Eli Manning: 74.8 rating in 60 starts, Tim Couch: 75.1 rating in 59 starts

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by neko4

Back on topic, Eli Manning is like Joe Namath to me, except Namath is cooler. Poor stats, but does have a ring.

At least Eli has thrown more TDs than INTs in his career. Namath only threw more TDs than INTs in a season ONCE in his career, his rookie year. He is such an overrated player.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine

Thanks, AQ.

Passer rating is a beautiful stat because it illustrates just how much the passing game has evolved since its inception. While YPA has held strong through all these years, the rate of TDs per attempt has gone down, while passer's comp% and Interception rates have sky-rocketed.

Its a change in the league. A combination of better schemes, better preparation, rule changes and other factors that add up to more efficient offenses.

If you compare each of these "glaring exceptions" that you bring up to the standard of the day, each would place among the best of their period.

Not only that, but find me another measure that works better. Total yards? Total TDs? Total completions?

Or are we just to walk blindly along and buy into the conventional wisdom of the subject blindly and never challenge what we have heard and never seen. I never watched Unitas play live. I doubt anyone else on this forum has either. I believe he's a great QB, because there is a general acceptance of that fact among every "expert" I've heard comment on the subject. However, if someone was to come to me and provide a rational and objective case as to why he wasn't so great, I would have no ammo to say anything differently.

Stats don't tell the whole story. But they do tell a big part of it. If you want to argue with passer rating, then understand what its based upon, and attack that, while finding something that is a better measure at the same time. I'll be happy to listen.

Personally, I think a skewed version of passer rating would work better. I don't know what that skew would be, but I really think the current system places far too much emphasis on completion % and TD%, considering how much teams throw now (even the team on pace to throw the fewest passes is on pace for ~430). Based on sheer volume of throws, TD% is naturally going to go down, the league as a whole used the passing game as more of a deep option to gain chunks of yardage when the formula was created, now it's used more as part of a balance, with short passes being much more common these days. Also, I wouldn't mind a system whose "perfect" QB was 100, not some off number like 158.3. Anyone would say a QB who went for something like:

20-30 ~250 yards ~2 TDs 0 INTs

had a great game, but in QB rating, it's a 114.6, which to me says the completion% and TD% qualifiers are too high for today's game. Give me a formula where that game is a ~90-95 of 100, and it's great for the current game.

[DMWSackMachine]

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

My point was more than if you just look at Couch's passer rating, you miss that it came from a lot of mediocre games, while Eli Manning has mostly compiled very poor games versus very good games, with the latter become much more of the norm as of late. Does Couch get treated too harshly in remembrance? Probably. Does a comparison in terms of career path or of the stats that make up the QB rating really hold up all that well? I don't think so.

You're 100% right about that. Eli was much more up and down, with far high peaks, and much lower valleys. But one could make the argument that inconsistency of that sort is worse than consistent mediocrity. It kills a team to never be able to tell what its getting from its QB. You can't sustain any sort of consistency anywhere else on the team when that happens. Given the choice, I tend to think that most coaches would take the guy who is going to give them a solid 70ish rating nearly every game, than a guy who posts a 100+ game followed by a 45.

[DMWSackMachine]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Personally, I think a skewed version of passer rating would work better. I don't know what that skew would be, but I really think the current system places far too much emphasis on completion % and TD%, considering how much teams throw now (even the team on pace to throw the fewest passes is on pace for ~430). Based on sheer volume of throws, TD% is naturally going to go down, the league as a whole used the passing game as more of a deep option to gain chunks of yardage when the formula was created, now it's used more as part of a balance, with short passes being much more common these days. Also, I wouldn't mind a system whose "perfect" QB was 100, not some off number like 158.3. Anyone would say a QB who went for something like:

20-30 ~250 yards ~2 TDs 0 INTs

had a great game, but in QB rating, it's a 114.6, which to me says the completion% and TD% qualifiers are too high for today's game. Give me a formula where that game is a ~90-95 of 100, and it's great for the current game.

Finally. You make a sound argument, and its based on the methodology behind passer rating rather than a vague displeasure with something you know nothing about.

What I think should happen is for each of the components be set at the league average for that season, based around an average rating of 85 (which was the average last season). So an average score for each component would be 1.275. So you would be forced to adjust each one every season based on the average of the league so that that season's average would yield a 1.275. That would modify the actual formula used to determine each, but would give a number that wouldn't change based upon the comings and goings of trends or the further evolution of the game. Not just that, it wouldn't make completion percentage nearly TWICE as valuable as TD%, but would level the playing field among each of the four components. If anyone wants to know how David freaking Garrard got the 3rd highest score last season, look no further than his puny INT%. That alone skewed him to the top of the league, and I don't think that's appropriate.

[Number 10]

Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine

You're 100% right about that. Eli was much more up and down, with far high peaks, and much lower valleys. But one could make the argument that inconsistency of that sort is worse than consistent mediocrity. It kills a team to never be able to tell what its getting from its QB. You can't sustain any sort of consistency anywhere else on the team when that happens. Given the choice, I tend to think that most coaches would take the guy who is going to give them a solid 70ish rating nearly every game, than a guy who posts a 100+ game followed by a 45.

I'm not sure I catch the drift here. Nobody can dispute that Eli is a roller coaster ride, but that kills a team? I hate to point to last year, again...but his ups and downs proved that he certaintly doesn't kill a team. Playoff appearances each year he has been the starter cannot possibly qualify as "killing" a team.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine

You're 100% right about that. Eli was much more up and down, with far high peaks, and much lower valleys. But one could make the argument that inconsistency of that sort is worse than consistent mediocrity. It kills a team to never be able to tell what its getting from its QB. You can't sustain any sort of consistency anywhere else on the team when that happens. Given the choice, I tend to think that most coaches would take the guy who is going to give them a solid 70ish rating nearly every game, than a guy who posts a 100+ game followed by a 45.

I agree. If Eli plays like he did his in first couple full seasons for the rest of his career, he will be trouble for the Giants. But already I think that is becoming less and less the case. And if we're making a comparison between him and Couch right now, I think Eli is playing better than Couch ever did. That can't escape the discussion, no matter how much their career QB ratings mirror each other. Couch was never a guy who inspired the idea that he was pulling it all together, while Eli has already convince most people that is the case for him.

[WinslowBodden]

Eli has one bad game this year against a team with their back against the walls on Monday Nigh and people are already saying hes the Old Eli again?

Unbelievable.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by DMWSackMachine

Finally. You make a sound argument, and its based on the methodology behind passer rating rather than a vague displeasure with something you know nothing about.

What I think should happen is for each of the components be set at the league average for that season, based around an average rating of 85 (which was the average last season). So an average score for each component would be 1.275. So you would be forced to adjust each one every season based on the average of the league so that that season's average would yield a 1.275. That would modify the actual formula used to determine each, but would give a number that wouldn't change based upon the comings and goings of trends or the further evolution of the game. Not just that, it wouldn't make completion percentage nearly TWICE as valuable as TD%, but would level the playing field among each of the four components. If anyone wants to know how David freaking Garrard got the 3rd highest score last season, look no further than his puny INT%. That alone skewed him to the top of the league, and I don't think that's appropriate.

Actually what you say here makes a lot of sense, and to be honest, I started working on a formula for what I was talking about earlier, but found that under the current formula, INT % is far too important, as you say above, even for my skewed version of the formula. I think I may have a solution to my problem from these thoughts though. I'll post the final result when I've figured it out.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by WinslowBodden

Eli has one bad game this year against a team with their back against the walls on Monday Nigh and people are already saying hes the Old Eli again?

Unbelievable.

The haters never go away. They just wait in the shadows looking for an opportunity to prove to themselves that they were right about Eli all along.

[DMWSackMachine]

Originally Posted by Number 10

I'm not sure I catch the drift here. Nobody can dispute that Eli is a roller coaster ride, but that kills a team? I hate to point to last year, again...but his ups and downs proved that he certaintly doesn't kill a team. Playoff appearances each year he has been the starter cannot possibly qualify as "killing" a team.

Simply making the playoffs isn't any real big deal, as someone who is so anti-Cowboys should know, having pointed it out to the nth degree. More than that, though, the Giants were dead man walking the second year they made it, and only limped in by virtue of the NFC's pathetic collection of upper tier teams. The first year they got bludgeoned and embarrassed on their own home field. In both losses, Eli was a disaster.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't win with an inconsistent QB, just simply that it sucks the life out of a team to have a guy who you just can't count on.

I don't know exactly what we're arguing about here, so I will just say that if you thought I meant "a team can't compete for the playoffs" then I apologize. My intent was to comment on the effect that an up and down signal caller has on the psyche of his team and his coaching staff, in that it sucks the life out everyone around him, and no one can ever take that team seriously, whereas a team that maybe isn't spectacular at the QB position can, if they have a reliable guy who gives them a chance by limiting mistakes, hold out hope of things falling into place for them.

It happened with Sexy Rexy and the Bears, who somehow made it all the way through the playoffs by virtue of an incredibly weak conference (maybe the worst its ever been) and a dominant D/run game/special teams mix. Still, most everyone around knew they were just a sacrificial lamb, going to the slaughter against whomever the AFC produced as a champ that year, which is exactly what happened.

More importantly, you'll remember that most everyone out there just didn't trust that Giants team in the playoffs because they were waiting for Eli to revert back to his old ways. I don't care how great that pass rush was, or how well you ran the ball or anything else. If Eli hadn't played like he did for those 4 straight games--moreso in relation to his limiting mistakes than making plays--than the Giants don't stand a chance to do what they did. His development was the key.

[Number 10]

Alright we are closer than I thought. I was under the impression that you were sayinbg two things. One, Eli is very inconsistent. Two, teams can't win with inconsistent QBs calling the shots. Teams can win with that kind of QB and it has been proven over and over before, but it certainly makes things tougher, obviously.

However, you may need to go check on the 2006 playoff game again. You called Eli a disaster. He was the furthest thing from a disaster in that game, night and day different from what he put out in the 2005 debacle against Carolina. He playd well in Philly.

He has shown a steady incline in his level of play with each playoff game he has been involved with. That is something that can be depended upon. If you don't believe me, take a few minutes and look at his performances starting with Carolina, ending with New England. Nobody can dispute he is up and down, but to even begin to think he is unreliable is ludicrous. Throughout these Manning discussions people are bringing up names like Couch, Dilfer, and Grossman....now take the pre-draft crap that the Manning family did and takw away the NY on his helmet, bo way do you guys look down on him the way you do. It isn't logical.

[Jughead10]

Originally Posted by Number 10

However, you may need to go check on the 2006 playoff game again. You called Eli a disaster. He was the furthest thing from a disaster in that game, night and day different from what he put out in the 2005 debacle against Carolina. He playd well in Philly.

This is true. Eli led a nice TD drive towards the end of the game. However our defense was terrible under Tim Lewis and the Eagles marched right down the field and hit a last second FG to win.

[Number 10]

Originally Posted by Jughead10

This is true. Eli led a nice TD drive towards the end of the game. However our defense was terrible under Tim Lewis and the Eagles marched right down the field and hit a last second FG to win.

Not a coincidence.

[sweetness34]

Eli is a pretty good starting QB in this league, but he's nowhere near elite or even very good in my honest opinion.

He has all the tools, but just like with Grossman, he still doesn't have the mental aspect of the game. You don't make the bonehead plays he does time after time after time and be called an elite QB in this league.

Yes he won a Super Bowl, and he was a big part in why that happened. But that doesn't mean he's a top tier QB. I saw him play in the Opener, against Seattle, and against Cleveland. He should have had about 3 INT's against the Redskins if their DB's could catch and he was god awful against Cleveland.

Eli peaked in the playoffs and now he's come back to Earth.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

The haters never go away. They just wait in the shadows looking for an opportunity to prove to themselves that they were right about Eli all along.

Eli will forever be haunted by not wanting to go to SD. Ironic because Elway did the same thing, but towards the later part of his career fans the media were on the their knees for him. Granted Elway was a sick, sick, QB. But my point is that their ALOT of ELi haters out there.

Peyton throws 6 ints, and Romo had a huge Int nite, but ah well, but when Eli does poorly the idiots truly come out of the woodwork. It is now to the point that it's amusing to read and hear the hate people have for him. And the best is when people don't talk about the idiot OC who got fired and is in Canada now. Just read the Ralph V. Making of a QB book. It explains alot about eli.

[illmatic74]

Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking

Eli will forever be haunted by not wanting to go to SD. Ironic because Elway did the same thing, but towards the later part of his career fans the media were on the their knees for him. Granted Elway was a sick, sick, QB. But my point is that their ALOT of ELi haters out there.

Peyton throws 6 ints, and Romo had a huge Int nite, but ah well, but when Eli does poorly the idiots truly come out of the woodwork. It is now to the point that it's amusing to read and hear the hate people have for him. And the best is when people don't talk about the idiot OC who got fired and is in Canada now. Just read the Ralph V. Making of a QB book. It explains alot about eli.

The reason for all the critiscms is the fact he threw 20 ints last year.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Originally Posted by illmatic74

The reason for all the critiscms is the fact he threw 20 ints last year.

Yea.. in his first FULL year with Gilbride and a new QB coach in Palmer.

I swear I don't think people realize that Coughlin, Gilbride, and Spags weren't originally there when Coughlin was hired. Let's put it this way... We got to the playoffs twice with dumb and dumber, and yet we STILL fired both fools. John Hufangel got fired still with games to play in the season, and Lewis got axed after the season.

Like I said for the haters I suggest they read the chapter on Hufangel in Ralph V's book. That explains it all.