eli Manning, they seem to always say he could be a good QB, but he has to put it together and some doubt him.

But none that I've seen have ever said that Eli Manning has it all figured out and will be the best QB in the NFL next year. No one is saying that about Manning.

So again, how exactly is he overrated if everyone thinks he's still a year away?

M.O.T.H.
08-30-2006, 09:05 AM
The thing about the pundits on ESPN is whenever they talk about Eli Manning, they seem to always say he could be a good QB, but he has to put it together and some doubt him.

But none that I've seen have ever said that Eli Manning has it all figured out and will be the best QB in the NFL next year. No one is saying that about Manning.

So again, how exactly is he overrated if everyone thinks he's still a year away?

Just read a little bit. I believe even putting Eli in the top ten is overrating him and that is where most people have him. He has nothing on any of the Qb's I mentioned in front of him. Therefore he is overrated. At this point Eli is nothing more than a fantasy football Qb, he gets you lots of yards and a TD here and there but, thats it. I dont think you can make a logical argument that Eli, deserves to be ranked higher than any of these guys.

Jughead10
08-30-2006, 09:16 AM
The thing about the pundits on ESPN is whenever they talk about Eli Manning, they seem to always say he could be a good QB, but he has to put it together and some doubt him.

But none that I've seen have ever said that Eli Manning has it all figured out and will be the best QB in the NFL next year. No one is saying that about Manning.

So again, how exactly is he overrated if everyone thinks he's still a year away?

Just read a little bit. I believe even putting Eli in the top ten is overrating him and that is where most people have him. He has nothing on any of the Qb's I mentioned in front of him. Therefore he is overrated. At this point Eli is nothing more than a fantasy football Qb, he gets you lots of yards and a TD here and there but, thats it. I dont think you can make a logical argument that Eli, deserves to be ranked higher than any of these guys.

I would still put him above 8-10 on that list. I'd probably rank him exactly at 10. With Big Ben and a healthy Drew Brees ahead of him.

draftguru151
08-30-2006, 09:32 AM
Eli being better than Daunte is laughable. No one could have played well in that situation in Minnesota last season. Eli is a good player and is on his way up, but he isn't there yet. I don't see him in that top 10 area, more in that 11-15 area.

Jughead10
08-30-2006, 09:37 AM
I could see why many would put Culpepper ahead of Eli. I wouldn't. More because I'm not a fan of Culpepper rather than what I think Eli can do. Culpepper is a turnover machine. He is lucky they don't account for fumbles in a QB rating.

DMWSackMachine
08-30-2006, 10:42 AM
-Bledsoe vs. Eli has been debated here so many times, ugh. Basically it comes down to the fact that Eli is on his way up, Bledsoe is not. Yes, Bledsoe is more accurate and may even have a better arm, but Eli has the moxy and pocket presence already that Bledsoe does not. I would, as would many other NFL fans, take Eli in a tight spot at the end of a game over Bledsoe any day of the week.

And you would probably lose any day of the week, as well. This is one of the major overlooked factors from last year. Drew Bledsoe led 4th quarter/OT drives to either win the game or put his team in position to win it in week 1- at San Diego; week 3 at San Francisco; week 6 vs. NYG; week 10 at Philly; week 12 vs. Denver; week 14 vs. KC; and week 16 at Carolina. In each of these games, Bledsoe found himself in a tightly contested game (or way behind in a couple of them) and pulled his team around him to drive them down the field and get the winning points.

Yet what is the most prominent visual image in people's minds about him? The interception thrown against Seattle that set them up for a 50+ yard field goal in the ran and the slush that somehow Josh Brown drilled (his second of the game, the only such occurrence in the NFL in 06) as time expired to win it. This is the crap that Bledsoe has to put up with. Meanwhile, what do people remember the most about Eli? Probably the Denver game where he threw that last second TD with a guy in his face to win it, after they had been down the entire game. Funny really.

I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys. I know that Eli is on the up swing, and that he very well might be a top QB in years to come, but there is no doubt that he has not currently done enough to deserve mention in the top 10, or probably even 15 QBs in this league. The stats bear that out, and if you want to use the "winning" argument, then you must also recognize that the combo of Byron Leftwich and Garrard are better than he is, because they won more games. Oh, and Kyle Orton is just as good, too.

Or you could just say, "You know what? Eli has looked great at times, and has a lot of promise, but I think I'm just going to wait for him to prove himself before I start touting him as one of the top QBs in the game". Then people would be much less likely to call you a homer. Here's my list of players that are better than Eli based upon what they have accomplished, given that they are healthy:

(in no particular order)
Peyton
Brady
Hasselbeck
Palmer
Bledsoe
Bulger
McNabb
Plummer
Brees
Green
Culpepper
Pennington
Roethlisberger

And then the players that are roughly on the same level:

Leftwich
Carr
McNair
Warner


I would list Brunell, based upon what he did last season, but he is D-U-N. He doesn't deserve to be anywhere near a list like this right now.

Number 10
08-30-2006, 11:15 AM
Hm.

Can you show me where I say Eli is amongst the top QBs in the league? Saying he is top 10 is hardly the same as saying he is one of the top QBs in the league. What's with you guys and making things up to make your point seem stronger? If Giants fans were the only ones that felt this way about Eli, than you could be under the assumption that you have a point. But numerous fans around the league that actually watch Eli play more than twice a year tag him as a top 10 QB. I have been one of the more critical fans of Eli compared to some other fans and I know that he is still a ways away from being a top notch QB, but too many people fail to realize how solid he was in the first half until he got worn out and his targets started to get hurt.

M.O.T.H.
08-30-2006, 11:28 AM
Hm.

Can you show me where I say Eli is amongst the top QBs in the league? Saying he is top 10 is hardly the same as saying he is one of the top QBs in the league. What's with you guys and making things up to make your point seem stronger? If Giants fans were the only ones that felt this way about Eli, than you could be under the assumption that you have a point. But numerous fans around the league that actually watch Eli play more than twice a year tag him as a top 10 QB. I have been one of the more critical fans of Eli compared to some other fans and I know that he is still a ways away from being a top notch QB, but too many people fail to realize how solid he was in the first half until he got worn out and his targets started to get hurt.

He was pretty inconsistant all season, maybe you should check out his 05, game log.

Number 10
08-30-2006, 12:26 PM
Hm.

Can you show me where I say Eli is amongst the top QBs in the league? Saying he is top 10 is hardly the same as saying he is one of the top QBs in the league. What's with you guys and making things up to make your point seem stronger? If Giants fans were the only ones that felt this way about Eli, than you could be under the assumption that you have a point. But numerous fans around the league that actually watch Eli play more than twice a year tag him as a top 10 QB. I have been one of the more critical fans of Eli compared to some other fans and I know that he is still a ways away from being a top notch QB, but too many people fail to realize how solid he was in the first half until he got worn out and his targets started to get hurt.

He was pretty inconsistant all season, maybe you should check out his 05, game log.

He was CLEARLY better in the first half. He had a bad game against the 'Skins, but the rest of the first 8 games were from average to above average.

And who are you to talk about inconistency? Bledsoe was the model of consistency in the first half and you could use the excuse for Eli that he was a first year starter.

Jughead10
08-30-2006, 12:56 PM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

DMWSackMachine
08-30-2006, 03:51 PM
Hm.

Can you show me where I say Eli is amongst the top QBs in the league? Saying he is top 10 is hardly the same as saying he is one of the top QBs in the league. What's with you guys and making things up to make your point seem stronger? If Giants fans were the only ones that felt this way about Eli, than you could be under the assumption that you have a point. But numerous fans around the league that actually watch Eli play more than twice a year tag him as a top 10 QB. I have been one of the more critical fans of Eli compared to some other fans and I know that he is still a ways away from being a top notch QB, but too many people fail to realize how solid he was in the first half until he got worn out and his targets started to get hurt.

So now you want to argue semantics, eh? There are upwards of 100 QBs currently "in" the NFL. Just being good enough to start marks you as somewhere in the top 25-35%, so that would be at least a "good" QB, which Eli is. But if you are in the top 8 or 9 percent of all QBs, that means you are among the best. At least it would mean that to me. Usually the word "elite" denotes the very cream of the cream, which has not been used. Anyway, regardless of what sophistrical manuevering you want to make, Eli is not among the top 10 anyhow. By the end of this season, he might clearly be. But right now there is no way that you can prove it. Stats don't show it. Neither do wins (unless we want to argue that Kyle Orton is in the top 10 as well). He sure doesn't have as much on his resume as some of these other top guys. I don't know how you would argue it.

Oh, and please, for your sake, don't try to patronize me with the "have watched him play" argument that all fans use to try and ward off critics from their players. I owned him in my experts league last year, and I lived and died by how he played. As you should know, I ended up dead.

Number 10
08-30-2006, 03:56 PM
Hm.

Can you show me where I say Eli is amongst the top QBs in the league? Saying he is top 10 is hardly the same as saying he is one of the top QBs in the league. What's with you guys and making things up to make your point seem stronger? If Giants fans were the only ones that felt this way about Eli, than you could be under the assumption that you have a point. But numerous fans around the league that actually watch Eli play more than twice a year tag him as a top 10 QB. I have been one of the more critical fans of Eli compared to some other fans and I know that he is still a ways away from being a top notch QB, but too many people fail to realize how solid he was in the first half until he got worn out and his targets started to get hurt.

So now you want to argue semantics, eh? There are upwards of 100 QBs currently "in" the NFL. Just being good enough to start marks you as somewhere in the top 25-35%, so that would be at least a "good" QB, which Eli is. But if you are in the top 8 or 9 percent of all QBs, that means you are among the best. At least it would mean that to me. Usually the word "elite" denotes the very cream of the cream, which has not been used. Anyway, regardless of what sophistrical manuevering you want to make, Eli is not among the top 10 anyhow. By the end of this season, he might clearly be. But right now there is no way that you can prove it. Stats don't show it. Neither do wins (unless we want to argue that Kyle Orton is in the top 10 as well). He sure doesn't have as much on his resume as some of these other top guys. I don't know how you would argue it.

Oh, and please, for your sake, don't try to patronize me with the "have watched him play" argument that all fans use to try and ward off critics from their players. I owned him in my experts league last year, and I lived and died by how he played. As you should know, I ended up dead.

The elite QBs are usually the top 3-5 QBs in the league, which Eli is not close to, enough said. And the Eli-Orton debate is one of the weakest debates you could think of because Eli had a combination of wins, clutch play, and stats. And I base my rankings on who I would rather have for this upcoming season and if that irks you, then so be it. But I'll take Eli over Warner, Bledsoe and Big Ben for the 2006 season.

bigbluedefense
08-30-2006, 03:58 PM
-Bledsoe vs. Eli has been debated here so many times, ugh. Basically it comes down to the fact that Eli is on his way up, Bledsoe is not. Yes, Bledsoe is more accurate and may even have a better arm, but Eli has the moxy and pocket presence already that Bledsoe does not. I would, as would many other NFL fans, take Eli in a tight spot at the end of a game over Bledsoe any day of the week.

And you would probably lose any day of the week, as well. This is one of the major overlooked factors from last year. Drew Bledsoe led 4th quarter/OT drives to either win the game or put his team in position to win it in week 1- at San Diego; week 3 at San Francisco; week 6 vs. NYG; week 10 at Philly; week 12 vs. Denver; week 14 vs. KC; and week 16 at Carolina. In each of these games, Bledsoe found himself in a tightly contested game (or way behind in a couple of them) and pulled his team around him to drive them down the field and get the winning points.

Yet what is the most prominent visual image in people's minds about him? The interception thrown against Seattle that set them up for a 50+ yard field goal in the ran and the slush that somehow Josh Brown drilled (his second of the game, the only such occurrence in the NFL in 06) as time expired to win it. This is the crap that Bledsoe has to put up with. Meanwhile, what do people remember the most about Eli? Probably the Denver game where he threw that last second TD with a guy in his face to win it, after they had been down the entire game. Funny really.

I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys. I know that Eli is on the up swing, and that he very well might be a top QB in years to come, but there is no doubt that he has not currently done enough to deserve mention in the top 10, or probably even 15 QBs in this league. The stats bear that out, and if you want to use the "winning" argument, then you must also recognize that the combo of Byron Leftwich and Garrard are better than he is, because they won more games. Oh, and Kyle Orton is just as good, too.

Or you could just say, "You know what? Eli has looked great at times, and has a lot of promise, but I think I'm just going to wait for him to prove himself before I start touting him as one of the top QBs in the game". Then people would be much less likely to call you a homer. Here's my list of players that are better than Eli based upon what they have accomplished, given that they are healthy:

(in no particular order)
Peyton
Brady
Hasselbeck
Palmer
Bledsoe
Bulger
McNabb
Plummer
Brees
Green
Culpepper
Pennington
Roethlisberger

And then the players that are roughly on the same level:

Leftwich
Carr
McNair
Warner


I would list Brunell, based upon what he did last season, but he is D-U-N. He doesn't deserve to be anywhere near a list like this right now.

Putting Eli on the same level as Carr is simply unfair. Seriously...David Carr? Talk about someone who has to prove his worth...Carr has more to prove than Eli...David Carr? Seriously, that was being a little homerish on your part.

And Chad is not better than Eli...not anymore at least. The man cannot throw it beyond 20 yards. And I personally take Eli over Plummer anyday as well. Other than that, I have no complaints, but those I disagree on.

DMWSackMachine
08-30-2006, 04:01 PM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

Oh, it goes much deeper than comp%. Everyone likes to point out his impressive totals of 3600+ yards and 24 TDs and tout them to high heaven, but (as I said in an earlier post) he had more pass attempts than any other QB with a .500 or better team. His per attempt numbers are pretty mediocre at their best. Also, if you want to get into more sophisticated metrics (like the KC Joyner variety) then it gets a lot more ugly. For example, he was near the top of the league in near Ints, as well as in total Ints, and he didn't have a porous line that allowed oodles of pressure to cause them, either.

But that's all I'm saying. Its not as if I am calling Eli a horrible QB. He has some strengths already that only a gifted few others have, and those have shown up big time on occasion. And you can't use the wins/losses as a fair barometer yet, because that would bring Kyle Orton and Byron Leftwich/David Garrard into the conversation. You guys did have somewhat of a cream puff schedule, that included 9 home games (an advantage that could have made up the difference between winning the division and possibly missing the playoffs), games against the Saints, Vikings (which you somehow found a way to lose), two games against the Eagles after they had fallen apart, and the entirety of the NFC West. If you want to point to one player as the reason for your winning, it wouldn't be Manning. In fact, he would probably be 4th or 5th at the highest.

Number 10
08-30-2006, 04:06 PM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

Oh, it goes much deeper than comp%. Everyone likes to point out his impressive totals of 3600+ yards and 24 TDs and tout them to high heaven, but (as I said in an earlier post) he had more pass attempts than any other QB with a .500 or better team. His per attempt numbers are pretty mediocre at their best. Also, if you want to get into more sophisticated metrics (like the KC Joyner variety) then it gets a lot more ugly. For example, he was near the top of the league in near Ints, as well as in total Ints, and he didn't have a porous line that allowed oodles of pressure to cause them, either.

But that's all I'm saying. Its not as if I am calling Eli a horrible QB. He has some strengths already that only a gifted few others have, and those have shown up big time on occasion. And you can't use the wins/losses as a fair barometer yet, because that would bring Kyle Orton and Byron Leftwich/David Garrard into the conversation. You guys did have somewhat of a cream puff schedule, that included 9 home games (an advantage that could have made up the difference between winning the division and possibly missing the playoffs), games against the Saints, Vikings (which you somehow found a way to lose), two games against the Eagles after they had fallen apart, and the entirety of the NFC West. If you want to point to one player as the reason for your winning, it wouldn't be Manning. In fact, he would probably be 4th or 5th at the highest.

So the fact that he threw the ball so many times negates his total yards and TDs but not his INTs? Yup, a Cowboys fan.

DMWSackMachine
08-30-2006, 05:11 PM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

Oh, it goes much deeper than comp%. Everyone likes to point out his impressive totals of 3600+ yards and 24 TDs and tout them to high heaven, but (as I said in an earlier post) he had more pass attempts than any other QB with a .500 or better team. His per attempt numbers are pretty mediocre at their best. Also, if you want to get into more sophisticated metrics (like the KC Joyner variety) then it gets a lot more ugly. For example, he was near the top of the league in near Ints, as well as in total Ints, and he didn't have a porous line that allowed oodles of pressure to cause them, either.

But that's all I'm saying. Its not as if I am calling Eli a horrible QB. He has some strengths already that only a gifted few others have, and those have shown up big time on occasion. And you can't use the wins/losses as a fair barometer yet, because that would bring Kyle Orton and Byron Leftwich/David Garrard into the conversation. You guys did have somewhat of a cream puff schedule, that included 9 home games (an advantage that could have made up the difference between winning the division and possibly missing the playoffs), games against the Saints, Vikings (which you somehow found a way to lose), two games against the Eagles after they had fallen apart, and the entirety of the NFC West. If you want to point to one player as the reason for your winning, it wouldn't be Manning. In fact, he would probably be 4th or 5th at the highest.

So the fact that he threw the ball so many times negates his total yards and TDs but not his INTs? Yup, a Cowboys fan.

:lol: :lol:

Good one.

His Int% was still way down the list. You could say that it does mitigate his Int totals a fair amount. I would agree with that, but then you must also remember that he had a good O Line who weren't responsible for many, if any of his Ints, and that he also was close to the top of the league in near interceptions (per KC Joyner), which means that he was the beneficiary of a lot of shody DB play.

The Legend
08-30-2006, 05:16 PM
someone tell me why every week the another thread on the NFC East comes out when its been 10 years and only 1 time has nfc east made the superbowl

DMWSackMachine
08-30-2006, 06:17 PM
someone tell me why every week the another thread on the NFC East comes out when its been 10 years and only 1 time has nfc east made the superbowl

Actually, that would be TWO times (you should know that). And the reason why is because that's what people care about, you included, so ****.

Number 10
08-30-2006, 06:19 PM
someone tell me why every week the another thread on the NFC East comes out when its been 10 years and only 1 time has nfc east made the superbowl

1-NFC East has made the Super Bowl more than once the past 10 years

2-We are talking about present day football and the NFC East seems to be the favorite for the toughest division in football for 2006

The Fat Kid
08-30-2006, 08:25 PM
in his first starting year??? That is pretty damn good considering he led the 3rd highest scoring offense.. behind indianapolis and seattle i corrected it

P-L
08-30-2006, 08:39 PM
I like New York and Washington as 1 & 2, I just don't know which order I like them in. I am very surprised Dallas is winning this. They have the worst starting RB, worst OL, 3rd QB, and almost no depth at WR. Bledsoe is 3rd of the 4 QB in the NFC East. No team has a perfect offense, but Dallas has the worst. If they win the NFC East, it'll be because of their defense, not their offense.

keylime_5
08-30-2006, 08:39 PM
Eli is a good QB, IMO he's has more talent than Bledsoe and is going to have a better career. Tiki is more than twice the RB as Julius Jones and Marion Barber both. The Giants have a pretty solid OL, whereas Dallas has a BAD OL. The receivers are definitely better in Dallas, but that's about it. NY has the best offensive unit in the NFC East

Number 10
08-30-2006, 09:44 PM
Eli is a good QB, IMO he's has more talent than Bledsoe and is going to have a better career. Tiki is more than twice the RB as Julius Jones and Marion Barber both. The Giants have a pretty solid OL, whereas Dallas has a BAD OL. The receivers are definitely better in Dallas, but that's about it. NY has the best offensive unit in the NFC East

alright....now read the previous 2 posts and tell me only Giants fans view Eli as a better QB than Bledsoe.

Number 10
08-30-2006, 10:34 PM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

Oh, it goes much deeper than comp%. Everyone likes to point out his impressive totals of 3600+ yards and 24 TDs and tout them to high heaven, but (as I said in an earlier post) he had more pass attempts than any other QB with a .500 or better team. His per attempt numbers are pretty mediocre at their best. Also, if you want to get into more sophisticated metrics (like the KC Joyner variety) then it gets a lot more ugly. For example, he was near the top of the league in near Ints, as well as in total Ints, and he didn't have a porous line that allowed oodles of pressure to cause them, either.

But that's all I'm saying. Its not as if I am calling Eli a horrible QB. He has some strengths already that only a gifted few others have, and those have shown up big time on occasion. And you can't use the wins/losses as a fair barometer yet, because that would bring Kyle Orton and Byron Leftwich/David Garrard into the conversation. You guys did have somewhat of a cream puff schedule, that included 9 home games (an advantage that could have made up the difference between winning the division and possibly missing the playoffs), games against the Saints, Vikings (which you somehow found a way to lose), two games against the Eagles after they had fallen apart, and the entirety of the NFC West. If you want to point to one player as the reason for your winning, it wouldn't be Manning. In fact, he would probably be 4th or 5th at the highest.

So the fact that he threw the ball so many times negates his total yards and TDs but not his INTs? Yup, a Cowboys fan.

:lol: :lol:

Good one.

His Int% was still way down the list. You could say that it does mitigate his Int totals a fair amount. I would agree with that, but then you must also remember that he had a good O Line who weren't responsible for many, if any of his Ints, and that he also was close to the top of the league in near interceptions (per KC Joyner), which means that he was the beneficiary of a lot of shody DB play.

Ok.

Eli Manning threw one INT for every 33 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe threw one INT for every 29 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe fumbled 17 times

Eli Manning fumbled 9 times

Some of that can be blamed on the offensive lines but don't try to convince anyone the Giants offensive line is something to write home about. They are solid at both G spots, but the tackles are inconsistent and C is average at best.

bigbluedefense
08-31-2006, 09:50 AM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

Oh, it goes much deeper than comp%. Everyone likes to point out his impressive totals of 3600+ yards and 24 TDs and tout them to high heaven, but (as I said in an earlier post) he had more pass attempts than any other QB with a .500 or better team. His per attempt numbers are pretty mediocre at their best. Also, if you want to get into more sophisticated metrics (like the KC Joyner variety) then it gets a lot more ugly. For example, he was near the top of the league in near Ints, as well as in total Ints, and he didn't have a porous line that allowed oodles of pressure to cause them, either.

But that's all I'm saying. Its not as if I am calling Eli a horrible QB. He has some strengths already that only a gifted few others have, and those have shown up big time on occasion. And you can't use the wins/losses as a fair barometer yet, because that would bring Kyle Orton and Byron Leftwich/David Garrard into the conversation. You guys did have somewhat of a cream puff schedule, that included 9 home games (an advantage that could have made up the difference between winning the division and possibly missing the playoffs), games against the Saints, Vikings (which you somehow found a way to lose), two games against the Eagles after they had fallen apart, and the entirety of the NFC West. If you want to point to one player as the reason for your winning, it wouldn't be Manning. In fact, he would probably be 4th or 5th at the highest.

So the fact that he threw the ball so many times negates his total yards and TDs but not his INTs? Yup, a Cowboys fan.

:lol: :lol:

Good one.

His Int% was still way down the list. You could say that it does mitigate his Int totals a fair amount. I would agree with that, but then you must also remember that he had a good O Line who weren't responsible for many, if any of his Ints, and that he also was close to the top of the league in near interceptions (per KC Joyner), which means that he was the beneficiary of a lot of shody DB play.

Ok.

Eli Manning threw one INT for every 33 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe threw one INT for every 29 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe fumbled 17 times

Eli Manning fumbled 9 times

Some of that can be blamed on the offensive lines but don't try to convince anyone the Giants offensive line is something to write home about. They are solid at both G spots, but the tackles are inconsistent and C is average at best.

And that right there should invalidate the declaration that Bledsoe is a MUCH better decision maker than Eli Manning. The proof is in the pudidng, and Eli threw less INT per pass attempt than Bledsoe. Im not saying Bledsoe is bad, he has actually become an underrated qb, but he is being overrated by Cowboys fans. Couple this with the fact that Eli will only improve this year, and Bledsoe who has already peaked will probably stay the same, I'll take Eli this year over Bledsoe no questions asked.

Us Giants fans are always getting the homer finger pointed at us, but Id like to point out that we are not the only ones. Yes, we have some homerism, we evaluate Eli with some homerism, but we're not the only ones.

99% of the Dallas fans on here who constantly defend TO would not do that if he wasn't a Cowboy, and we all know this. If TO wasn't a Cowboy, cowboy fans would be ripping him with the rest of us. That shows homerism on their part. Making Bledsoe out to be in the same category as Matt Hasselbeck is homerism too. He's an accurate qb who's become underrated, but he is not on that level, lets be real with it. His immobility just plain sucks, I personally despise immobile qbs and Bledsoe is one of them. If you want to make excuses for why Bledsoe fell off the 2nd half of the season, I got plenty of reasons to say the same thing for Eli so that argument is a wash.

The truth is, Bledsoe only had completion % over Eli. Eli threw more TDs/pass attempt, less INTs/pass attempt, more yards and led his team to the playoffs. All in his 1st year as a starter. Key emphasis on that last part. Now Im personally projecting both of them to have great years, but to say Eli is far off from Bledsoe is not true.

DMWSackMachine
08-31-2006, 12:45 PM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

Oh, it goes much deeper than comp%. Everyone likes to point out his impressive totals of 3600+ yards and 24 TDs and tout them to high heaven, but (as I said in an earlier post) he had more pass attempts than any other QB with a .500 or better team. His per attempt numbers are pretty mediocre at their best. Also, if you want to get into more sophisticated metrics (like the KC Joyner variety) then it gets a lot more ugly. For example, he was near the top of the league in near Ints, as well as in total Ints, and he didn't have a porous line that allowed oodles of pressure to cause them, either.

But that's all I'm saying. Its not as if I am calling Eli a horrible QB. He has some strengths already that only a gifted few others have, and those have shown up big time on occasion. And you can't use the wins/losses as a fair barometer yet, because that would bring Kyle Orton and Byron Leftwich/David Garrard into the conversation. You guys did have somewhat of a cream puff schedule, that included 9 home games (an advantage that could have made up the difference between winning the division and possibly missing the playoffs), games against the Saints, Vikings (which you somehow found a way to lose), two games against the Eagles after they had fallen apart, and the entirety of the NFC West. If you want to point to one player as the reason for your winning, it wouldn't be Manning. In fact, he would probably be 4th or 5th at the highest.

So the fact that he threw the ball so many times negates his total yards and TDs but not his INTs? Yup, a Cowboys fan.

:lol: :lol:

Good one.

His Int% was still way down the list. You could say that it does mitigate his Int totals a fair amount. I would agree with that, but then you must also remember that he had a good O Line who weren't responsible for many, if any of his Ints, and that he also was close to the top of the league in near interceptions (per KC Joyner), which means that he was the beneficiary of a lot of shody DB play.

Ok.

Eli Manning threw one INT for every 33 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe threw one INT for every 29 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe fumbled 17 times

Eli Manning fumbled 9 times

Some of that can be blamed on the offensive lines but don't try to convince anyone the Giants offensive line is something to write home about. They are solid at both G spots, but the tackles are inconsistent and C is average at best.

And that right there should invalidate the declaration that Bledsoe is a MUCH better decision maker than Eli Manning. The proof is in the pudidng, and Eli threw less INT per pass attempt than Bledsoe. Im not saying Bledsoe is bad, he has actually become an underrated qb, but he is being overrated by Cowboys fans. Couple this with the fact that Eli will only improve this year, and Bledsoe who has already peaked will probably stay the same, I'll take Eli this year over Bledsoe no questions asked.

Us Giants fans are always getting the homer finger pointed at us, but Id like to point out that we are not the only ones. Yes, we have some homerism, we evaluate Eli with some homerism, but we're not the only ones.

99% of the Dallas fans on here who constantly defend TO would not do that if he wasn't a Cowboy, and we all know this. If TO wasn't a Cowboy, cowboy fans would be ripping him with the rest of us. That shows homerism on their part. Making Bledsoe out to be in the same category as Matt Hasselbeck is homerism too. He's an accurate qb who's become underrated, but he is not on that level, lets be real with it. His immobility just plain sucks, I personally despise immobile qbs and Bledsoe is one of them. If you want to make excuses for why Bledsoe fell off the 2nd half of the season, I got plenty of reasons to say the same thing for Eli so that argument is a wash.

The truth is, Bledsoe only had completion % over Eli. Eli threw more TDs/pass attempt, less INTs/pass attempt, more yards and led his team to the playoffs. All in his 1st year as a starter. Key emphasis on that last part. Now Im personally projecting both of them to have great years, but to say Eli is far off from Bledsoe is not true.

C'mon, blue, I expect more from you. Those other homers I expected to throw out this drivel, but I sure didn't expect it from you. The bolded statement is not true. So, imho, at the very least the int% and TD% cancel one another out. Bledsoe's TD% was 4.6, Eli Manning's was 4.3. While Bledsoe's Int% was 3.4 compared to 3.1 for Eli. The yards also go to Bledsoe, as he had a MUCH better ypa average of 7.29 compared to Eli's very pedestrian 6.75. Also, before Flozell got hurt Bledsoe was in the top 3 in the league in ypa at 8.48. So that is not an argument you can use.

However, I would like to clarify something, my last few posts on this thread were not comparing Eli to Bledsoe, but rather Eli to the rest of the league. So I used some points that would have muddied the waters if you thought I was arguing the Bledsoe angle, please take that into consideration.

Also, you totally discount the impact that Bledsoe's line had on him as a passer. Take the second Washington game, for instance. He had two Int's in that game that were solely the fault of the OLine. The first was supposed to be a quick slant to the left side, which called for Torrin Tucker to cut his man off the snap. Well, he lunged and completely missed the block, barely hitting the DE in the ankles, which results in the DE being right in the passing lane. This is not a difficult block to execute, it happens two or three dozen times in every ball game, with the blocker coming out on top probably 90% of the time. So the DE knocks the ball down, right? Wrong. Somehow he tips it up into the air for an easy, easy, Int. Is that Bledsoe's fault? Absolutely not. He had to make a quick pass in order for the play to work, and was forced to trust that his teammate would execute his assignment. There is no way you can fault him for that. That happened twice that game. I could go on all day about this.

It is no coincedence that Bledsoe's Int total after 6 games was 4, or 2.0%, and in the last 10 his total was 13, or 4.3%. You guys want to turn a blind eye to this argument, because it substantially discounts the validity of your own. But it's true, there is no way around it. Drew Bledsoe was the best QB in the NFC last year in the first six games. It wasn't even close. Imagine, if you can, what would happen to Hasselbeck if Walter Jones went down. That is the kind of impact that Flozell's injury had on the offense. I know it's not convenient, but it is true.

Again, just let me state that Eli has a lot of potential, and might eventually be up there with the best in the league, but with what he has proven at this point in time, only a fan would argue that he is any more than a young QB with a lot of ability. Which is what you guys are, and it stands to reason that you would "take Eli over Bledsoe no questions asked". You believe in him because you have to, and I have no problem with that. Just don't go around say he is this and he is that. He may be eventually, but not right now.

Number 10
08-31-2006, 12:57 PM
You can blame a handful of INTs on linemen and recievers for every QB.

Jughead10
08-31-2006, 12:58 PM
Drew Bledsoe was the best QB in the NFC last year in the first six games

Actually him and Eli looked pretty identical through 6 games. Again they had two extremely similar seasons. The fact that Eli is 10 years younger is the big difference, and the reason why people would rather have Eli over Drew.

bigbluedefense
08-31-2006, 01:13 PM
I won't start pulling out stats either, that would just embarrass you guys.

How so? Everyone knows Eli's completion percentage was bad. I'm hoping and I think it will improve this year but that isn't the point. Bledsoe's completion percentage was a lot better, but if that doesn't turn into more wins, more TDs, more yards, and less interceptions, then does it really matter?

Oh, it goes much deeper than comp%. Everyone likes to point out his impressive totals of 3600+ yards and 24 TDs and tout them to high heaven, but (as I said in an earlier post) he had more pass attempts than any other QB with a .500 or better team. His per attempt numbers are pretty mediocre at their best. Also, if you want to get into more sophisticated metrics (like the KC Joyner variety) then it gets a lot more ugly. For example, he was near the top of the league in near Ints, as well as in total Ints, and he didn't have a porous line that allowed oodles of pressure to cause them, either.

But that's all I'm saying. Its not as if I am calling Eli a horrible QB. He has some strengths already that only a gifted few others have, and those have shown up big time on occasion. And you can't use the wins/losses as a fair barometer yet, because that would bring Kyle Orton and Byron Leftwich/David Garrard into the conversation. You guys did have somewhat of a cream puff schedule, that included 9 home games (an advantage that could have made up the difference between winning the division and possibly missing the playoffs), games against the Saints, Vikings (which you somehow found a way to lose), two games against the Eagles after they had fallen apart, and the entirety of the NFC West. If you want to point to one player as the reason for your winning, it wouldn't be Manning. In fact, he would probably be 4th or 5th at the highest.

So the fact that he threw the ball so many times negates his total yards and TDs but not his INTs? Yup, a Cowboys fan.

:lol: :lol:

Good one.

His Int% was still way down the list. You could say that it does mitigate his Int totals a fair amount. I would agree with that, but then you must also remember that he had a good O Line who weren't responsible for many, if any of his Ints, and that he also was close to the top of the league in near interceptions (per KC Joyner), which means that he was the beneficiary of a lot of shody DB play.

Ok.

Eli Manning threw one INT for every 33 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe threw one INT for every 29 pass attempts

Drew Bledsoe fumbled 17 times

Eli Manning fumbled 9 times

Some of that can be blamed on the offensive lines but don't try to convince anyone the Giants offensive line is something to write home about. They are solid at both G spots, but the tackles are inconsistent and C is average at best.

And that right there should invalidate the declaration that Bledsoe is a MUCH better decision maker than Eli Manning. The proof is in the pudidng, and Eli threw less INT per pass attempt than Bledsoe. Im not saying Bledsoe is bad, he has actually become an underrated qb, but he is being overrated by Cowboys fans. Couple this with the fact that Eli will only improve this year, and Bledsoe who has already peaked will probably stay the same, I'll take Eli this year over Bledsoe no questions asked.

Us Giants fans are always getting the homer finger pointed at us, but Id like to point out that we are not the only ones. Yes, we have some homerism, we evaluate Eli with some homerism, but we're not the only ones.

99% of the Dallas fans on here who constantly defend TO would not do that if he wasn't a Cowboy, and we all know this. If TO wasn't a Cowboy, cowboy fans would be ripping him with the rest of us. That shows homerism on their part. Making Bledsoe out to be in the same category as Matt Hasselbeck is homerism too. He's an accurate qb who's become underrated, but he is not on that level, lets be real with it. His immobility just plain sucks, I personally despise immobile qbs and Bledsoe is one of them. If you want to make excuses for why Bledsoe fell off the 2nd half of the season, I got plenty of reasons to say the same thing for Eli so that argument is a wash.

The truth is, Bledsoe only had completion % over Eli. Eli threw more TDs/pass attempt, less INTs/pass attempt, more yards and led his team to the playoffs. All in his 1st year as a starter. Key emphasis on that last part. Now Im personally projecting both of them to have great years, but to say Eli is far off from Bledsoe is not true.

C'mon, blue, I expect more from you. Those other homers I expected to throw out this drivel, but I sure didn't expect it from you. The bolded statement is not true. So, imho, at the very least the int% and TD% cancel one another out. Bledsoe's TD% was 4.6, Eli Manning's was 4.3. While Bledsoe's Int% was 3.4 compared to 3.1 for Eli. The yards also go to Bledsoe, as he had a MUCH better ypa average of 7.29 compared to Eli's very pedestrian 6.75. Also, before Flozell got hurt Bledsoe was in the top 3 in the league in ypa at 8.48. So that is not an argument you can use.

However, I would like to clarify something, my last few posts on this thread were not comparing Eli to Bledsoe, but rather Eli to the rest of the league. So I used some points that would have muddied the waters if you thought I was arguing the Bledsoe angle, please take that into consideration.

Also, you totally discount the impact that Bledsoe's line had on him as a passer. Take the second Washington game, for instance. He had two Int's in that game that were solely the fault of the OLine. The first was supposed to be a quick slant to the left side, which called for Torrin Tucker to cut his man off the snap. Well, he lunged and completely missed the block, barely hitting the DE in the ankles, which results in the DE being right in the passing lane. This is not a difficult block to execute, it happens two or three dozen times in every ball game, with the blocker coming out on top probably 90% of the time. So the DE knocks the ball down, right? Wrong. Somehow he tips it up into the air for an easy, easy, Int. Is that Bledsoe's fault? Absolutely not. He had to make a quick pass in order for the play to work, and was forced to trust that his teammate would execute his assignment. There is no way you can fault him for that. That happened twice that game. I could go on all day about this.

It is no coincedence that Bledsoe's Int total after 6 games was 4, or 2.0%, and in the last 10 his total was 13, or 4.3%. You guys want to turn a blind eye to this argument, because it substantially discounts the validity of your own. But it's true, there is no way around it. Drew Bledsoe was the best QB in the NFC last year in the first six games. It wasn't even close. Imagine, if you can, what would happen to Hasselbeck if Walter Jones went down. That is the kind of impact that Flozell's injury had on the offense. I know it's not convenient, but it is true.

Again, just let me state that Eli has a lot of potential, and might eventually be up there with the best in the league, but with what he has proven at this point in time, only a fan would argue that he is any more than a young QB with a lot of ability. Which is what you guys are, and it stands to reason that you would "take Eli over Bledsoe no questions asked". You believe in him because you have to, and I have no problem with that. Just don't go around say he is this and he is that. He may be eventually, but not right now.

Fair enough. Its my fault that I didn't look up the TD/pass attempt stat, I made a poor assumption, so I was wrong for that. Yeah, Im guilty of projecting Eli this season, but like you said, I really have no choice as a fan. I misinterpreted what you said, I thought you were implying that Bledsoe was a much better qb than Eli last year, which I disagreed with. I feel they were pretty close in terms of play, with a sound argument for either over the other. Both will have good years this year, Bledsoe's year is more dependent on line play than his actual ability whereas Eli's play will be determined by how much he progressed.

While I agree that Drew's line had a part in alot of his poor play, it has to be noted that his poor footwork is just as much of a factor as his line. There are plenty of times when I saw him just stand back there and take the hit...he didn't even attempt to step up or move side to side like most qb's would. So while the pressure did get to him many times, its also his fault that he makes no attempt to evade pressure. Thats unfair to the line. I witnessed the same thing with Kurt Warner when he was with the Giants. He was similar to Bledsoe in a sense that he made our line look worse than it was because he simply did not make any attempt to evade pressure. So while Drew's line is to blame for some of his mistakes, its not entirely to blame, we need to give Bledsoe some owness for it as well since he cannot evade pressure. In a perfect world the oline will always give you time...but we don't live in a perfect world and Bledsoe needs to stop using that excuse and try to help his guys out once in a while by evading some pressure.

DMWSackMachine
08-31-2006, 04:01 PM
Drew Bledsoe was the best QB in the NFC last year in the first six games

Actually him and Eli looked pretty identical through 6 games. Again they had two extremely similar seasons. The fact that Eli is 10 years younger is the big difference, and the reason why people would rather have Eli over Drew.

Lol, I wish you guys would quit trying this. Through six games:

..............Bledsoe..............Manning

Comp......124...................103
Att...........196...................194
Comp%...63.3...................53.0
Yards.......1663.................1414
YPA..........8.48.................7.29
TD...........11.....................12
Int............4......................4
Rat(approx).100................87

I don't know if you would call that close, but then it wouldn't surprise me if you did.

jonbrodo17
08-31-2006, 06:29 PM
I think Eli is gonna have one tuff stretch, i dont think he could handle it. I think the Eagles have the best offensive unit, they have a strong line a playmaking WR(stallworth), and a productive rookie last year(brown) and the best qb in the nfc east and don't forget westbrook out of the backfield,

cunningham06
08-31-2006, 06:39 PM
The old Bledsoe vs. Manning debate again?

Who was better last season? Bledsoe

Who will be better this season? Probably Manning.

yourfavestoner
08-31-2006, 07:49 PM
Ive never seen a young qb get so much hate in my life.

Maybe you should come to Jacksonville. Leftwich gets so much crap it's ridiculous.

Yeah, that's the first thing I thought of when I read what BBD wrote.

Most NFL fans would be happy to have a quarterback like Leftwich. I'm sure teams like Detroit and Baltimore, who have had QB issues for years, would be ecstatic about it. But a lot of people hate Leftwich, because he's the man who took Saint Mark's job.

Number 10
09-12-2006, 12:22 PM
Next season I will take Bledsoe over Eli and day of the week.

Care to re-phrase?

portermvp84
09-12-2006, 12:54 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Number 10
09-12-2006, 12:55 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Skins offense was poor last night. Agianst the Vikings D.

portermvp84
09-12-2006, 12:58 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Skins offense was poor last night. Agianst the Vikings D.

The Vikes D now if above average they have good players on both sides of the ball especailly their d line young and strong.

Number 10
09-12-2006, 12:59 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Skins offense was poor last night. Agianst the Vikings D.

The Vikes D now if above average they have good players on both sides of the ball especailly their d line young and strong.

And the best offense in the NFC East scores 1 TD and 16 points against them? Come on.

09-12-2006, 01:28 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Skins offense was poor last night. Agianst the Vikings D.

The Vikes D now if above average they have good players on both sides of the ball especailly their d line young and strong.

And the best offense in the NFC East scores 1 TD and 16 points against them? Come on.

We were missin the biggest part of our offense and that is clinton portis. Watch what we do to the cowboys is all i gotta say.

Jughead10
09-12-2006, 01:36 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Skins offense was poor last night. Agianst the Vikings D.

The Vikes D now if above average they have good players on both sides of the ball especailly their d line young and strong.

And the best offense in the NFC East scores 1 TD and 16 points against them? Come on.

We were missin the biggest part of our offense and that is clinton portis. Watch what we do to the cowboys is all i gotta say.

You will do nothing to the Cowboys. Don't you know Bledsoe is going to blow that game. All your team needs to do is show up and put on their pads. The rest will work out itself. :lol:

09-12-2006, 01:36 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Skins offense was poor last night. Agianst the Vikings D.

The Vikes D now if above average they have good players on both sides of the ball especailly their d line young and strong.

And the best offense in the NFC East scores 1 TD and 16 points against them? Come on.

We were missin the biggest part of our offense and that is clinton portis. Watch what we do to the cowboys is all i gotta say.

You will do nothing to the Cowboys. Don't you know Bledsoe is going to blow that game. All your team needs to do is show up and put on their pads. The rest will work out itself. :lol:

Bledsoe doesnt play defense though.

Jughead10
09-12-2006, 01:42 PM
Washington by far they have portis at back three kick ass wides Moss, Lyodd, and Randle El. Their quarterback is above average and they have a steller line and a good pro bowl tight end.

The reason why Dallas is so high is because they have TO and Julius Jones they aren't as good as every one thinks. Redskins, Giants, Cowboys, Eagles all have good offenses.

Skins offense was poor last night. Agianst the Vikings D.

The Vikes D now if above average they have good players on both sides of the ball especailly their d line young and strong.

And the best offense in the NFC East scores 1 TD and 16 points against them? Come on.

We were missin the biggest part of our offense and that is clinton portis. Watch what we do to the cowboys is all i gotta say.

You will do nothing to the Cowboys. Don't you know Bledsoe is going to blow that game. All your team needs to do is show up and put on their pads. The rest will work out itself. :lol:

Bledsoe doesnt play defense though.

I predict a 14-0 victory. Skins return two INTS to the house and have trouble on offense. :D That would be nice.

DMWSackMachine
09-12-2006, 05:12 PM
Lol, just so everyone remembers, it's not that I was really trying to contend that Dallas has the best O in the division (which I think is a legitimate argument), but rather trying to make some points to be included in other's arguments. Like, for example, the Bledoe vs. Manning debate. Bledsoe was better last year, no comparison. Anyone who tries to say differently has no ground to stand on, as all stats say differently, despite the fact that Eli's supporting cast was significantly better, along with the ease of his schedule.

So that was not my point. The point was about this season. In the first place, I just want to say that I think there is an 80-90% chance that Eli will be a signficantly better QB by the time the 07 season starts than Bledsoe. This year it could really go either way. My contention was that the safer bet is the veteran. I hold to that point, and I think that the first game actually bears it out.

"WHAT!!! ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?! Look at the stats you idiot!:
Manning: 20-34/247/2td/1int/rating88
Bledsoe: 16-33/246/1td/3ints/rating 46"

Hold on for a sec. Let's not forget about Eli that he was still all over the place with his throws and that without those two unbelievable circus catches by Burress (that only maybe 4 or 5 other players in this league are even capable of catching), the first on third down which would have killed a drive and the second with :40 seconds left in the half, then his impressive 247 yards would have quickly shrunk to about 180, while his comp % that was already not great at 59% would have fallen right about where he was last year to 52.9%.

As for Bledsoe, if you watched the game you know that he came out early and was nearly flawless. He started 5 of 6 on his first drive and was impressive throughout the first quarter, but suddenly began to look uncomfortable and out of sinc. Right now there is a media frenzy in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area trying to figure out what the hell happened to cause the change, and Bledsoe did admit to having hurt his back before going on to downplay it. Not an excuse by any means, but bears mentioning. All I'm saying is that Bledsoe looked much better in that first quarter (against a much better D, too) than Eli looked at any point in the Indy game. I know that facts are facts, but to take pride in Eli's performance when his two biggest gainers were both bad passes is missing the point more than just a little.

Number 10
09-12-2006, 05:23 PM
Lol, just so everyone remembers, it's not that I was really trying to contend that Dallas has the best O in the division (which I think is a legitimate argument), but rather trying to make some points to be included in other's arguments. Like, for example, the Bledoe vs. Manning debate. Bledsoe was better last year, no comparison. Anyone who tries to say differently has no ground to stand on, as all stats say differently, despite the fact that Eli's supporting cast was significantly better, along with the ease of his schedule.

So that was not my point. The point was about this season. In the first place, I just want to say that I think there is an 80-90% chance that Eli will be a signficantly better QB by the time the 07 season starts than Bledsoe. This year it could really go either way. My contention was that the safer bet is the veteran. I hold to that point, and I think that the first game actually bears it out.

"WHAT!!! ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?! Look at the stats you idiot!:
Manning: 20-34/247/2td/1int/rating88
Bledsoe: 16-33/246/1td/3ints/rating 46"

Hold on for a sec. Let's not forget about Eli that he was still all over the place with his throws and that without those two unbelievable circus catches by Burress (that only maybe 4 or 5 other players in this league are even capable of catching), the first on third down which would have killed a drive and the second with :40 seconds left in the half, then his impressive 247 yards would have quickly shrunk to about 180, while his comp % that was already not great at 59% would have fallen right about where he was last year to 52.9%.

As for Bledsoe, if you watched the game you know that he came out early and was nearly flawless. He started 5 of 6 on his first drive and was impressive throughout the first quarter, but suddenly began to look uncomfortable and out of sinc. Right now there is a media frenzy in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area trying to figure out what the hell happened to cause the change, and Bledsoe did admit to having hurt his back before going on to downplay it. Not an excuse by any means, but bears mentioning. All I'm saying is that Bledsoe looked much better in that first quarter (against a much better D, too) than Eli looked at any point in the Indy game. I know that facts are facts, but to take pride in Eli's performance when his two biggest gainers were both bad passes is missing the point more than just a little.


:roll:

The TD pass was in a good spot. And you can't take completions away because of a nice catch, or negate them, or whatever you are trying to do. Plax dropped a pass earlier and Carter should have caught a pass late in the game that hit him in the numbers. We aren't crying about those because good catches and drops are a part of the game for every QB.

Eli is better than Bledsoe.

DMWSackMachine
09-12-2006, 06:45 PM
[quote]


:roll:

The TD pass was in a good spot. And you can't take completions away because of a nice catch, or negate them, or whatever you are trying to do. Plax dropped a pass earlier and Carter should have caught a pass late in the game that hit him in the numbers. We aren't crying about those because good catches and drops are a part of the game for every QB.

Eli is better than Bledsoe.

And you prove my point. Well done.

Of course you can't take catches away, and of course this and of course that, but you have to admit that Eli was off for a lot of the night. Drops happen every game to every QB. Those two catches by Burress are two of the best that you will see ALL YEAR LONG, by anyone on any team. They are not something that you can count on happening, unlike drops. It's not a situation where it evens out because some bad passes are caught while some good passes are dropped. That is a flaw in logic. They were not "good catches", they were "mind boggling" catches. But take your scenario, and add the numbers from the drops and subtract the numbers from those two catches and my points still stand.

Of course, that is the only part of my post you responded to, because you couldn't refute anything else I said and yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>Manning is better than Bledsoe. I like where you're heads at.

Number 10
09-12-2006, 09:11 PM
[quote]


:roll:

The TD pass was in a good spot. And you can't take completions away because of a nice catch, or negate them, or whatever you are trying to do. Plax dropped a pass earlier and Carter should have caught a pass late in the game that hit him in the numbers. We aren't crying about those because good catches and drops are a part of the game for every QB.

Eli is better than Bledsoe.

And you prove my point. Well done.

Of course you can't take catches away, and of course this and of course that, but you have to admit that Eli was off for a lot of the night. Drops happen every game to every QB. Those two catches by Burress are two of the best that you will see ALL YEAR LONG, by anyone on any team. They are not something that you can count on happening, unlike drops. It's not a situation where it evens out because some bad passes are caught while some good passes are dropped. That is a flaw in logic. They were not "good catches", they were "mind boggling" catches. But take your scenario, and add the numbers from the drops and subtract the numbers from those two catches and my points still stand.

Of course, that is the only part of my post you responded to, because you couldn't refute anything else I said and yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>Manning is better than Bledsoe. I like where you're heads at.

The TD catch by Burress was not mind boggling. Get that out of your head. And Eli completes 60% of his passes finally, yet he still gets denied the respect, anyone suprised? The Eli hater in you is clouding your vision so much that it isn't even funny. Is he a finished product? No. Does he still have accuracy issues? Yes. But that does not mean he is worse than Drew Bledsoe.

DMWSackMachine
09-13-2006, 11:08 AM
And you prove my point. Well done.

Of course you can't take catches away, and of course this and of course that, but you have to admit that Eli was off for a lot of the night. Drops happen every game to every QB. Those two catches by Burress are two of the best that you will see ALL YEAR LONG, by anyone on any team. They are not something that you can count on happening, unlike drops. It's not a situation where it evens out because some bad passes are caught while some good passes are dropped. That is a flaw in logic. They were not "good catches", they were "mind boggling" catches. But take your scenario, and add the numbers from the drops and subtract the numbers from those two catches and my points still stand.

Of course, that is the only part of my post you responded to, because you couldn't refute anything else I said and yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>Manning is better than Bledsoe. I like where you're heads at.

The TD catch by Burress was not mind boggling. Get that out of your head. And Eli completes 60% of his passes finally, yet he still gets denied the respect, anyone suprised? The Eli hater in you is clouding your vision so much that it isn't even funny. Is he a finished product? No. Does he still have accuracy issues? Yes. But that does not mean he is worse than Drew Bledsoe.

Dude, a 6'5" reciever had to completely lay himself out just to get the tips of his fingers on that ball. There was no real chance that he was going to catch it on first impact, but rather the only hope was for him to get it up in the air and come down with it off the deflection. Combine that with the fact that it was a end-of-the-half situation in which you KNOW that the offensive team is going to be pushing the ball downfield, and yet the Colt's secondary somehow failed to get the safety over in time, and YES, it was a mind boggling catch. Don't down play it, it is a credit to Plaxico. Just because it takes away from your Eli worship doesn't mean it is a bad thing.

As for the "Eli hater" in me, you are a bit off base. I am actually a big Eli Manning fan, as I am a big Peyton Manning fan. I love good football, and I love to watch the game played the way it should be, without being adulterated by pretenders. Eli, at times, is a excellent model of the kind of play that I admire. He still has a long ways to go, but I see the ability there to be something great to watch.

However, New York fans have been waiting so long for a franchise type QB, that they are all over the place trying to annoint Eli before he's earned it. He is an above average QB right now, slightly. He could eventually be the best in the game, or close to it. Just not right now. Anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity can see that is the case. The only reason I would root against him is because he happens to be in the same division as my favorite team. But sh** happens. I can live with it.

bigbluedefense
09-13-2006, 11:28 AM
And you prove my point. Well done.

Of course you can't take catches away, and of course this and of course that, but you have to admit that Eli was off for a lot of the night. Drops happen every game to every QB. Those two catches by Burress are two of the best that you will see ALL YEAR LONG, by anyone on any team. They are not something that you can count on happening, unlike drops. It's not a situation where it evens out because some bad passes are caught while some good passes are dropped. That is a flaw in logic. They were not "good catches", they were "mind boggling" catches. But take your scenario, and add the numbers from the drops and subtract the numbers from those two catches and my points still stand.

Of course, that is the only part of my post you responded to, because you couldn't refute anything else I said and yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>Manning is better than Bledsoe. I like where you're heads at.

The TD catch by Burress was not mind boggling. Get that out of your head. And Eli completes 60% of his passes finally, yet he still gets denied the respect, anyone suprised? The Eli hater in you is clouding your vision so much that it isn't even funny. Is he a finished product? No. Does he still have accuracy issues? Yes. But that does not mean he is worse than Drew Bledsoe.

Dude, a 6'5" reciever had to completely lay himself out just to get the tips of his fingers on that ball. There was no real chance that he was going to catch it on first impact, but rather the only hope was for him to get it up in the air and come down with it off the deflection. Combine that with the fact that it was a end-of-the-half situation in which you KNOW that the offensive team is going to be pushing the ball downfield, and yet the Colt's secondary somehow failed to get the safety over in time, and YES, it was a mind boggling catch. Don't down play it, it is a credit to Plaxico. Just because it takes away from your Eli worship doesn't mean it is a bad thing.

As for the "Eli hater" in me, you are a bit off base. I am actually a big Eli Manning fan, as I am a big Peyton Manning fan. I love good football, and I love to watch the game played the way it should be, without being adulterated by pretenders. Eli, at times, is a excellent model of the kind of play that I admire. He still has a long ways to go, but I see the ability there to be something great to watch.

However, New York fans have been waiting so long for a franchise type QB, that they are all over the place trying to annoint Eli before he's earned it. He is an above average QB right now, slightly. He could eventually be the best in the game, or close to it. Just not right now. Anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity can see that is the case. The only reason I would root against him is because he happens to be in the same division as my favorite team. But sh** happens. I can live with it.

So let me get this straight...you take away from Eli Manning because he has Plaxico Burress making him look better and saving him, yet you refuse to do the same with Bledsoe and Owens? Interesting...

And if Eli's talent level around him is was much better than Bledsoe's last year like you state, why are you willing to debate that this year Bledsoe potentially has the best offense because of a one player addition? Obviously, that must mean you think highly of the other skill position players as well, so why take away from Eli for having skill position players but not do the same with Bledsoe?

Burress made 1 great catch, the other throw was spot on. He also dropped a catch. In fact, Eli had 4 dropped passes. So your argument is a wash, because for every badthrow/good catch you point out, I can point out the opposite. And Eli outperformed Peyton in that game, I don't get how he had a bad game. You also forgot to mention the fact that Bledsoe's TD pass to Owens was off too...he had to totally readjust his body to find the ball and turn around and make a spectactular catch. So if we go by the wouldve/couldve/shouldves theory, he shouldn't have gotten that TD pass to Owens because Owens saved him.

And how on earth can you compare Eli's game to Bledsoe's like that? Youre hiding facts. If you want to mention wouldve/couldve/shouldves, you forget to mention the fact that Bledsoe shouldve had 4 INTs, and if it wasn't for 2 dropped INTs he wouldve had 6. Slice that game anyway you want, we both know Bledsoe played atrocious regardless of the reason. And the theory still stands, when you overload blitz Bledsoe, he's done. The Jags proved it in the 2nd half of last week. When they sent 6 at Bledsoe he had no clue. Eli on the otherhand, can actually evade pressure and has good pocket awareness.

I think Bledsoe is a good qb. I think he will have success this year. But I also think that this year Eli will surpass him in terms of talent. Bledsoe peaked already, Eli continues to get better with each game. Yes, he still needs to refine his technique, but by week 8 he should be where we expect him to be. And already, while still learning, he is at the very least equal to Bledsoe. Bledsoe is a great passer for the most part, but his pocket awareness and mobility are atrocius. You gotta evaluate the whole package here, and when you do that, Eli is better. In fact, Im pretty sure if you can have Eli Manning the exact way he is right now or Drew Bledsoe on that same Dallas team, I think its quite obvious most Dallas fans will tell you they rather have Eli.

And no credible Giants fan will tell you Eli is the best in the league. We have our fair share of homers like everyone else, but most of us aren't that dumb. Eli can be top 10 this year, with potential to be higher.

EDIT: I made a bunch of typos in this, thats why I edited it so much.

P-L
09-13-2006, 12:49 PM
Honestly, I can't think of any argument that the Cowboys have anything but the worst offense in the division. Bledsoe is lucky if he's the third best QB in that division, I guess I'll give him being better than Brunell. They also have the worst of the four starting RB, and the worst of the four OL. Owens is the brightest spot on that offense, but top to bottom I'd take Redskin's WR corps. Like I mentioned, if the Cowboys win this division it's going to be because they have the division's best defense, not offense.

Number 10
09-13-2006, 01:12 PM
And you prove my point. Well done.

Of course you can't take catches away, and of course this and of course that, but you have to admit that Eli was off for a lot of the night. Drops happen every game to every QB. Those two catches by Burress are two of the best that you will see ALL YEAR LONG, by anyone on any team. They are not something that you can count on happening, unlike drops. It's not a situation where it evens out because some bad passes are caught while some good passes are dropped. That is a flaw in logic. They were not "good catches", they were "mind boggling" catches. But take your scenario, and add the numbers from the drops and subtract the numbers from those two catches and my points still stand.

Of course, that is the only part of my post you responded to, because you couldn't refute anything else I said and yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>Manning is better than Bledsoe. I like where you're heads at.

The TD catch by Burress was not mind boggling. Get that out of your head. And Eli completes 60% of his passes finally, yet he still gets denied the respect, anyone suprised? The Eli hater in you is clouding your vision so much that it isn't even funny. Is he a finished product? No. Does he still have accuracy issues? Yes. But that does not mean he is worse than Drew Bledsoe.

Dude, a 6'5" reciever had to completely lay himself out just to get the tips of his fingers on that ball. There was no real chance that he was going to catch it on first impact, but rather the only hope was for him to get it up in the air and come down with it off the deflection. Combine that with the fact that it was a end-of-the-half situation in which you KNOW that the offensive team is going to be pushing the ball downfield, and yet the Colt's secondary somehow failed to get the safety over in time, and YES, it was a mind boggling catch. Don't down play it, it is a credit to Plaxico. Just because it takes away from your Eli worship doesn't mean it is a bad thing.

As for the "Eli hater" in me, you are a bit off base. I am actually a big Eli Manning fan, as I am a big Peyton Manning fan. I love good football, and I love to watch the game played the way it should be, without being adulterated by pretenders. Eli, at times, is a excellent model of the kind of play that I admire. He still has a long ways to go, but I see the ability there to be something great to watch.

However, New York fans have been waiting so long for a franchise type QB, that they are all over the place trying to annoint Eli before he's earned it. He is an above average QB right now, slightly. He could eventually be the best in the game, or close to it. Just not right now. Anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity can see that is the case. The only reason I would root against him is because he happens to be in the same division as my favorite team. But sh** happens. I can live with it.

You are dead wrong about the TD catch. The first big gain reception was indeed an unreal catch that only a select few in the NFL could have caught...but the TD catch was a good throw. On the money? No. But Burress did not fully jump and his arms were not fully extended. Eli put it just out of the reach of Nick Harper, which is what you are supposed to do when throwing deep and up. But I understand your blinders can alter your vision while watching the replays.

And in regards to my/Giants views on Eli...Calling him a top 10 or top 12 QB in the NFL is not outrageous by any means and I for one always say Eli still has a ways to go. It his is THIRD year in the league and he has ONE full season as a starter under his belt, saying that he is a top notch QB would be stupid, and I feel you along with other NFC East fans are under the false impression that we think Eli is an elite QB right now. Talk to any level headed Giants fan on this board and you will see that we all still have present concerns about Eli. I for one do not think he wil ever be the top QB in this league like Brady or Peyton have been...I think Palmer will be better than Eli and even though he still has a lot to prove, I think Cutler has a shot at being better than Eli. I don't care about Eli being the head QB at the table, all I want is for him to be top 5ish and lead this team to a few Super Bowls, and I feel that he is capable of doing that in the future.

Just because I view him as a better QB than Drew Bledsoe does not mean I think he is the next big thing in the NFL because my opinion of Bledsoe is low. I simply think that he is an average at best QB that has a strong arm and is on the decline.

DMWSackMachine
09-13-2006, 01:30 PM
So let me get this straight...you take away from Eli Manning because he has Plaxico Burress making him look better and saving him, yet you refuse to do the same with Bledsoe and Owens? Interesting...

And if Eli's talent level around him is was much better than Bledsoe's last year like you state, why are you willing to debate that this year Bledsoe potentially has the best offense because of a one player addition? Obviously, that must mean you think highly of the other skill position players as well, so why take away from Eli for having skill position players but not do the same with Bledsoe?

Burress made 1 great catch, the other throw was spot on. He also dropped a catch. In fact, Eli had 4 dropped passes. So your argument is a wash, because for every badthrow/good catch you point out, I can point out the opposite. And Eli outperformed Peyton in that game, I don't get how he had a bad game. You also forgot to mention the fact that Bledsoe's TD pass to Owens was off too...he had to totally readjust his body to find the ball and turn around and make a spectactular catch. So if we go by the wouldve/couldve/shouldves theory, he shouldn't have gotten that TD pass to Owens because Owens saved him.

And how on earth can you compare Eli's game to Bledsoe's like that? Youre hiding facts. If you want to mention wouldve/couldve/shouldves, you forget to mention the fact that Bledsoe shouldve had 4 INTs, and if it wasn't for 2 dropped INTs he wouldve had 6. Slice that game anyway you want, we both know Bledsoe played atrocious regardless of the reason. And the theory still stands, when you overload blitz Bledsoe, he's done. The Jags proved it in the 2nd half of last week. When they sent 6 at Bledsoe he had no clue. Eli on the otherhand, can actually evade pressure and has good pocket awareness.

I think Bledsoe is a good qb. I think he will have success this year. But I also think that this year Eli will surpass him in terms of talent. Bledsoe peaked already, Eli continues to get better with each game. Yes, he still needs to refine his technique, but by week 8 he should be where we expect him to be. And already, while still learning, he is at the very least equal to Bledsoe. Bledsoe is a great passer for the most part, but his pocket awareness and mobility are atrocius. You gotta evaluate the whole package here, and when you do that, Eli is better. In fact, Im pretty sure if you can have Eli Manning the exact way he is right now or Drew Bledsoe on that same Dallas team, I think its quite obvious most Dallas fans will tell you they rather have Eli.

And no credible Giants fan will tell you Eli is the best in the league. We have our fair share of homers like everyone else, but most of us aren't that dumb. Eli can be top 10 this year, with potential to be higher.

EDIT: I made a bunch of typos in this, thats why I edited it so much.

I'm a little disappointed in you, BBD. You took what I said quite a bit out of context to make it sound like I was presenting stupid arguments. Let me set this straight: Eli played far superior to Bledsoe in week 1. Period. In no way was I trying to tweak or mess with that. However, my point was that at his best (in the first quarter) Drew looked much, much better than Eli did at any point in the Colts game. He was nearly flawless. Now, for the rest of the game he stunk it up on a consistent basis, there is no arguing that fact. Yes, he could have thrown as many as 6 picks if the Jaguars made every play that they could have. True. What I am saying is that there was obviously something that happened out there. Aikman was talking about it during the telecast, all the local media are talking about it, Bledsoe even admitted to hurting his back before backing away from the statement to avoid looking like he was making excuses for himself. However, whatever the reason was, the bottom line is that he didn't look good. I understand that.

What I'm trying to point out is that Manning stats are very misleading. Please don't attempt to make it sound like either of those throws were good ones. You have one of the two or three biggest WRs in the game there, and he can barely get a couple fingers on a throw = bad pass. It's a credit to Plaxico that he made the catch, but definitely not to Eli.

Also, I addressed the "evening out" theory farther up the page, if you want to go look. Every QB has dropped passes in almost every game. That is something that is a regular occurence. NOT every QB has a 6'5" WR that makes fingertip-knock-into-the-air-dive-onto-the-ground type catches. So, no, they don't even out. You don't have one of those incredible plays for every dropped pass. The drops waaaaay outweigh the good ones. In this game, they didn't. Not even close.

Anyhow, if Giants fans refuse to acknowledge that accuracy concerns remain for Eli, then there is nothing to say but "watch the games", because it was evident to me that he still throws off his back foot quite a bit, that he doesn't always step into his throws, and that he floats the ball too much. These traits were all over during the game on Sunday night.

Now, don't get me wrong. He looked improved from last year. He did look good at times, but overall his stats would mislead you in evaluating his game. That's all I'm saying.

As for the Giants offense, by far the most impressive thing in that game was their ability to run right down the throats of the Colts. I was shocked at the regularity with which they ripped off long gainers. And Brandon Jacobs is a beast. He should be the mascot, as well as a player. Wow.

The passing game was not that impressive. It looked ok, for the most part, but not as explosive as you would expect. But the running game, if it continues to look like that, will be the difference for them this year. Of course, it's difficult to tell how much was the Giants being good and how much was the Colts being lightweights, but the point remains. It was impressive.

Number 10
09-13-2006, 01:43 PM
So let me get this straight...you take away from Eli Manning because he has Plaxico Burress making him look better and saving him, yet you refuse to do the same with Bledsoe and Owens? Interesting...

And if Eli's talent level around him is was much better than Bledsoe's last year like you state, why are you willing to debate that this year Bledsoe potentially has the best offense because of a one player addition? Obviously, that must mean you think highly of the other skill position players as well, so why take away from Eli for having skill position players but not do the same with Bledsoe?

Burress made 1 great catch, the other throw was spot on. He also dropped a catch. In fact, Eli had 4 dropped passes. So your argument is a wash, because for every badthrow/good catch you point out, I can point out the opposite. And Eli outperformed Peyton in that game, I don't get how he had a bad game. You also forgot to mention the fact that Bledsoe's TD pass to Owens was off too...he had to totally readjust his body to find the ball and turn around and make a spectactular catch. So if we go by the wouldve/couldve/shouldves theory, he shouldn't have gotten that TD pass to Owens because Owens saved him.

And how on earth can you compare Eli's game to Bledsoe's like that? Youre hiding facts. If you want to mention wouldve/couldve/shouldves, you forget to mention the fact that Bledsoe shouldve had 4 INTs, and if it wasn't for 2 dropped INTs he wouldve had 6. Slice that game anyway you want, we both know Bledsoe played atrocious regardless of the reason. And the theory still stands, when you overload blitz Bledsoe, he's done. The Jags proved it in the 2nd half of last week. When they sent 6 at Bledsoe he had no clue. Eli on the otherhand, can actually evade pressure and has good pocket awareness.

I think Bledsoe is a good qb. I think he will have success this year. But I also think that this year Eli will surpass him in terms of talent. Bledsoe peaked already, Eli continues to get better with each game. Yes, he still needs to refine his technique, but by week 8 he should be where we expect him to be. And already, while still learning, he is at the very least equal to Bledsoe. Bledsoe is a great passer for the most part, but his pocket awareness and mobility are atrocius. You gotta evaluate the whole package here, and when you do that, Eli is better. In fact, Im pretty sure if you can have Eli Manning the exact way he is right now or Drew Bledsoe on that same Dallas team, I think its quite obvious most Dallas fans will tell you they rather have Eli.

And no credible Giants fan will tell you Eli is the best in the league. We have our fair share of homers like everyone else, but most of us aren't that dumb. Eli can be top 10 this year, with potential to be higher.

EDIT: I made a bunch of typos in this, thats why I edited it so much.

I'm a little disappointed in you, BBD. You took what I said quite a bit out of context to make it sound like I was presenting stupid arguments. Let me set this straight: Eli played far superior to Bledsoe in week 1. Period. In no way was I trying to tweak or mess with that. However, my point was that at his best (in the first quarter) Drew looked much, much better than Eli did at any point in the Colts game. He was nearly flawless. Now, for the rest of the game he stunk it up on a consistent basis, there is no arguing that fact. Yes, he could have thrown as many as 6 picks if the Jaguars made every play that they could have. True. What I am saying is that there was obviously something that happened out there. Aikman was talking about it during the telecast, all the local media are talking about it, Bledsoe even admitted to hurting his back before backing away from the statement to avoid looking like he was making excuses for himself. However, whatever the reason was, the bottom line is that he didn't look good. I understand that.

What I'm trying to point out is that Manning stats are very misleading. Please don't attempt to make it sound like either of those throws were good ones. You have one of the two or three biggest WRs in the game there, and he can barely get a couple fingers on a throw = bad pass. It's a credit to Plaxico that he made the catch, but definitely not to Eli.

Also, I addressed the "evening out" theory farther up the page, if you want to go look. Every QB has dropped passes in almost every game. That is something that is a regular occurence. NOT every QB has a 6'5" WR that makes fingertip-knock-into-the-air-dive-onto-the-ground type catches. So, no, they don't even out. You don't have one of those incredible plays for every dropped pass. The drops waaaaay outweigh the good ones. In this game, they didn't. Not even close.

Anyhow, if Giants fans refuse to acknowledge that accuracy concerns remain for Eli, then there is nothing to say but "watch the games", because it was evident to me that he still throws off his back foot quite a bit, that he doesn't always step into his throws, and that he floats the ball too much. These traits were all over during the game on Sunday night.

Now, don't get me wrong. He looked improved from last year. He did look good at times, but overall his stats would mislead you in evaluating his game. That's all I'm saying.

As for the Giants offense, by far the most impressive thing in that game was their ability to run right down the throats of the Colts. I was shocked at the regularity with which they ripped off long gainers. And Brandon Jacobs is a beast. He should be the mascot, as well as a player. Wow.

The passing game was not that impressive. It looked ok, for the most part, but not as explosive as you would expect. But the running game, if it continues to look like that, will be the difference for them this year. Of course, it's difficult to tell how much was the Giants being good and how much was the Colts being lightweights, but the point remains. It was impressive.

Stop. Every QB has WRs that make outstanding catches. You are amazing.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 01:14 PM
I'd like to refresh some memories.



Eli being better than Daunte is laughable. No one could have played well in that situation in Minnesota last season. Eli is a good player and is on his way up, but he isn't there yet. I don't see him in that top 10 area, more in that 11-15 area.

I find it pointless to give you indivisual explanations on each player. Just look at what they have done in the league and there is no way you can rank Eli higher than any of these guys.

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Carson Palmer
4. Matt Hasselback
5. Trent Green
6. Donavan Mcnabb
7. Jake Delhomme
8. Drew Bledsoe
9. Kurt Warner
10. Daunte Culpepper

Look at every Qb here, all have exceptional completion percentages and they all read defenses with ease. I dont know how you can make an argument that Eli is better than any of these Qbs right now.

Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

Next season I will take Bledsoe over Eli and day of the week.

I'm sick of hearing that the Cowboys line is so bad. They have a completly different O-Line this year, there is no way of knowing if they will be lousy as of right now. Former Pro Bowler Flozell Adams is now healthy, we have a new LG, we have a new C, Marco Rivera is at 100%, and we have a new RT.

As for Bledsoe, he may not be mobile but, he is the most accurate QB in the NFC East, yes even better than Mcnabb. T.O. and the new double TE offense is only going to give him more time and is only going to help him.

Lets do a comparison. (I'll exclude Mcnabb because, he didnt play everygame last year)

2005 stats

Bledsoe 300-499 60.1% 3639 yards 23 Tds 17 INTS

Brunell 262-454 57.7% 3050 yards 23 Tds 10 INTS

Manning 294-557 52.8% 3762 yards 24 Tds 17 INTS

All three put up similar numbers last year but, what stands out is bledsoe's completeion percentage. This is without T.O. what do you think he will do with him?

My QB rankings:

1. Mcnabb
2. Bledsoe
3. Brunell
4. Manning (I'm telling you if he didnt have the 6'5 Plax, he wouldnt have thrown for over 50%.)

Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Redskins have best OL, best WR's, best RB and brunell is 2nd best QB. its the redskins

I dont expect Eli to be any better this year, in fact I think he will be the Giants downfall. From what I've seen in preseason, Eli doesnt look to be anymore accurate than he was last season.

Redskins and I don't think it is close. They have possible the best OL in the league, and the best OT duo if nothing else. Brunell had a pro bowl caliber season last year. The have a good trio of WRs in Moss, Randle El, and Lloyd. Cooley is a great TE, and Sellers is a very good FB. Oh yea, and I forgot they have a top 5 RB (if not higher) in Clinton Portis.

Go_Eli
10-17-2006, 03:44 PM
I'd like to refresh some memories.



Eli being better than Daunte is laughable. No one could have played well in that situation in Minnesota last season. Eli is a good player and is on his way up, but he isn't there yet. I don't see him in that top 10 area, more in that 11-15 area.

I find it pointless to give you indivisual explanations on each player. Just look at what they have done in the league and there is no way you can rank Eli higher than any of these guys.

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Carson Palmer
4. Matt Hasselback
5. Trent Green
6. Donavan Mcnabb
7. Jake Delhomme
8. Drew Bledsoe
9. Kurt Warner
10. Daunte Culpepper

Look at every Qb here, all have exceptional completion percentages and they all read defenses with ease. I dont know how you can make an argument that Eli is better than any of these Qbs right now.

Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

Next season I will take Bledsoe over Eli and day of the week.

I'm sick of hearing that the Cowboys line is so bad. They have a completly different O-Line this year, there is no way of knowing if they will be lousy as of right now. Former Pro Bowler Flozell Adams is now healthy, we have a new LG, we have a new C, Marco Rivera is at 100%, and we have a new RT.

As for Bledsoe, he may not be mobile but, he is the most accurate QB in the NFC East, yes even better than Mcnabb. T.O. and the new double TE offense is only going to give him more time and is only going to help him.

Lets do a comparison. (I'll exclude Mcnabb because, he didnt play everygame last year)

2005 stats

Bledsoe 300-499 60.1% 3639 yards 23 Tds 17 INTS

Brunell 262-454 57.7% 3050 yards 23 Tds 10 INTS

Manning 294-557 52.8% 3762 yards 24 Tds 17 INTS

All three put up similar numbers last year but, what stands out is bledsoe's completeion percentage. This is without T.O. what do you think he will do with him?

My QB rankings:

1. Mcnabb
2. Bledsoe
3. Brunell
4. Manning (I'm telling you if he didnt have the 6'5 Plax, he wouldnt have thrown for over 50%.)

Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Redskins have best OL, best WR's, best RB and brunell is 2nd best QB. its the redskins

I dont expect Eli to be any better this year, in fact I think he will be the Giants downfall. From what I've seen in preseason, Eli doesnt look to be anymore accurate than he was last season.

Redskins and I don't think it is close. They have possible the best OL in the league, and the best OT duo if nothing else. Brunell had a pro bowl caliber season last year. The have a good trio of WRs in Moss, Randle El, and Lloyd. Cooley is a great TE, and Sellers is a very good FB. Oh yea, and I forgot they have a top 5 RB (if not higher) in Clinton Portis.


These are absolutely golden.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 03:44 PM
Read one post up for some eyebrow raisers.

cgf
10-17-2006, 03:50 PM
I like MOTH, cause he knows movies, but those comments about Eli/Drew are crazy homerific.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 03:54 PM
I like MOTH, cause he knows movies, but those comments about Eli/Drew are crazy homerific.

And the counter argument from most Cowboys fans is...."you guys are such homers when you talk about Eli"

Windy
10-17-2006, 04:02 PM
Someone should just make a Giants homer thread. It would save a lot of space and time.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 04:10 PM
Someone should just make a Giants homer thread. It would save a lot of space and time.

Would you consider this a "homer" thread?

bigbluedefense
10-17-2006, 04:19 PM
Draftguru is my boy, so he gets a pass, especially since the NFC East isn't his personal division so he doesn't know it as well as we do.

But MOTH GOT OWNED....oh man, that was "uber pwnage", lol.

I see Number 10 was keeping this thread in his backpocket for awhile now. You shouldve saved it for a little later, like after the Giants/Cowboys game, that wouldve been the perfect time to whip this thread out.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 04:21 PM
Draftguru is my boy, so he gets a pass, especially since the NFC East isn't his personal division so he doesn't know it as well as we do.

But MOTH GOT OWNED....oh man, that was "uber pwnage", lol.

I see Number 10 was keeping this thread in his backpocket for awhile now. You shouldve saved it for a little later, like after the Giants/Cowboys game, that wouldve been the perfect time to whip this thread out.

Couldn't resist the urge and I want him to come out and say Bledsoe is still better. That is if he has the balls to post in this thread, because I know he'll be reading it.

10-17-2006, 04:21 PM
Well it appears I was dead wrong in voting for the Redskins and predicting them to be in the Superbowl

bigbluedefense
10-17-2006, 04:25 PM
Well it appears I was dead wrong in voting for the Redskins and predicting them to be in the Superbowl

You get respect for admitting you were wrong. Not many are willing to do that.

10-17-2006, 04:28 PM
I don't like any of the teams in the east, so I can't be biased on this pick. I had to go with the Eagles. They may not have the most popular names on the Offense, but they seem to put up big numbers and get the job done.

bsaza2358
10-17-2006, 04:29 PM
I think I was cautiously optimistic about the Eagles. I remain at that stage because the O cannot (or is not allowed to) kill the clock at the end of games. It has hurt the team quite a bit. It looks like the Eagles really can tee off and run over some people, but they haven't done so. Bah!

Windy
10-17-2006, 04:29 PM
Did people underestimate the Eagles or what? 7 votes :shock:

bigbluedefense
10-17-2006, 04:30 PM
Draftguru is my boy, so he gets a pass, especially since the NFC East isn't his personal division so he doesn't know it as well as we do.

But MOTH GOT OWNED....oh man, that was "uber pwnage", lol.

I see Number 10 was keeping this thread in his backpocket for awhile now. You shouldve saved it for a little later, like after the Giants/Cowboys game, that wouldve been the perfect time to whip this thread out.

Couldn't resist the urge and I want him to come out and say Bledsoe is still better. That is if he has the balls to post in this thread, because I know he'll be reading it.

He still rips Eli whenever he can. I believe he said in the Cowboys thread that "Eli still sucks" or something.

10-17-2006, 04:30 PM
Was this poll made before the Stallworth acquisition?

Number 10
10-17-2006, 04:35 PM
Was this poll made before the Stallworth acquisition?

I believe so.

DMWSackMachine
10-17-2006, 05:47 PM
I'd like to refresh some memories.



Eli being better than Daunte is laughable. No one could have played well in that situation in Minnesota last season. Eli is a good player and is on his way up, but he isn't there yet. I don't see him in that top 10 area, more in that 11-15 area.

I find it pointless to give you indivisual explanations on each player. Just look at what they have done in the league and there is no way you can rank Eli higher than any of these guys.

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Carson Palmer
4. Matt Hasselback
5. Trent Green
6. Donavan Mcnabb
7. Jake Delhomme
8. Drew Bledsoe
9. Kurt Warner
10. Daunte Culpepper

Look at every Qb here, all have exceptional completion percentages and they all read defenses with ease. I dont know how you can make an argument that Eli is better than any of these Qbs right now.

Well by "experts" I meant some of the posters on here, just check out the Eli vs Peyton thread or whatever it's called. The point I'm trying to make is that he is indeed overrated, he hasnt done anything to deserve such praise. He shouldnt be mentioned in the top tier of QB's yet, although he is, even with credible sports analysts. As for the whole Bledsoe/Eli debate, the only thing I believe Eli has on Bledsoe is a little more mobility, that is it.

Next season I will take Bledsoe over Eli and day of the week.

I'm sick of hearing that the Cowboys line is so bad. They have a completly different O-Line this year, there is no way of knowing if they will be lousy as of right now. Former Pro Bowler Flozell Adams is now healthy, we have a new LG, we have a new C, Marco Rivera is at 100%, and we have a new RT.

As for Bledsoe, he may not be mobile but, he is the most accurate QB in the NFC East, yes even better than Mcnabb. T.O. and the new double TE offense is only going to give him more time and is only going to help him.

Lets do a comparison. (I'll exclude Mcnabb because, he didnt play everygame last year)

2005 stats

Bledsoe 300-499 60.1% 3639 yards 23 Tds 17 INTS

Brunell 262-454 57.7% 3050 yards 23 Tds 10 INTS

Manning 294-557 52.8% 3762 yards 24 Tds 17 INTS

All three put up similar numbers last year but, what stands out is bledsoe's completeion percentage. This is without T.O. what do you think he will do with him?

My QB rankings:

1. Mcnabb
2. Bledsoe
3. Brunell
4. Manning (I'm telling you if he didnt have the 6'5 Plax, he wouldnt have thrown for over 50%.)

Worst QB? How is Eli or Brunell better than Bledsoe? please explain.

Redskins have best OL, best WR's, best RB and brunell is 2nd best QB. its the redskins

I dont expect Eli to be any better this year, in fact I think he will be the Giants downfall. From what I've seen in preseason, Eli doesnt look to be anymore accurate than he was last season.

Redskins and I don't think it is close. They have possible the best OL in the league, and the best OT duo if nothing else. Brunell had a pro bowl caliber season last year. The have a good trio of WRs in Moss, Randle El, and Lloyd. Cooley is a great TE, and Sellers is a very good FB. Oh yea, and I forgot they have a top 5 RB (if not higher) in Clinton Portis.

So.....just to clarify, what's your point? Iirc, your offensive team has been downright horrible several times this year. You choked against the Colts, got your ass handed to you on a platter against the Iggs for 3 quarters of futility, got blown out and disgraced by the Seahawks before mounting an absolute ton of garbage yards in the last 25 mins of the game, weren't able to get it in the end zone against the Skins and their horrendous secondary and then got shut down YET AGAIN in the first half against the Falcons. I'm trying to understand exactly what your point is.

Is it the Eli debate? So far he has cost you, him personally, both of your losses this season. He threw the game clinching Int against the Colts on just a horrible duck-floater of a pass that should never be thrown, he gave away the game with picks against the Seahawks with a barrage of Ints (and a couple more were even dropped) AND his early bone head play was largely responsible for that huge deficit against the Eagles, altough he seems to have gotten some sort of pass because of his late heroics. Why exactly does this validate your argument?

Oh, I know, it's because of stats. Because he has a 92 QB rating and a good comp %, right? Because he has a lot of yards and shiny things to point at. Because he threw for 200+ yards and 3 TDs after the game was out of reach in the late 3rd and 4th quarters of the Seattle game. Because he yanked his wank for 40 minutes against the Eagles before deciding to show up and play. I could go on all day.

This is a joke. The only people who have a right to come in here and gloat are the Eagles fans who knew that they had something good going, but were the victims of the stupid hype machine that only recognizes "name value". They were universally discarded as a non-factor in this discussion, and so far have been the runaway winners. McNabb has been Mcnificent. Westbrook has been unstoppable, Smith is coming into his own and their recievers have worked well as a group without getting any individual accolades. You could start by acknowledging how stupid you (and all the rest of us) were for over looking all these things before you come in here and gloat about something that is still very much up in the air.

The only two things we know right now are 1) Philly is much better than anyone gave them credit for and are the early favorites for best offense in the division and 2) Washington was over-hyped and under-talented like they are seemingly every year. Unlike the first point, there were at least a few on this thread that predicted the second (including yours truly).

That said, don't think that I'm bagging on Eli. He has pretty much done what I expected out of him. He has improved his accuracy quite a bit, though he still throws floaters from time to time. That final throw against Philly was a quintessential Eli moment. That's what he has it in him to be. He will never be the surgeon type that Peyton is, though he does have a moxy and friskiness about him that comes out on the biggest stages. But don't think he's done anything yet.

Also, don't bother throwing out all the things about Dallas that have cost us up to this point. I recognize and fully understand the problems that our team has encountered, specifically regarding Bledsoe and his struggles. The bottom line, though, is points scored. That's what an offense is supposed to do. On that count, here is the score to date:

Philly: 29.8
Dallas: 29.4
NYG: 25.4
Foreskins: 19.7

We'll see how things go moving forward.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 05:54 PM
Are Eli and Bledsoe still on the same level in your eyes?

Jughead10
10-17-2006, 06:29 PM
You choked against the Colts

Sometimes I wonder if you watch the games. No where did we choke against the Colts. It was actually a very tight game and the better team won. Which we weren't.

Because he yanked his wank for 40 minutes against the Eagles before deciding to show up and play. I could go on all day.

That couldn't be further from the truth. For most of the game Eli was the only one who showed up to play. I think he was 10 of 18 with a TD in the first half even after being sacked a crab load of times. Tiki didn't show up that day, the O-line didn't show up that day, only Eli did! He was horrible agasint the Seahawks, but at no point at any time in the defecit to the Eagles was Eli playing horrible. What he did was despite constant pressure all day and being sacked 8 times, he single handedly won that game. Him and Toomer. Something Bledsoe could not do in almost the exact same situation.

AND his early bone head play was largely responsible for that huge deficit against the Eagles

What play is this?

BlindSite
10-17-2006, 06:38 PM
Giants... Tiki is rediculous and probably the best RB in that divison. Plax is a great receiver, best TE in the NFC, Eli is coming on, decent line, great second receiver in toomer and an up and comer in sinorice.

M.O.T.H.
10-17-2006, 07:01 PM
number 10, it looks like you've aroused my attention once again. I cant see how I've been "owned" in any way. Last time I checked, it was week 7, the season is far from over my friend. You act like Eli has been so impressive, he has just as many ints as Bledsoe. Right now, i will give Eli the benefit of the doubt, at this moment he is the second best in the division, with bledsoe in 3rd. I honestly believe this is subject to change, I dont like to make excuses but, many arguments can be brought up to justify Bledsoe's slow start. 1. T.O./Bledsoe not on the same page (T.O. missed an extensive amount of time and it has hurt them on the field.) 2. The wet ball/field conditions (It has rained in three of our five games this year and it has had an effect) 3. O-Line (Did you watch the Eagles game?)
Now, I'll admit Eli has looked better this season, last time I checked he was hovering around 65%, even though 22 of those balls went to a a rarely covered Tiki Barber, that is still pretty impressive. but, with over half a season to go, a lot can change.

As of right now...

1. Mcnabb
2. Eli
3. Bledsoe
4. Brunell

Call me crazy but, I would still take Drew over Eli. If Eli was our QB in that Eagles game, i think things would have been much worse.

DMWSackMachine
10-17-2006, 07:20 PM
You choked against the Colts

Sometimes I wonder if you watch the games. No where did we choke against the Colts. It was actually a very tight game and the better team won. Which we weren't.

So that lame duck of a pass that ended the game couldn't be classified as choking? Ok, my bad.

Because he yanked his wank for 40 minutes against the Eagles before deciding to show up and play. I could go on all day.

That couldn't be further from the truth. For most of the game Eli was the only one who showed up to play. I think he was 10 of 18 with a TD in the first half even after being sacked a crab load of times. Tiki didn't show up that day, the O-line didn't show up that day, only Eli did! He was horrible agasint the Seahawks, but at no point at any time in the defecit to the Eagles was Eli playing horrible. What he did was despite constant pressure all day and being sacked 8 times, he single handedly won that game. Him and Toomer. Something Bledsoe could not do in almost the exact same situation.

Don't twist the stats please. They came out and went right down the field. Eli was, I believe, 5/6 with a TD on the drive. That accounts for most of his stats. If our memories are correct, that would mean that between the end of the first drive and the middle of the 3rd he was about 5/12 with no TDs and a pick or two. Don't make it sound like he was out there on fire and his guys weren't rallying around him. He looked like ass. I watched the game just like you did.

Still, the fact that he could play that badly and still turn things around is actually a credit to his name. Not an easy thing to do. And, no, Bledsoe could (at least I don't think so) not do the same in the same situation. That is part of what I explained was the difference between the two. It is actually one of Eli's biggest strengths.

AND his early bone head play was largely responsible for that huge deficit against the Eagles

What play is this?

I think your misinterpreting my use of the word "play". I mean his level of play in general. I was not referring to a specific throw or anything of that nature.

Go_Eli
10-17-2006, 08:19 PM
So that lame duck of a pass that ended the game couldn't be classified as choking? Ok, my bad.

What about that perfect pass to Tim Carter that got called back because of a terrible flag? Want to mention that one too, but if the refs actually made the right call, the Giants win that game.


Don't twist the stats please. They came out and went right down the field. Eli was, I believe, 5/6 with a TD on the drive. That accounts for most of his stats. If our memories are correct, that would mean that between the end of the first drive and the middle of the 3rd he was about 5/12 with no TDs and a pick or two. Don't make it sound like he was out there on fire and his guys weren't rallying around him. He looked like ass. I watched the game just like you did.

After the first drive, Manning was 6/11 with 5 sacks. The INT came in the 4th quarter.

I think your misinterpreting my use of the word "play". I mean his level of play in general. I was not referring to a specific throw or anything of that nature.

Against the Eagles? Man, he was the only one that came to play. If Manning didn't show up to play that day, then the running game, offensive line, and defense didn't even make the trip.

Jughead10
10-17-2006, 08:31 PM
Don't twist the stats please. They came out and went right down the field. Eli was, I believe, 5/6 with a TD on the drive. That accounts for most of his stats. If our memories are correct, that would mean that between the end of the first drive and the middle of the 3rd he was about 5/12 with no TDs and a pick or two. Don't make it sound like he was out there on fire and his guys weren't rallying around him. He looked like ass. I watched the game just like you did.

Obviously you didn't because he only threw one pick and it was in the 4th quarter. If you want to refer to someone looking like ass, pop in the Dallas tape against the Eagles and keep an eye on Bledsoe.

Jughead10
10-17-2006, 08:32 PM
Call me crazy but, I would still take Drew over Eli. If Eli was our QB in that Eagles game, i think things would have been much worse.

How so. The situations were pretty similar and Eli won. The Eagles defense got at Eli just as much as they did to Bledsoe. Eli got sacked 8 times and was pressured just as much yet he found a way to win that game.

I may have a homer tag next to me, given by a fellow cowgirl fan, but I can't believe some crap I'm reading. I actually thought the Cowboys fans were pretty intelligent, minus the whole Bledsoe better than Eli thing, but our game week comes up and they sure as hell turn for the worse.

M.O.T.H.
10-17-2006, 08:52 PM
Call me crazy but, I would still take Drew over Eli. If Eli was our QB in that Eagles game, i think things would have been much worse.

How so. The situations were pretty similar and Eli won. The Eagles defense got at Eli just as much as they did to Bledsoe. Eli got sacked 8 times and was pressured just as much yet he found a way to win that game.

I may have a homer tag next to me, given by a fellow cowgirl fan, but I can't believe some crap I'm reading. I actually thought the Cowboys fans were pretty intelligent, minus the whole Bledsoe better than Eli thing, but our game week comes up and they sure as hell turn for the worse.

Whats wrong with taking a proven Qb with 40,000+ yards and 250 Tds under his belt over a third year Qb, that has a tendency to overthrow 6'5 receivers. nothing.

I just like Bledsoe more, that doesnt make me a homer.

Eli doesnt drop back much faster than Bledsoe, i dont think he would have had any more success with how the boys line played that game.

cunningham06
10-17-2006, 09:39 PM
My main problem with Eli is that he's such a slow starter. If you were to get all of his first half stats he would be one of the worst qb's in the NFL. If you took his second half stats he's one of the better qb's. He puts the team in a hole early and then has to dig them back out of it. That will not work if they are playing a team with a defense like the Ravens Chargers or Bears.

cgf
10-17-2006, 09:41 PM
My main problem with Eli is that he's such a slow starter. If you were to get all of his first half stats he would be one of the worst qb's in the NFL. If you took his second half stats he's one of the better qb's. He puts the team in a hole early and then has to dig them back out of it. That will not work if they are playing a team with a defense like the Ravens Chargers or Bears.

It's really only the first quarter he's struggled with

CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT ATT YDS AVG LNG TD
1st Qtr 13 28 147 46.4 5.25 44 1 4 4.0 35.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
2nd Qtr 30 44 384 68.2 8.73 46 1 1 4.0 93.4 0 0 0.0 0 0
3rd Qtr 26 41 280 63.4 6.83 21 3 0 1.0 107.8 1 0 0.0 0 0
4th Qtr 38 55 435 69.1 7.91 33 5 2 0.0 107.8 4 6 1.5 9 0
Overtime 8 8 83 100.0 10.38 31 1 0 2.0 149.5 0 0 0.0 0 0

cunningham06
10-17-2006, 09:45 PM
My main problem with Eli is that he's such a slow starter. If you were to get all of his first half stats he would be one of the worst qb's in the NFL. If you took his second half stats he's one of the better qb's. He puts the team in a hole early and then has to dig them back out of it. That will not work if they are playing a team with a defense like the Ravens Chargers or Bears.

It's really only the first quarter he's struggled with

CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT ATT YDS AVG LNG TD
1st Qtr 13 28 147 46.4 5.25 44 1 4 4.0 35.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
2nd Qtr 30 44 384 68.2 8.73 46 1 1 4.0 93.4 0 0 0.0 0 0
3rd Qtr 26 41 280 63.4 6.83 21 3 0 1.0 107.8 1 0 0.0 0 0
4th Qtr 38 55 435 69.1 7.91 33 5 2 0.0 107.8 4 6 1.5 9 0
Overtime 8 8 83 100.0 10.38 31 1 0 2.0 149.5 0 0 0.0 0 0

Yea I agree he makes too many mistakes in the first quarter, and then doesn't get much done to make up for it in the second so I say he has a problem in the first half of the games. In the second half he makes up for it somewhat, but my point is that the Giants this season have seemed to be trailing at halftime quite a bit.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 09:47 PM
I am humored by how the Cowboys fans nitpick Eli. It's hilarious.

No he hasn't put together an untouchable season to this point, but he is EASILY outplaying Bledsoe and it isn't even close to being close.

Jughead10
10-17-2006, 09:47 PM
Call me crazy but, I would still take Drew over Eli. If Eli was our QB in that Eagles game, i think things would have been much worse.

How so. The situations were pretty similar and Eli won. The Eagles defense got at Eli just as much as they did to Bledsoe. Eli got sacked 8 times and was pressured just as much yet he found a way to win that game.

I may have a homer tag next to me, given by a fellow cowgirl fan, but I can't believe some crap I'm reading. I actually thought the Cowboys fans were pretty intelligent, minus the whole Bledsoe better than Eli thing, but our game week comes up and they sure as hell turn for the worse.

Whats wrong with taking a proven Qb with 40,000+ yards and 250 Tds under his belt over a third year Qb, that has a tendency to overthrow 6'5 receivers. nothing.

I just like Bledsoe more, that doesnt make me a homer.

Eli doesnt drop back much faster than Bledsoe, i dont think he would have had any more success with how the boys line played that game.

I guess you aren't comprehending what I am saying. The Giants line played the same way as your boys' line when we played the Eagles. The Eagles sacked and pressured Eli just as much as they did to Bledsoe. And Eli did in fact have more sucess. He won the game.

Also 40,000 yards and 250+ TDs mean nothing now. He isn't that QB anymore. He was never that amazing of a QB. He was a compiler. Similar to Martin and Bettis at RB.

dpl85
10-17-2006, 09:56 PM
I would rank them as 1. Eagles 2. Giants 3. Cowboys 4. Redskins.

In response to the previous poster I think Bledsoe was at one point a very good and maybe even great QB but obviously his skillls have eroded quite a lot since then.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 10:04 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 10:06 PM
number 10, it looks like you've aroused my attention once again. I cant see how I've been "owned" in any way. Last time I checked, it was week 7, the season is far from over my friend. You act like Eli has been so impressive, he has just as many ints as Bledsoe. Right now, i will give Eli the benefit of the doubt, at this moment he is the second best in the division, with bledsoe in 3rd. I honestly believe this is subject to change, I dont like to make excuses but, many arguments can be brought up to justify Bledsoe's slow start. 1. T.O./Bledsoe not on the same page (T.O. missed an extensive amount of time and it has hurt them on the field.) 2. The wet ball/field conditions (It has rained in three of our five games this year and it has had an effect) 3. O-Line (Did you watch the Eagles game?)
Now, I'll admit Eli has looked better this season, last time I checked he was hovering around 65%, even though 22 of those balls went to a a rarely covered Tiki Barber, that is still pretty impressive. but, with over half a season to go, a lot can change.

As of right now...

1. Mcnabb
2. Eli
3. Bledsoe
4. Brunell

Call me crazy but, I would still take Drew over Eli. If Eli was our QB in that Eagles game, i think things would have been much worse.

So if the 2 QBs play the same way from here on out, will you agree that Eli is at a higher level than Drew?

cunningham06
10-17-2006, 10:22 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 10:24 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

None of the sensible Giants fans are even mentioning his name in the MVP race, that is a whole different level that he has not reached. We all place him around 10th when ranking QBs in the league, as do the majority of the football fans on this site. So calling us homers and saying our view of him is too high would be invalid.

Shiver
10-17-2006, 10:26 PM
Giants have the best offense, then Eagles, Cowboys, Redskins in that order. It's funny how little love the Eagles had prior to the season.

cunningham06
10-17-2006, 10:27 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

None of the sensible Giants fans are even mentioning his name in the MVP race, that is a whole different level that he has not reached. We all place him around 10th when ranking QBs in the league, as do the majority of the football fans on this site. So calling us homers and saying our view of him is too high would be invalid.

Big Blue Defense said it, you can ask him. That was before the Atlanta game though.

Jughead10
10-17-2006, 10:28 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

None of the sensible Giants fans are even mentioning his name in the MVP race, that is a whole different level that he has not reached. We all place him around 10th when ranking QBs in the league, as do the majority of the football fans on this site. So calling us homers and saying our view of him is too high would be invalid.

I'd actaully have a hard time picking 9 other QBs I'd rather have. I'd probably put Eli 8th.

Number 10
10-17-2006, 10:28 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

None of the sensible Giants fans are even mentioning his name in the MVP race, that is a whole different level that he has not reached. We all place him around 10th when ranking QBs in the league, as do the majority of the football fans on this site. So calling us homers and saying our view of him is too high would be invalid.

Big Blue Defense said it, you can ask him. That was before the Atlanta game though.

If he actually said that Eli was a legit MVP candidate, then I would be deeply disappointed. There are 7-8-9 guys that should be mentioned before him.

cgf
10-17-2006, 10:28 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

None of the sensible Giants fans are even mentioning his name in the MVP race, that is a whole different level that he has not reached. We all place him around 10th when ranking QBs in the league, as do the majority of the football fans on this site. So calling us homers and saying our view of him is too high would be invalid.

Big Blue Defense said it, you can ask him. That was before the Atlanta game though.

Maybe he was joking? BBD, joking? not possible.

cunningham06
10-17-2006, 10:38 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

None of the sensible Giants fans are even mentioning his name in the MVP race, that is a whole different level that he has not reached. We all place him around 10th when ranking QBs in the league, as do the majority of the football fans on this site. So calling us homers and saying our view of him is too high would be invalid.

Big Blue Defense said it, you can ask him. That was before the Atlanta game though.

Maybe he was joking? BBD, joking? not possible.

He wasn't. Eli is having a good season and before the Atlanta game a case could be made for him, not a good case, but a case nonetheless.

M.O.T.H.
10-17-2006, 11:15 PM
number 10, it looks like you've aroused my attention once again. I cant see how I've been "owned" in any way. Last time I checked, it was week 7, the season is far from over my friend. You act like Eli has been so impressive, he has just as many ints as Bledsoe. Right now, i will give Eli the benefit of the doubt, at this moment he is the second best in the division, with bledsoe in 3rd. I honestly believe this is subject to change, I dont like to make excuses but, many arguments can be brought up to justify Bledsoe's slow start. 1. T.O./Bledsoe not on the same page (T.O. missed an extensive amount of time and it has hurt them on the field.) 2. The wet ball/field conditions (It has rained in three of our five games this year and it has had an effect) 3. O-Line (Did you watch the Eagles game?)
Now, I'll admit Eli has looked better this season, last time I checked he was hovering around 65%, even though 22 of those balls went to a a rarely covered Tiki Barber, that is still pretty impressive. but, with over half a season to go, a lot can change.

As of right now...

1. Mcnabb
2. Eli
3. Bledsoe
4. Brunell

Call me crazy but, I would still take Drew over Eli. If Eli was our QB in that Eagles game, i think things would have been much worse.

So if the 2 QBs play the same way from here on out, will you agree that Eli is at a higher level than Drew?

Yes I would. I'm not a homer if, I really believe someone is better than the other I will say so.

DMWSackMachine
10-18-2006, 01:50 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

Listen. Here's the bottom line: Eli has cost you a shot at two games. He threw the game clinching Int against Indy (explain how that is any different than what Bledsoe did against Jax or Philly) and was a turnover machine against Seattle leading to an unsurmountable lead. That's two lost games. In the Seattle game he piled up 200+ yards and 3 TDs in junk time after the game was out of reach, so his stats look respectable, when his play in that game negatively affected his team worse than either of Drew's bad days.

Then in Philly he generated a ton of stats after the game was thought to be out of reach. Philly was playing a soft D for much of the 4th quarter, and started being aggressive too late. Still, Eli was very impressive for stretches of that game, while being downright dirty horrible for other parts.

The whole thing about the Eli debate is his consistency and his erratic play. When he is on his game he has the potential to be a top 3 or 4 QB in the league, without a doubt. He really does. That was my point all along. However, there are still times when he makes bad decisions, throws floaters and generally plays very badly. That was my point.

As for Bledsoe, he had been pretty bad so far this year in two games. The only difference is that he didn't get stats in junk time to make the final tally look better. He threw three picks against the Eagles when he was being pressured at an amazing rate, and threw 3 more picks against the Jaguars when he was dealing with back spasms negatively affecting his mechanics. But we as a team did not get blown out in either of those games, and get 200+ yards of meaningless stats. Our team was in it until the end, and the plays that Bledsoe did make (like a 56 yard throw to Terry Glen that would have been a TD if not for the pass interference that Lewis committed) do not show up as readily in the stat column.

Has Manning played better so far? Yeah. Has he blown Bledsoe out of the water? Not even close. I would give a slight edge to Eli, even though the numbers differ by a significant margin.

But again, the question on this thread is about the best Offense. As is, this is the ranking:

Philly 29.8
Dallas 29.4
NYG 25.4
Washington way behind

I would be much obliged to see someone, anyone, recognize this fact.

LonghornsLegend
10-18-2006, 02:12 PM
Giants have the best offense, then Eagles, Cowboys, Redskins in that order. It's funny how little love the Eagles had prior to the season.


i see giants cowboys as 1a. and 1b.

depending on what you like, and which drew bledsoe we decide to have at qb, either way i think both are above the rest....


just because mcnabb is the best qb in the division doesnt make up for their lack of talent at the WR position compared to the rest....and Julious Jones is under rated, he is avg 100 yds per game, with a very nice back up barber behind him...they dont get as much hype as barber and westbrook but very effective all the same...still as a whole, the eagles are third at best

Number 10
10-18-2006, 02:13 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

Listen. Here's the bottom line: Eli has cost you a shot at two games. He threw the game clinching Int against Indy (explain how that is any different than what Bledsoe did against Jax or Philly) and was a turnover machine against Seattle leading to an unsurmountable lead. That's two lost games. In the Seattle game he piled up 200+ yards and 3 TDs in junk time after the game was out of reach, so his stats look respectable, when his play in that game negatively affected his team worse than either of Drew's bad days.

Then in Philly he generated a ton of stats after the game was thought to be out of reach. Philly was playing a soft D for much of the 4th quarter, and started being aggressive too late. Still, Eli was very impressive for stretches of that game, while being downright dirty horrible for other parts.

The whole thing about the Eli debate is his consistency and his erratic play. When he is on his game he has the potential to be a top 3 or 4 QB in the league, without a doubt. He really does. That was my point all along. However, there are still times when he makes bad decisions, throws floaters and generally plays very badly. That was my point.

As for Bledsoe, he had been pretty bad so far this year in two games. The only difference is that he didn't get stats in junk time to make the final tally look better. He threw three picks against the Eagles when he was being pressured at an amazing rate, and threw 3 more picks against the Jaguars when he was dealing with back spasms negatively affecting his mechanics. But we as a team did not get blown out in either of those games, and get 200+ yards of meaningless stats. Our team was in it until the end, and the plays that Bledsoe did make (like a 56 yard throw to Terry Glen that would have been a TD if not for the pass interference that Lewis committed) do not show up as readily in the stat column.

Has Manning played better so far? Yeah. Has he blown Bledsoe out of the water? Not even close. I would give a slight edge to Eli, even though the numbers differ by a significant margin.

But again, the question on this thread is about the best Offense. As is, this is the ranking:

Philly 29.8
Dallas 29.4
NYG 25.4
Washington way behind

I would be much obliged to see someone, anyone, recognize this fact.

The problem with you is that you have the most pesimistic view possible on the Giants while having the most optimistic view on the Cowboys...as seen with the escuse making for Bledsoe. (Guess you didn't notice how much pressure Eli recieved against the Eagles).

For you to tell us that Eli is shaky with his consistency isn't any news to anyone. We all know that already. But what do you expect from a QB in his 2nd full year as a starter? Also, great QBs can be inconsistent as seen with Brett Favre. Eli has a knack for the big play when it matters most and seems to never get rattled. Drew on the other hand can pretty much be taken out of the game with a few sacks early in the game.

We rank Eli around #10 give or take in the league as an NFL QB as do most of the other fans on this forum, yet we think too highly of him? Please explain. Nobody is saying he is blwing him out of the water, not yet anyway, but he is without a doubt, hands down a better QB than Drew.

DMWSackMachine
10-18-2006, 02:19 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

Listen. Here's the bottom line: Eli has cost you a shot at two games. He threw the game clinching Int against Indy (explain how that is any different than what Bledsoe did against Jax or Philly) and was a turnover machine against Seattle leading to an unsurmountable lead. That's two lost games. In the Seattle game he piled up 200+ yards and 3 TDs in junk time after the game was out of reach, so his stats look respectable, when his play in that game negatively affected his team worse than either of Drew's bad days.

Then in Philly he generated a ton of stats after the game was thought to be out of reach. Philly was playing a soft D for much of the 4th quarter, and started being aggressive too late. Still, Eli was very impressive for stretches of that game, while being downright dirty horrible for other parts.

The whole thing about the Eli debate is his consistency and his erratic play. When he is on his game he has the potential to be a top 3 or 4 QB in the league, without a doubt. He really does. That was my point all along. However, there are still times when he makes bad decisions, throws floaters and generally plays very badly. That was my point.

As for Bledsoe, he had been pretty bad so far this year in two games. The only difference is that he didn't get stats in junk time to make the final tally look better. He threw three picks against the Eagles when he was being pressured at an amazing rate, and threw 3 more picks against the Jaguars when he was dealing with back spasms negatively affecting his mechanics. But we as a team did not get blown out in either of those games, and get 200+ yards of meaningless stats. Our team was in it until the end, and the plays that Bledsoe did make (like a 56 yard throw to Terry Glen that would have been a TD if not for the pass interference that Lewis committed) do not show up as readily in the stat column.

Has Manning played better so far? Yeah. Has he blown Bledsoe out of the water? Not even close. I would give a slight edge to Eli, even though the numbers differ by a significant margin.

But again, the question on this thread is about the best Offense. As is, this is the ranking:

Philly 29.8
Dallas 29.4
NYG 25.4
Washington way behind

I would be much obliged to see someone, anyone, recognize this fact.

The problem with you is that you have the most pesimistic view possible on the Giants while having the most optimistic view on the Cowboys...as seen with the escuse making for Bledsoe. (Guess you didn't notice how much pressure Eli recieved against the Eagles).

For you to tell us that Eli is shaky with his consistency isn't any news to anyone. We all know that already. But what do you expect from a QB in his 2nd full year as a starter? Also, great QBs can be inconsistent as seen with Brett Favre. Eli has a knack for the big play when it matters most and seems to never get rattled. Drew on the other hand can pretty much be taken out of the game with a few sacks early in the game.

We rank Eli around #10 give or take in the league as an NFL QB as do most of the other fans on this forum, yet we think too highly of him? Please explain. Nobody is saying he is blwing him out of the water, not yet anyway, but he is without a doubt, hands down a better QB than Drew.

Prove it.

That's all I'm saying. Prove it.

You can't use stats, because he has the most junk yards and TDs of any QB in the entire league.

Try this number: 3-2

Same record for both teams. What is the QBs no. 1 responsibility? Win. And each game we lost we were in position to win with a last second drive, we didn't get our asses blown out like you boys did.

Jughead10
10-18-2006, 02:19 PM
Listen. Here's the bottom line: Eli has cost you a shot at two games. He threw the game clinching Int against Indy (explain how that is any different than what Bledsoe did against Jax or Philly) and was a turnover machine against Seattle leading to an unsurmountable lead. That's two lost games. In the Seattle game he piled up 200+ yards and 3 TDs in junk time after the game was out of reach, so his stats look respectable, when his play in that game negatively affected his team worse than either of Drew's bad days.

Then in Philly he generated a ton of stats after the game was thought to be out of reach. Philly was playing a soft D for much of the 4th quarter, and started being aggressive too late. Still, Eli was very impressive for stretches of that game, while being downright dirty horrible for other parts.

He didn't throw the game clinching Int against Indy. We actually got the ball back and he was marching us down the field until a terrible offensive pass interference call on Tim Carter. Although the Colts were the better team that day. It was a lot different than Bledsoe against Philly or Jax because Eli actually had a great game minus one throw, while Bledsoe was pretty bad through a good portion of those games.

Also Eli at no point was "downright dirty horrible" against Philly. Against Seattle? Yes. But Eli was the only player who wasn't horrible at any point against Philly. Did you watch the Eagles/Giants game beacuse beofre you said he threw a pick in the first half and had 2 during the game and neither of those are correct.

Jughead10
10-18-2006, 02:21 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

Listen. Here's the bottom line: Eli has cost you a shot at two games. He threw the game clinching Int against Indy (explain how that is any different than what Bledsoe did against Jax or Philly) and was a turnover machine against Seattle leading to an unsurmountable lead. That's two lost games. In the Seattle game he piled up 200+ yards and 3 TDs in junk time after the game was out of reach, so his stats look respectable, when his play in that game negatively affected his team worse than either of Drew's bad days.

Then in Philly he generated a ton of stats after the game was thought to be out of reach. Philly was playing a soft D for much of the 4th quarter, and started being aggressive too late. Still, Eli was very impressive for stretches of that game, while being downright dirty horrible for other parts.

The whole thing about the Eli debate is his consistency and his erratic play. When he is on his game he has the potential to be a top 3 or 4 QB in the league, without a doubt. He really does. That was my point all along. However, there are still times when he makes bad decisions, throws floaters and generally plays very badly. That was my point.

As for Bledsoe, he had been pretty bad so far this year in two games. The only difference is that he didn't get stats in junk time to make the final tally look better. He threw three picks against the Eagles when he was being pressured at an amazing rate, and threw 3 more picks against the Jaguars when he was dealing with back spasms negatively affecting his mechanics. But we as a team did not get blown out in either of those games, and get 200+ yards of meaningless stats. Our team was in it until the end, and the plays that Bledsoe did make (like a 56 yard throw to Terry Glen that would have been a TD if not for the pass interference that Lewis committed) do not show up as readily in the stat column.

Has Manning played better so far? Yeah. Has he blown Bledsoe out of the water? Not even close. I would give a slight edge to Eli, even though the numbers differ by a significant margin.

But again, the question on this thread is about the best Offense. As is, this is the ranking:

Philly 29.8
Dallas 29.4
NYG 25.4
Washington way behind

I would be much obliged to see someone, anyone, recognize this fact.

The problem with you is that you have the most pesimistic view possible on the Giants while having the most optimistic view on the Cowboys...as seen with the escuse making for Bledsoe. (Guess you didn't notice how much pressure Eli recieved against the Eagles).

For you to tell us that Eli is shaky with his consistency isn't any news to anyone. We all know that already. But what do you expect from a QB in his 2nd full year as a starter? Also, great QBs can be inconsistent as seen with Brett Favre. Eli has a knack for the big play when it matters most and seems to never get rattled. Drew on the other hand can pretty much be taken out of the game with a few sacks early in the game.

We rank Eli around #10 give or take in the league as an NFL QB as do most of the other fans on this forum, yet we think too highly of him? Please explain. Nobody is saying he is blwing him out of the water, not yet anyway, but he is without a doubt, hands down a better QB than Drew.

Prove it.

That's all I'm saying. Prove it.

You can't use stats, because he has the most junk yards and TDs of any QB in the entire league.

Try this number: 3-2

Same record for both teams. What is the QBs no. 1 responsibility? Win. And each game we lost we were in position to win with a last second drive, we didn't get our asses blown out like you boys did.

Ok I like 3-2. Last year we had one more win than the Cowboys. So Eli must have been a better Qb last year since the number 1 responsibility is to win? I used the same reasoning this offseason and all Cowboys fans did was throw completion percetage in my face.

Shiver
10-18-2006, 02:37 PM
Giants have the best offense, then Eagles, Cowboys, Redskins in that order. It's funny how little love the Eagles had prior to the season.


i see giants cowboys as 1a. and 1b.

depending on what you like, and which drew bledsoe we decide to have at qb, either way i think both are above the rest....


just because mcnabb is the best qb in the division doesnt make up for their lack of talent at the WR position compared to the rest....and Julious Jones is under rated, he is avg 100 yds per game, with a very nice back up barber behind him...they dont get as much hype as barber and westbrook but very effective all the same...still as a whole, the eagles are third at best

QB - Giants
RB - Giants
WR/TE - Cowboys
O-Line - Giants

Number 10
10-18-2006, 02:55 PM
Prove it? haha.

Can't use stats? Of course not, because they do not favor Drew. If they did favor Drew, you'd be chucking up every stat you could and you know it.

You can't base a ranking solely off of wins because football is arguably the one sport in the entire world that really depends on the entire team. Eli did not blow the game against Indy, if you watched the film, Plax gave up on the route thus making the safety divert his attention to the other seam, which is where Eli threw it. By no means was it a good throw at all, but Plax was just as much at fault for that INT. And the Giants still lose that game if Eli throws a TD there. He did not blow the game against Seattle. Did he get off to a bad start? Yes. But if you have the time, go check what out defense did against the Alexander-less Seahawks you fool.

But anyway, let's compare who Drew and the Cowboys have beat.

Redskins (2-4)
Titans (1-5)
Texans (1-4)

A combined 4-13. Bledsoe should be given a pat on the back because he can beat up on the worst teams in the NFL? Hm.

Drew and the Cowboys have lost to

Jaguars (3-2)-Drew's rating-45.8
Eagles (4-2)-Drew's rating-33.1

They have lost to the two teams that have .500+ records right now and Drew played scary bad against them. Let's switch it over to Eli and the Giants.

Eli and the Giants have beat

Eagles (4-2)
Redskins (2-4)
Falcons (3-2)

A combined record of 9-8. Not easy not hard but considering two of those wins came on the road in tough places to play.....

Eli and the Giants have lost to

Colts (5-0) Eli's rating-88.7
Seahawks (4-1) Eli's rating-82.5

A combined 9-1, 2 of the top 3-4-5 teams in the NFL right now. And yes Eli got some garbage stats against the Seahawks, but it WAS against their first string defense.

Number 10
10-18-2006, 05:47 PM
Prove it? haha.

Can't use stats? Of course not, because they do not favor Drew. If they did favor Drew, you'd be chucking up every stat you could and you know it.

You can't base a ranking solely off of wins because football is arguably the one sport in the entire world that really depends on the entire team. Eli did not blow the game against Indy, if you watched the film, Plax gave up on the route thus making the safety divert his attention to the other seam, which is where Eli threw it. By no means was it a good throw at all, but Plax was just as much at fault for that INT. And the Giants still lose that game if Eli throws a TD there. He did not blow the game against Seattle. Did he get off to a bad start? Yes. But if you have the time, go check what out defense did against the Alexander-less Seahawks you fool.

But anyway, let's compare who Drew and the Cowboys have beat.

Redskins (2-4)
Titans (1-5)
Texans (1-4)

A combined 4-13. Bledsoe should be given a pat on the back because he can beat up on the worst teams in the NFL? Hm.

Drew and the Cowboys have lost to

Jaguars (3-2)-Drew's rating-45.8
Eagles (4-2)-Drew's rating-33.1

They have lost to the two teams that have .500+ records right now and Drew played scary bad against them. Let's switch it over to Eli and the Giants.

Eli and the Giants have beat

Eagles (4-2)
Redskins (2-4)
Falcons (3-2)

A combined record of 9-8. Not easy not hard but considering two of those wins came on the road in tough places to play.....

Eli and the Giants have lost to

Colts (5-0) Eli's rating-88.7
Seahawks (4-1) Eli's rating-82.5

A combined 9-1, 2 of the top 3-4-5 teams in the NFL right now. And yes Eli got some garbage stats against the Seahawks, but it WAS against their first string defense.

Any rebuttle to this?

bigbluedefense
10-18-2006, 06:03 PM
And to all of you that are attempting to bring up Eli's first quarter struggles, give me a break. Isn't this why we play 4 quarters? Is Eli a bad QB and is the Giants offense poor because they have not played well in the first quarter? That is why the game is 4 quarters long people!!! What is so difficult to take in there? For every time you want to bash Eli and the couple of bad starts he has had, you have to praise him for his play late in games when the game is on the line and when the team needs a hero.

I brought up his first quarter struggles but I am in no way saying that he is a bad qb. I'm saying that eventually if that doesn't improve he is going to get himself into trouble against tough defenses, especially if the Giants were to make it to the playoffs. He is no MVP candidate like I have heard it said, but he is CERTAINLY better than Bledsoe.

None of the sensible Giants fans are even mentioning his name in the MVP race, that is a whole different level that he has not reached. We all place him around 10th when ranking QBs in the league, as do the majority of the football fans on this site. So calling us homers and saying our view of him is too high would be invalid.

Big Blue Defense said it, you can ask him. That was before the Atlanta game though.

Yes I did say it, and I retract his name from the MVP talk at the moment. Can he get back there? Possibly. After the Atlanta game, he's hurt his chances. But before that game, hear me out.

He was 2nd in the league in TDs and completion %, and that was with having a bye week, and any one of us who've seen the Giants consistently this season would know that without him, we'd easily be winless. For that reason, I thought he was a viable candidate. If Grossman was one, why not Eli? Eli was as important to our team if not moreso than Grossman to the Bears. Thats why I said it. He had near equal stats to McNabb, better stats than Grossman, and equal importance. Now obviously, his name is off the list after the Atlanta game, but can he get back on it? Maybe, its only week 7 right now. But I think I was somewhat justified by bringing his name up. We heard Stephen Jackson's name, why not Eli?

Shiver
10-18-2006, 06:26 PM
I don't see how the Atlanta game hurt Eli Manning. The Falcons secondary have given up two passing touchdowns all season, both to Eli Manning. DeAngelo Hall is a playmaker, he's picked everybody this year. I was impressed with his performance, although Tiki abusing Demorrio Williams was the real reason the Giants scored 27 points.

bigbluedefense
10-18-2006, 06:32 PM
I don't see how the Atlanta game hurt Eli Manning. The Falcons secondary have given up two passing touchdowns all season, both to Eli Manning. DeAngelo Hall is a playmaker, he's picked everybody this year. I was impressed with his performance, although Tiki abusing Demorrio Williams was the real reason the Giants scored 27 points.

I know, but statistically, he didn't have a great game. And I knew that the Eli haters would use that as a way to knock him. Eli played ok, but I will admit, he didn't play Peyton-like in that game. Its amazing how he has to play like Peyton every single quarter for every single game too, its amazing how people will find the tiniest thing to knock him for. Its funny, because theres so much more to the game than stats, and if you look at Eli play, and look at Bledsoe play, the stats might be similar, but anyone with a pair of working eyes can see that Eli is light years ahead of Bledsoe. There are plays that he makes that Drew Bledsoe could only dream of making.


I also noticed how certain Cowboys fans say "stats mean nothing" when it proves Bledsoe to be worse, but when it proves him to be better, they whip out the stats like no tomorrow. I find that funny.

LonghornsLegend
10-18-2006, 07:49 PM
Prove it? haha.

Can't use stats? Of course not, because they do not favor Drew. If they did favor Drew, you'd be chucking up every stat you could and you know it.

You can't base a ranking solely off of wins because football is arguably the one sport in the entire world that really depends on the entire team. Eli did not blow the game against Indy, if you watched the film, Plax gave up on the route thus making the safety divert his attention to the other seam, which is where Eli threw it. By no means was it a good throw at all, but Plax was just as much at fault for that INT. And the Giants still lose that game if Eli throws a TD there. He did not blow the game against Seattle. Did he get off to a bad start? Yes. But if you have the time, go check what out defense did against the Alexander-less Seahawks you fool.

But anyway, let's compare who Drew and the Cowboys have beat.

Redskins (2-4)
Titans (1-5)
Texans (1-4)

A combined 4-13. Bledsoe should be given a pat on the back because he can beat up on the worst teams in the NFL? Hm.

Drew and the Cowboys have lost to

Jaguars (3-2)-Drew's rating-45.8
Eagles (4-2)-Drew's rating-33.1

They have lost to the two teams that have .500+ records right now and Drew played scary bad against them. Let's switch it over to Eli and the Giants.

Eli and the Giants have beat

Eagles (4-2)
Redskins (2-4)
Falcons (3-2)

A combined record of 9-8. Not easy not hard but considering two of those wins came on the road in tough places to play.....

Eli and the Giants have lost to

Colts (5-0) Eli's rating-88.7
Seahawks (4-1) Eli's rating-82.5

A combined 9-1, 2 of the top 3-4-5 teams in the NFL right now. And yes Eli got some garbage stats against the Seahawks, but it WAS against their first string defense.


nice stats, cant argue with it....personally id take eli in a heartbeat because even if he screws up alot in the games, when it counts, its almost like you feel like he will come through and make a big play, if drew is put into a position to make a big play, he reminds me of neil o donnel :oops:

bearsfan_51
10-18-2006, 07:52 PM
None of your QB's names rhyme with sexy. Refute that.

Jonathan_VIlma
10-18-2006, 08:24 PM
None of your QB's names rhyme with sexy. Refute that.
I never knew his nickname was "Rexy" Grossman.

DMWSackMachine
10-18-2006, 08:53 PM
Prove it? haha.

Can't use stats? Of course not, because they do not favor Drew. If they did favor Drew, you'd be chucking up every stat you could and you know it.

You can't base a ranking solely off of wins because football is arguably the one sport in the entire world that really depends on the entire team. Eli did not blow the game against Indy, if you watched the film, Plax gave up on the route thus making the safety divert his attention to the other seam, which is where Eli threw it. By no means was it a good throw at all, but Plax was just as much at fault for that INT. And the Giants still lose that game if Eli throws a TD there. He did not blow the game against Seattle. Did he get off to a bad start? Yes. But if you have the time, go check what out defense did against the Alexander-less Seahawks you fool.

But anyway, let's compare who Drew and the Cowboys have beat.

Redskins (2-4)
Titans (1-5)
Texans (1-4)

A combined 4-13. Bledsoe should be given a pat on the back because he can beat up on the worst teams in the NFL? Hm.

Drew and the Cowboys have lost to

Jaguars (3-2)-Drew's rating-45.8
Eagles (4-2)-Drew's rating-33.1

They have lost to the two teams that have .500+ records right now and Drew played scary bad against them. Let's switch it over to Eli and the Giants.

Eli and the Giants have beat

Eagles (4-2)
Redskins (2-4)
Falcons (3-2)

A combined record of 9-8. Not easy not hard but considering two of those wins came on the road in tough places to play.....

Eli and the Giants have lost to

Colts (5-0) Eli's rating-88.7
Seahawks (4-1) Eli's rating-82.5

A combined 9-1, 2 of the top 3-4-5 teams in the NFL right now. And yes Eli got some garbage stats against the Seahawks, but it WAS against their first string defense.

Any rebuttle to this?

Did you really just quote yourself? :lol:


Anyway, yes, you just listed off all the textbook reasons why Eli has been better and why the Giants have been better. You'll notice that I have acknowledged that Eli has played better up to this point. I'm not actually trying to prove that Drew has been. To answer a question that was posed earlier, I can't remember who asked it, yes, if both continue to play at the level that they have played to this point then I will say that Eli is clearly better than Bledsoe this year. If you remember, my whole point before the season was to say that they might be fairly close, but because Bledsoe is a veteran with a proven track record who has won the biggest of games and seen everything there is to see, then I would take Bledsoe for this season. Obviously if you had to pick one going forward it would be Manning for reasons that are too simple to need explaining.

However, my reasoning is this:

Take away the junk yards that he accumulated against Seattle. Take into account the holes he has dug in games against Philly and Atlanta, and then take into account his inability to capitalize on one of the worst secondaries in the league (Washington) and there is a lot more there than meets the eye.

I love how you quote QB rating on a game by game basis as if it tells the whole story. Look at the Dalls vs. Philly game. We had two long drives that Bledsoe engineered for TDs. One ended in a short run by MB3, and the other in a scramble for a TD that Bledsoe made himself. If you turn were to credit Drew for TDs passes on each of those drives, his QB rating goes way up and his stat line all of a sudden looks at least semi-respectable.

You'll notice that Eli has 11 TDs to 7 from Bledsoe (though they have the exact same number of Ints). In the red zone, the Giants have scored 8 TDs. Of those eight a whopping SIX, or 75%, of their TDs have come via the pass. The Cowboys, on the other hand, have scored 12 TDs in the red zone of which 4 have been passes, or 33%. This is an example of a statistical anomaly. It gives the appearance that Eli has been better at putting the ball into the end zone, and yet a large portion of the difference is the tendency of the Giants to let Manning throw it in for the score as opposed to letting their 3rd ranked run game (and, imo, the 2nd best RB in the league) punch it in for the score. This results in a large difference in passer rating, while essentially meaning nothing.

This is only a part of the difference in passer rating, and yet you quote it with such fervor and conviction that one would think that it was the penultimate difference maker in the arguments.

Anyhow, this discussion is going in a circle. You obviously have no desire to admit anything that does not fit into your little belief in The Future. What you don't see is that you can still admit things that are negative without tarnishing what Eli will be. I've found in my experience with NY fans in particular that the "Next Guy" has to always be the very best right now, no matter how unreasonable it is to suggest otherwise. Eli is a fine QB at the moment. He has shown all of the tell tale signs of a young talented guy that is figuring it out. In three or four years he may be among the very elite in the league. Right now, though, he definately is not. He has put together some impressive stats. All I have attempted to do is put those stats in a perspective that shows how misleading they are.

Drew Bledsoe has been a very good QB for about 14 of the 20 quarters this season. You mention how he has done against mediocre competition, and yet you do not acknowlege what he did against Jacksonville before his back tightened up, and against Philly for the last half of the 1st quarter, the entire 2nd quarter, and most of the 3rd quarter. Your forget that we outscored the Eagles 21-7 from the 6 minute mark til the end of the half. We led at half time, we overcame a huge 10-0 hole and a complete circus atmosphere, behind largely the play of Drew Bledsoe. But all you remember is that signature replay we've seen a million times by now of him throwing it right to Lito for a TD the other way. Of course that's how it is. It's a bottom line league. But if you expect it to be that way at all times in the future, you are in for a really nasty surprise.

bearsfan_51
10-18-2006, 09:03 PM
None of your QB's names rhyme with sexy. Refute that.
I never knew his nickname was "Rexy" Grossman.
Sexy Rexy baby. You didn't hear Moose on MNF when he said he was bringing sexy back?