February 08, 2012

As much as I like Manning, he's not a Hall of Famer now.

Unless, of course, people use this guy as some base-level indication for "HOF" career.

In which case, open up the doors and let everyone in!

posted by grum@work at 01:04 PM on February 08, 2012

Eli is on track to becoming a Hall of Famer but he's not there as of yet. Give him some time though.

posted by BornIcon at 01:15 PM on February 08, 2012

Eli is the Rodney Dangerfield of Football.

posted by Joey Michaels at 02:16 PM on February 08, 2012

I think Eli needs to put together one or two regular seasons where he's a legitimate contender for an MVP award

And 2011 wasn't one of them? Who was more valuable to his team this year than Eli Manning?

posted by cixelsyd at 04:27 PM on February 08, 2012

Heck, he has more rings now than his brother and there's no doubt Peyton's in in his first year of eligibility.

Do you think the fact that Eli has more rings makes him a better quarterback than his brother?

posted by Mookieproof at 05:56 PM on February 08, 2012

People have really short memories when it comes to both Eli Manning and Tom Coughlan. Seems like each year both are torn up when things get tough, but after things improve, people are gushing all over about them.

Manning is a very good quarterback at this point, but playoff runs are a team thing. Manning coming on this season coincided with the Giants defense getting it together. He has never dominated during the regular season, and I agree he needs a NFL MVP eventually to solidify his HOF credentials. The two Super Bowls are huge, but I'm not going to read everything into that. These days Manning would have to implode during the Super Bowl not to be voted MVP. I thought a guy like Pierre-Paul on defense had just as big a game, but he'd never, ever get the recognition over a guy named Manning.

Eli is well on his way, at his current rate, but he's not a dominant force worthy of automatic enshrinement yet. And, yes, if people insist on putting so much stock in the two Super Bowls, then those same people should say Eli is better than his brother.

posted by dyams at 06:02 PM on February 08, 2012

From what I saw in the post season, Eli was the better player.

Yeah, but by that logic, Trent Dilfer is a HoF'er. I'm with dyams on this with the caveat that Eli really did have a terrific season. I just don't think he's carried the offense up until now.

posted by yerfatma at 06:17 PM on February 08, 2012

Do you think the fact that Eli has more rings makes him a better quarterback than his brother?

Yes. And Trent Dilfer Mark Rypien blows doors on Dan Marino.

Because fatty beat me to it

posted by tahoemoj at 06:27 PM on February 08, 2012

Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Tom Brady.

Fat lot of good they did in the finality and end of the season. All are great QB's but that doesn't mean Eli isn't a HOF'er.

NFL MVP is decided before the playoffs begin.
How a player does there has no impact on the award.

Eli's team finished 9-7 and squeaked into the playoffs on the last day.
He didn't finish in the top 3 in any QB category for the year, except yards-per-completed-pass.

As for the media-driven "game winning drives" and "comebacks" that they like to focus on, I'm not sure how punishing Brady/Brees/Rodgers for winning games without having to come from behind is fair. That's like saying they were TOO good by not letting the other team take the lead.

For the record, Eli Manning has led the league in only one category, and he's done it twice: interceptions (2007, 2010).

Peyton Manning has led the league in multiple categories in multiple years (24 times, in total).

Oh, and about the media-driven "game winning drives" and "comebacks"?

Eli: led the league twice in GWD (2007, 2011) and comebacks (2007, 2011).
Peyton: led the league four times in GWD (1999, 2002, 2008, 2009) and three times in comebacks (1999, 2006, 2009).

Eli has a VERY long way to go before he's going to be in the same discussion as his older brother.

posted by grum@work at 06:41 PM on February 08, 2012

That's true, but Eli Manning's 30 of 40 passing for 296 yards and 1 touchdown, 9-for-9 start and his game-winning drive were an MVP caliber performance.

Manning's overall playoff stats: QB rating 103.3, 304 passing yards per game, 9 toucnhdowns and 1 interception.

posted by rcade at 06:54 PM on February 08, 2012

If you're going to call Eli the "default choice," you should identify the player more deserving of the award. Jason Pierre-Paul was suggested, but he had two tackles and no sacks.

posted by rcade at 08:19 PM on February 08, 2012

And it's not as if Eli's Super Bowl performance came against the '85 Bears defense. The Patriots defense, especially their defensive backs, have been horrible all year. Even Tom Brady would have to admit that under oath. Did what he had to do, the Giants won, and that's good.

I was impressed by the beating he withstood against the Niners, though.

posted by dyams at 08:23 PM on February 08, 2012

The Patriots defense was the fifth best in the playoffs in passing defense, fifth best in yards given up, third best in points per game and third best in sacks per game. They picked up their game in the playoffs.

Yeah, but just from "bad" to "slightly better than average". 5th out of twelve isn't anything wonderful. Much better than they were during the regular season, but in the playoffs you're removing teams like the Jets and keeping ones like the Packers.

posted by LionIndex at 08:51 PM on February 08, 2012

5th out of twelve isn't anything wonderful.

Fifth out of 12 playoff teams is pretty damn good.

Beating the Broncos and Ravens isn't like shutting down Green Bay and New Orleans.

People are trying too hard to delegitimize playoff achievements. It means something to beat playoff teams and reach the Super Bowl. The Patriots were a deserving AFC champion no matter their regular season weaknesses.

The Giants' playoffs started in week 16 when they played the Cowboys for the NFC East crown. Their five-game run over Dallas, Atlanta, Green Bay, San Francisco and New England was incredible.

posted by rcade at 09:18 PM on February 08, 2012

If you're going to call Eli the "default choice," you should identify the player more deserving of the award.

Eli had a solid game against a middling pass defence in a SB with no standout player. Lots of completions, had trouble converting them into scores. As the most visible player on the winning team he was the easy choice. If through some miracle Bradshaw fumbles at the 1 instead of scoring then Brady gets the MVP and we're having the same conversation - he didn't do much wrong but its not exactly Desmond Howard ripping the game open.

posted by deflated at 11:31 PM on February 08, 2012

While not taking too much away from Rodgers' MVP award, I would like to point out that lackluster Matt Flynn led the Packers over a pretty good Lion's team in week 17. Threw for over 500 yards and 6 TD's, so maybe it was all about GB's team not the QB. Maybe Rodgers' season should be considered less impressive if we're going to nitpick Manning's season due to his supporting cast

QB's always get too much blame and/or credit. And, playoff games do count considerably more than regular season games, with Super Bowls counting way more. People talk about Super Bowl wins, not regular season records. A 9-7 season followed by a playoff run that wins the Super Bowl is huge. A 13-3 season followed by a one and out in the playoffs is quickly forgotten.

posted by dviking at 11:50 PM on February 08, 2012

People are trying too hard to delegitimize playoff achievements.

And you're trying too hard to cherry-pick a stat that makes Eli look like a conquering hero. I don't know how you could draw anything from 5/12 playoff defenses. The majority of teams in the playoffs only play one or two games and one of those is a loss. Often a bad one because they were the 6 seed playing the 3 seed. The Patriots were the 5th best defense in terms of what? As was said above, they played two inept offenses and still managed to give up 300+ yards to Joe Flacco.

posted by yerfatma at 08:34 AM on February 09, 2012

The Patriots were the 5th best defense in terms of what?

I've already spelled that out, and some of those stats have the Pats as the third-best playoff defense.

The premise I responded to is that Eli's Super Bowl performance is less worthy because the Patriots defense wasn't good. First, he's not a worthy MVP because he won by default, though no one can identify a more deserving winner aside from a guy who got two tackles and no sacks. Now the defense he played wasn't good enough, even though they held opponents to 10, 20 and 21 points in their three games.

Are 11 games really worth more than 119 games?

Absolutely. How much does the regular season matter when it's followed by a swift playoff exit? Last year's Patriots were 14-2 and entered the playoffs on an eight-game winning streak. They were a beast. First in points scored at 518. Eighth in points allowed at 313. Did any of this matter after the one-and-done loss to the Jets? Will anyone remember them outside of the team's fans? (I do because I'm still in shock over that defeat.)

Does Eli have the accomplishments in the regular season to warrant future Hall of Fame consideration? Of course not. Does he have them in the postseason, which is when the game matters most and NFL legacies are often defined? Yes. No one will forget that he engineered two game-winning Super Bowl drives to beat an unquestioned Hall of Famer.

My presumption is that Eli's two Super Bowl MVPs will make Hall voters predisposed to find a reason to admit him. It will take a lot of regular season suck to erase that.

posted by rcade at 09:53 AM on February 09, 2012

How much does a playoff matter if you don't make it because you can't perform in 16 games before that?

As a Cowboys fan, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Joe Namath threw more interceptions than touchdowns in 10 of his 12 seasons, including his final 8 seasons. I wish we could travel back in time to discuss his 1985 Hall of Fame induction when it happened.

posted by rcade at 11:03 AM on February 09, 2012

Well it's called the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Best Performers. Induction is the result of an subjective voting process. Why is Joe Namath in the Hall of Fame? One big superbowl win preceded by an outrageous and confident prediction. He drew attention to the league and was famous on and off the field. For that he is in the Hall of FAME. Lots of HOF players never won a championship so in the big picture of the sport the HOF really is not as much about winning championships as it is about being remembered for being an impact player.

Forget Superbowl rings here are some players who never won a Superbowl

OJ Simpson, Dick Butkis, Fran Tarkenton, Bruce Smith, Jim Kelly, Decon Jones, Gayle Sayers, Merlon Olson, Earle Campbell, Barry Sanders, ,Dan Marino, Eric Dickerson, Anthony Munoz, YA Tittle, Dan Fouts, James Lofton........

This list is much longer but, clearly winning Superbowls is not the criteria for HOF induction. I mean Brad Johnson QB'd a team to a title but Dan Marino did not. It really is not a good way to judge a career. Eli joins an elite group of multiple super bowl winners which by itself makes him deserving of consideration but it will be the entirety of his career that will cements it. Peyton Manning would get it regardless of whether or not he had a ring based on his body of work. The rings are icing on the cake not the cake.

posted by Atheist at 02:20 PM on February 09, 2012

Why is Joe Namath in the Hall of Fame? One big superbowl win preceded by an outrageous and confident prediction. He drew attention to the league and was famous on and off the field. For that he is in the Hall of FAME.

By that same basis, I assume that Adrian Peterson, or Flipper Anderson should be considered locks for the HOF.

The Baseball Hall of Fame has a specific rule that says you can't vote in a player just because they had one good game/year, and that their entire career must be taken into account:

6. Automatic Elections: 
No automatic elections based on performances 
such as a batting average of .400 or more 
for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game 
or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted. 

posted by grum@work at 03:15 PM on February 09, 2012

Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Tom Brady.

Fat lot of good they did in the finality and end of the season.

Brees put his team in the lead with very little time left in the game and his defense folded. Manning did the same thing, and his defense held (with some help from the Patriot receives). Not sure of your point.

Sometimes sports fans get too caught up in stats when the only stat they should look at is championships.

I'm really trying to understand this statement, because it boggles my mind. Stats are exactly what Hall of Fame voters should be looking at. Championships are won by teams. Your own stats are what you have most control of.

Don't get me wrong, championships can push a player over the top, but stats are what voters should be looking at. If they're not, something is very wrong.

posted by justgary at 03:28 PM on February 09, 2012

Sometimes sports fans get too caught up in stats when the only stat they should look at is championships.

"Welcome to the Baseball Hall of Fame, 5-time World Series champion, Luis Sojo!"

posted by grum@work at 03:33 PM on February 09, 2012

rcade - the answer to your question is I don't know. I never said I though he should or should not be. I just pointed out that he did a lot more for the league and the superbowl in terms of FAME than many other possibly better players. I think I once heard it that to be in the HOF you have to be associated with the game and have a name that lingers in the publics consciousness. That is why Art Rooney and Al Davis are in the HOF. It isn't just about stats or on the field play. That is also why there is an eligibility time frame to be out of the league. Regardless of whether you win a superbowl or not, if years after you are done playing your name is still lingering in the football worlds conscience you can be voted in.

Will Eli Manning be remembered for his accomplishments and what he did for football when eligibility comes around. Only time will tell. That is why it is really a silly discussion. Because at this time he is just a very good and elite current player. Only time will prove his worthiness and whether or not his impression is lasting. Make a lasting impression on the game of professional football and you get in. If you are quickly forgotten, then you don't . That is why there is a time frame for eligibility.

posted by Atheist at 04:46 PM on February 09, 2012

This is really about a LASTING contribution to the game of football more than it is about stats, rings and on the field performance, although it all comes into play.

What do players do that has a "lasting contribution" to the game of football, other than their performance on the field?

Unless they are inventing plays, or designing equipment modifications, or helping build new franchises, only their performance on the field (and therefore their stats) can be used to judge them.

posted by grum@work at 05:14 PM on February 09, 2012

What do players do that has a "lasting contribution" to the game of football, other than their performance on the field?

Well Pete Rozelle for one was instrumental in turning the NFL into the biggest sports money maker in the United States. Al Davis, George Halas, Art Rooney built an industry out of a game. I can go on but these guys are in the HOF and not for their performance on the field but their lasting contribution to the game. Does that answer the question? Don't agree or disagree it is just the way it is. You can make the NFL HOF without playing professional football. Ed Sabol made it making films.

posted by Atheist at 06:18 PM on February 09, 2012

That's such a horrible standard it makes me cry in my mind.

And I'm sure as hell not advocating it as ideal. Just reality.

But as long as we're on the subject, I'd like to renew my quest to have Ickey Woods enshrined in Canton.

posted by tahoemoj at 07:10 PM on February 09, 2012

What do players do that has a "lasting contribution" to the game of football, other than their performance on the field?

Well Pete Rozelle for one was instrumental in turning the NFL into the biggest sports money maker in the United States. Al Davis, George Halas, Art Rooney built an industry out of a game. I can go on but these guys are in the HOF and not for their performance on the field but their lasting contribution to the game.

Those aren't players.

Those are contributors. Check the website yourself.

Does that answer the question?

Nope.

posted by grum@work at 08:05 PM on February 09, 2012

(Throw in the fact that he's done nothing but lie about it since he was caught, and I e punishment has been more than acceptable. Anyone that sheds even one ounce of pity for Rose really doesn't understand what he did then and what he's done since then.)

Uh, he bet on the Reds to win, as manager. Then he lied about it. Then he came clean. I understand.

posted by tselson at 11:27 PM on February 09, 2012

Uh, he bet on the Reds to win, as manager. Then he lied about it. Then he came clean. I understand.

That's the neat and tidy version.

"I didn't associate with gamblers!"
(proof shows that he did)

"I didn't lay bets down with illegal bookies! This time I mean it!"
(proof shows that he did)

"I didn't bet on baseball! This time I mean it!"
(proof shows that he did)

"I didn't bet on the games I was involved in! This time I mean it!"
(proof/admits that he did)

"I didn't bet against my own team! This time, I mean it!"
(Oh, so we believe him now?)

How can he be deserving of any respect from baseball and the hall of fame?

posted by grum@work at 12:05 AM on February 10, 2012

Pete Rose accepted the punishment given to him

Well, that's the neat and tidy version, as well. He accepted the punishment which included the following: c. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game. At the time, that was his out for reinstatement. Giamitti's death squashed any chance of that.

"I didn't bet against my own team! This time, I mean it!" (Oh, so we believe him now?)

If you believe in the accuracy of what was supposed to be the confidential Dowd report, yes. All of Rose's bets on Cincinnati were to win.

I have a few ounces of pity for Pete Rose. Maybe two little ounces. That doesn't mean I don't understand what he did.

How can he be deserving of any respect from baseball and the hall of fame?

I didn't say he should. I hope you ask the same question, when a particular name comes up for election , next year.

posted by tselson at 11:01 AM on February 10, 2012

90% of kids today don't know about Walter Johnson, Sammy Baugh, or George Mikan.

But the HOF gives them the chance to know about them.

I hope you ask the same question, when a particular name comes up for election , next year.

If you are implying Bonds, Clemens, or any other player accused/proven of using PED is in the same category as Pete Rose, then you really don't understand how VERY wrong Rose was in what he did.

I reserve the same feelings for Clemens and Bonds as I do for Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Phil Niekro.

"Welcome to the Baseball Hall of Fame"

posted by grum@work at 12:46 PM on February 10, 2012

He bet on 52 games in 1987, which means he didn't bet on 110 games. He could've kept starters in longer and overworked relievers on games he had an extra reason to win. He could've juggled lineups based on the gambling line he was getting. That's pretty galling stuff.

posted by rcade at 01:22 PM on February 10, 2012