Eli Manning and other marginal HOF candidates

[SumnerH]

I see a lot of parallels between Eli and Tim Wakefield. Long, slightly better than average career with a couple good years and a couple championships, but absolutely NOT a dominant player for any stretch, and whose stats are more the result of longevity over skill.

The knuckleball is sneaky by nature; you don't look like Nolan Ryan, so even when you're in the zone it still doesn't look dominant to the eyeball test. And FIP struggles with it.

In 1995, Wakefield was #2 in the AL in ERA+, behind Randy Johnson.
In 2002, he was #3, behind teammates (!!) Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe.

Those seasons are a lot closer to dominant than Eli ever was.

 

[tims4wins]

What if Tyree didn't happen and he was 1-1 in the SB?

 

[BigSoxFan]

What if Tyree didn't happen and he was 1-1 in the SB?

I think Eli needed 2011 to solidify his spot (assuming he doesn't make another one). This is all Welker's fault.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

This thread is screaming for a poll.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Those seasons are a lot closer to dominant than Eli ever was.

If you're a fan of advanced stats, Football Outsiders basically put's the peak of Eli's career at 2008-2012, where he was the 9th,10th,15th, 9th, 10th best quarterback in the league. Bookending that peak are years where he was significantly below replacement level.

This is a guy whose PEAK is literally 5 years of averagish play awash in a sea of replacement level play.

You know who is more deserving? Tony Romo. Carson Palmer for sure. Marc Bulger. McNair. McNabb. Friggen Chad Pennington. Hasselbeck. Rivers has consistently been a better QB. Matt Ryan was better as a rookie than Eli has literally ever been. Forget the obvious ones like Brees, Brady, PManning, Roethlisberger.

 

[soxfan121]

You know who is more deserving? Tony Romo. Carson Palmer for sure. Marc Bulger. McNair. McNabb. Friggen Chad Pennington. Hasselbeck. Rivers has consistently been a better QB. Matt Ryan was better as a rookie than Eli has literally ever been.

I love hyperbole in pursuit of making a point, but this is ... too far over the top and headed into null space. I don't think Eli should be in the HOF (but agree with those who've made the case for why he will be). Resumes matter and not one single player you list has anything approaching the resume that Eli Manning has.

Matt Hasselbeck? C'mon man.

 

[BuellMiller]

The knuckleball is sneaky by nature; you don't look like Nolan Ryan, so even when you're in the zone it still doesn't look dominant to the eyeball test. And FIP struggles with it.

In 1995, Wakefield was #2 in the AL in ERA+, behind Randy Johnson.
In 2002, he was #3, behind teammates (!!) Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe.

Those seasons are a lot closer to dominant than Eli ever was.

(Not to derail this thread even further, since it is a football one and all...), but i had completely forgotten that Wakefield was good that year. Considering that, and how good Pedro and Lowe were, I still can't believe they didn't make the playoffs in 2002. Then I look at who played 1B/DH for the team (, and it makes a bit more sense. Essentially one full season worth of playing time went to Tony Clark, Jose Offerman, and the corpse of Carlos Baerga). (And makes even more sense that they'd want to upgrade those slots...glad that worked out in that offseason)

 

[johnmd20]

I love hyperbole in pursuit of making a point, but this is ... too far over the top and headed into null space. I don't think Eli should be in the HOF (but agree with those who've made the case for why he will be). Resumes matter and not one single player you list has anything approaching the resume that Eli Manning has.

Matt Hasselbeck? C'mon man.

And Marc Bulger. Tremendous comparison.

 

[coremiller]

I love hyperbole in pursuit of making a point, but this is ... too far over the top and headed into null space. I don't think Eli should be in the HOF (but agree with those who've made the case for why he will be). Resumes matter and not one single player you list has anything approaching the resume that Eli Manning has.

Matt Hasselbeck? C'mon man.

Eli has a career ANY/A+ of 102 in 6895 attempts. Hasselbeck had a career ANY/A+ of 100 in 5330 attempts. Eli is better, but the gap isn't as big as you might think.

FWIW, Eli's 102 ANY/A+ would be the lowest of any HOF QB with >2500 attempts in the ANY/A era (which dates back to 1969, when they started keeping track of sacks). Stabler is next at 103, but he had a much different career arc with a much higher peak than Eli (Eli has nothing like Stabler's 1976 on his resume), and Stabler was himself a pretty questionable choice whom the writers initially rejected and who got in through the Seniors committee.

Eli is the Jack Morris of NFL HoF debates.

 

[soxfan121]

Eli has a career ANY/A+ of 102 in 6895 attempts. Hasselbeck had a career ANY/A+ of 100 in 5330 attempts. Eli is better, but the gap isn't as big as you might think.

FWIW, Eli's 102 ANY/A+ would be the lowest of any HOF QB with >2500 attempts in the ANY/A era (which dates back to 1969, when they started keeping track of sacks). Stabler is next at 103, but he had a much different career arc with a much higher peak than Eli (Eli has nothing like Stabler's 1976 on his resume), and Stabler was himself a pretty questionable choice whom the writers initially rejected and who got in through the Seniors committee.

Eli is the Jack Morris of NFL HoF debates.

Wow, I had no idea that in one obscure statistic that Eli Manning and Matt Hasselbeck are comparable. Did you know that Eli's career AV is 143 and Vinny Testaverde's is 142? With a spread that tight, I can barely tell the two apart.

On a somewhat related note, I cannot stand stats based arguments in football. They don't measure the same thing. Referencing Stabler's 103 as a contrast to Manning's 102 is completely worthless. The relative eras each played in make those numbers worse than useless. They aren't even remotely comparable.

And Stabler is a much more deserving HOF than Eli Manning. The Snake would have had another ring or two had he played a few years outside the Steel Curtain's dominant years. And resumes matter. Stats are a small part of the narrative the football HOF requires for entrance. Do I agree with the standards as they exist? No. But I am also not going to pretend they don't exist. Eli Manning will quite likely be the worst individual player in the pro football hall of fame. Life will go on.

 

[coremiller]

Wow, I had no idea that in one obscure statistic that Eli Manning and Matt Hasselbeck are comparable. Did you know that Eli's career AV is 143 and Vinny Testaverde's is 142? With a spread that tight, I can barely tell the two apart.

On a somewhat related note, I cannot stand stats based arguments in football. They don't measure the same thing. Referencing Stabler's 103 as a contrast to Manning's 102 is completely worthless. The relative eras each played in make those numbers worse than useless. They aren't even remotely comparable.

And Stabler is a much more deserving HOF than Eli Manning. The Snake would have had another ring or two had he played a few years outside the Steel Curtain's dominant years. And resumes matter. Stats are a small part of the narrative the football HOF requires for entrance. Do I agree with the standards as they exist? No. But I am also not going to pretend they don't exist. Eli Manning will quite likely be the worst individual player in the pro football hall of fame. Life will go on.

Calm down, Dan Le Greca. Just because you don't know what ANY/A+ means doesn't make it meaningless. FWIW, ANY/A+ is already era-adjusted, that's why it's useful for these types of comparisons.

 

[soxfan121]

Calm down, Dan Le Greca. Just because you don't know what ANY/A+ means doesn't make it meaningless. FWIW, ANY/A+ is already era-adjusted, that's why it's useful for these types of comparisons.

Worthless. I said it was worthless, not meaningless. Those aren't the same thing.

If you truly think that Eli Manning is comparable to Matt Hasselback in a discussion about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, then I suggest you actually watch some games.

 

[Michelle34B]

So neither Flacco nor Eli belong in the HOF?

I mean, everyone agrees Eli is probably getting in, the discussion is about whether he belongs in or not. I'm not sure what judging him against his draft peers is supposed to show. That none of them belong in the HOF?

Eli usually gets immediately compared to Roethlisberger and Rivers because of the draft class and the trade. Romo had All-Pro seasons from Demarco Murray, Dez Bryant, Jason Witten, and Terrell Owens at skill positions. Matt Ryan has had Michael Turner, Tony Gonzalez, Roddy White, and Julio Jones.

I don't know why Tomlinson/Gates aren't brought up more for Rivers since his case is strongly built on his career passing numbers, and Roethlisberger doesn't get remembered for some of the less than spectacular performances.

I don't even start New York Football Giants threads here because people lose their mind discussing anything related on this board.

I think Eli needed 2011 to solidify his spot (assuming he doesn't make another one). This is all Welker's fault.

Eli came out and stated he was elite and pretty much got laughed at. He didn't have the regular season numbers to match Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, but he had a fantastic season, all the way through the Super Bowl.


After that 2011 season, Chris Mara was promoted to Senior Vice President, Player Personnel, the same title General Manager Jerry Reese holds.(crickets)

Ben McAdoo is going to find his Aaron Rodgers to run the offense(good luck...), and Reese & Co. will bail water out of the sinking ship blaming Eli.

Eli will need 2018 and a Super Bowl win with the Jacksonville Jaguars to really solidify his Hall of Fame career.

Before all that happens, I hope they can beat score twenty points against the Eagles this week.

 

[Time to Mo Vaughn]

I am not an Eli fan, but by the time he retires, he'll be like top 7-10 all time in several key passing categories, with two head-to-head Super Bowl victories over Tom Brady.

I mean, how many QBs in NFL history are going to finish their careers top 7-10 in key passing categories AND have won two Super Bowls? Hint: Not many.

When he retires he will be 7-10, but by the time he's eligible for the Hall he'll probably be dropping out of the top ten.

He'll very likely be passed by Rodgers, Ryan and Stafford. Potentially by Big Ben and Rivers pending longevity of all three. Newton and Andy Dalton are both at a similar pace and Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson will have put up big numbers by then.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

And Marc Bulger. Tremendous comparison.

Bulger career:
62.1% Cmp, 3.8%TD, 2.9% INT, 7.2Y/A, 11.6 Y/C

Eli career:
59.8% Cmp, 4.7%TD, 3.1% INT, 7.1Y/A, 11.8 Y/C.

Hasselbeck career:
60.5% Cmp, 4.0%TD, 2.9% INT, 6.9 Y/A, 11.6 Y/C.



Neither Hasselbeck nor Bulger were good quarterbacks, and neither belongs anywhere near the HOF, but both played roughly half their careers in an era much less friendly to passing (pre-2006) and put up stats comparable to Eli. Eli has a little higher TD rate, but also has a higher interception rate, and played in a time where touchdowns were more common and INTs less, and completion percentages, Y/A, and Y/C were significantly higher.

 

[coremiller]

Worthless. I said it was worthless, not meaningless. Those aren't the same thing.

If you truly think that Eli Manning is comparable to Matt Hasselback in a discussion about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, then I suggest you actually watch some games.

If you're talking about what the voters will do, sure. If you're talking about how good they actually were, I strongly disagree. Eli has slightly better overall career numbers due mostly to greater durability/longevity, but Hasselbeck's peak was just as good as Eli's and maybe slightly better.

Aren't we at least 6-7 years past when dismissing sports analytics with "watch the gamez!!!" stopped being a credible argument?

 

[mauf]

Aren't we at least 6-7 years past when dismissing sports analytics with "watch the gamez!!!" stopped being a credible argument?

I read his point as confined to cross-generational statistical comparisons. I'll buy that comparing Eli's (fill in name of metric) to Stabler's (same metric) is often a useless exercise. He's not suggesting that comparing Eli to, say, Cutler is not instructive.

 

[coremiller]

I read his point as confined to cross-generational statistical comparisons. I'll buy that comparing Eli's (fill in name of metric) to Stabler's (same metric) is often a useless exercise. He's not suggesting that comparing Eli to, say, Cutler is not instructive.

His original objection was to my use of ANY/A+ to compare Eli and Hasselbeck, so his objection was not confined to cross-generational comparisons. But I would not concede that cross-generational statistical comparison is useless. Quite the contrary. The whole point of a statistic like ANY/A+ that is normalized to league average is to allow for cross-era comparisons by measuring how players compared to their contemporaries. Of course, it's not conclusive, either, but that's far from being "worthless."

 

[mauf]

His original objection was to my use of ANY/A+ to compare Eli and Hasselbeck, so his objection was not confined to cross-generational comparisons. But I would not concede that cross-generational statistical comparison is useless. Quite the contrary. The whole point of a statistic like ANY/A+ that is normalized to league average is to allow for cross-era comparisons by measuring how players compared to their contemporaries. Of course, it's not conclusive, either, but that's far from being "worthless."

I said "often" useless, not always and entirely.

I think they're closer to worthless than to conclusive.

 

[BaseballJones]

When he retires he will be 7-10, but by the time he's eligible for the Hall he'll probably be dropping out of the top ten.

He'll very likely be passed by Rodgers, Ryan and Stafford. Potentially by Big Ben and Rivers pending longevity of all three. Newton and Andy Dalton are both at a similar pace and Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson will have put up big numbers by then.

I'll grant Rodgers and probably Ryan and Stafford. But the other guys - yeah, you brought up the key point: longevity. One thing Eli has going for him that's not to be undersold is his durability. Since game 10 of his rookie season (2004) the guy has played in, and started, EVERY SINGLE GAME since. I don't know if that's a miracle or what. If he gets through this season, he'll be #2 all time in this category behind only Favre. It's really amazing.

So to pass him, all these other guys have to stay healthy, and then likely play QB well into their late 30s and maybe even early 40s (if, say, they miss several seasons' worth of games over the course of the next 12 years of their career) to catch Eli. I mean it could happen, but probably won't.

So when Eli's candidacy comes up, he'll almost certainly stay in the top 10 in all-time passing yards, touchdowns, completions, fourth-quarter comebacks, and wins, and be #2 all-time in consecutive games played, and have won 2 Super Bowls over Tom Brady. There are definitely arguments against him for sure. But the argument FOR him is pretty compelling - he simply will have a resumé that very few people in NFL history can match, as crazy as that sounds, given that we all pretty much agree that he has been no more than a little above average for his career.

 

[soxfan121]

His original objection was to my use of ANY/A+ to compare Eli and Hasselbeck, so his objection was not confined to cross-generational comparisons.

No, this was my original post on this topic:

I love hyperbole in pursuit of making a point, but this is ... too far over the top and headed into null space. I don't think Eli should be in the HOF (but agree with those who've made the case for why he will be). Resumes matter and not one single player you list has anything approaching the resume that Eli Manning has.

Matt Hasselbeck? C'mon man.

Subsequently, you replied with your dazzling knowledge of ANY/A+

I view any attempt to compare Eli Manning and Matt Hasslelback to be wrothless: A player's resume for the Hall of Fame - in football - is much deeper than any one metric/stat.

Again, if you think there is a valid comparison to be made between Matt Hasselback and Eli Manning in a discussion of Hall of Fame worthiness, then your opinion not worth considering until you watch some games and understand the sport of football - and what a HOF resume in this sport is.

If you're talking about what the voters will do, sure. If you're talking about how good they actually were, I strongly disagree. Eli has slightly better overall career numbers due mostly to greater durability/longevity, but Hasselbeck's peak was just as good as Eli's and maybe slightly better.

I mean, the original post doesn't explicitly say "voters" but... that is what my OP says?

Aren't we at least 6-7 years past when dismissing sports analytics with "watch the gamez!!!" stopped being a credible argument?

Slightly better than name calling, but not by much. You misunderstood the point, said something indefensibly stupid, did some word substitution and misunderstanding, dropped a couple ad hominems, and now you're rallying the crowd with nerd siren?

We're never past dismissing stupid, nonsense arguments based on poor reading comprehension.

But I would not concede that cross-generational statistical comparison is useless. Quite the contrary. The whole point of a statistic like ANY/A+ that is normalized to league average is to allow for cross-era comparisons by measuring how players compared to their contemporaries. Of course, it's not conclusive, either, but that's far from being "worthless."

Last things, first... you still don't understand what I've argued. Perhaps that's my fault, though I don't think so as others got it. But I admit, I could have addressed my issues with statistics in football less flippantly and with more detail.

The problem, as I see it, is that while stats like ANY/A+ claim to be "normalized" there is no such thing in football statistics because of sampling, and sample size issues. The reason that stats are such an important part of analyzing other sports is that there are thousands of the same, discrete events that can be compared universally. That simply isn't the case in football. Because so much of the game is scheme based, similar looking events (like 3rd & 6) can be very different when factoring the opponent and other variables. Further, as a result of rules changes, the game has evolved much faster than other sports. There are large differences between the game as it was played in 2001 and the game as played in 2017 - let alone 1977.

The imbalanced schedule creates a sample that isn't directly comparable - Tom Brady and Jay Cutler will both probably start 16 games in the AFC East this season, but will only have 10 common opponents. The Dolphins will face the Chiefs in Week 16, without Eric Berry - the guy who so effectively muffled Rob Gronkowski in week 1 when Brady was (statistically) awful. If Cutler lights up Kansas City for 350 yards, is Cutler better than Brady? Stats would tell you yes. But the context matters. This is where statistics fail in football - every situation is so context dependent that measuring anything with statistics is basically worthless without the context.

Unlike other sports, football statistics do not reveal anything about the game - they can only confuse or drastically simplify. So, when someone tells me that Eli Manning and Vinny Testaverde have nearly identical career statistic in category X, my reaction is "so?" It is worthless in pursuit of discussing the game, or the relative merits of players, because the context is what matters not how far their average pass went.

 

[Time to Mo Vaughn]

So to pass him, all these other guys have to stay healthy, and then likely play QB well into their late 30s and maybe even early 40s (if, say, they miss several seasons' worth of games over the course of the next 12 years of their career) to catch Eli. I mean it could happen, but probably won't.

Except as shown by all the people in this thread throwing out rate stats, this isn't true. They won't need to play to their 40s to surpass him since they're putting up better stats. Playing a few seasons less, they'll have put up better numbers.

 

[BaseballJones]

Except as shown by all the people in this thread throwing out rate stats, this isn't true. They won't need to play to their 40s to surpass him since they're putting up better stats. Playing a few seasons less, they'll have put up better numbers.

I said, "then likely play QB well into their late 30s and maybe even early 40s (if, say, they miss several seasons' worth of games over the course of the next 12 years of their career) to catch Eli". So the 40s was contingent upon them missing games due to injury or whatever. I don't know what you're really disagreeing with, unless you misread my post.

Let's just do a few projections here, just looking at passing yards. Let's say Eli plays another 3 seasons - the way he's going, why not, right? His per 16 game numbers project to: 3,931 yards per 16 games (246 per game).

3 full seasons is another 46 games beyond the two he's already played this year. That projects him to finish with another 11,301 yards on top of the 48,673 he already has, meaning he'd finish at age 39 with 59,974.

Andy Dalton, one of the names mentioned, has averaged 3,822 yards per 16 games (239 per game). Over his first six seasons, he's missed 3 games, meaning he misses an average of a half game a season. So he plays on average 15.5 games per season, and he averages 3,702 yards per season (given the half-game he misses). He's currently at 22,608 passing yards. He'd need to get another 37,367 yards to pass Eli, given the above projection for Eli. That's another 156 games. He's already 30 years old. He'd need 10 more seasons to get to that number, given his rate stats and his own remarkable durability. That would take him to age 40.

So I don't really know what you're disagreeing with.

Do the projections. Look at their durability and their yards per game and their total yards so far and their age and project at what age they'd get to about 60,000 yards, which is where Eli is likely to wind up (maybe even higher than that). Every one of them probably needs to play til they're in their late 30s or early 40s to pass Eli. Possible, but not likely.

 

[mauf]

In a few weeks, when Philip Rivers overtakes Fran Tarkenton, 5 of the top 10 players in career passing yards will either be currently active or recently retired (and that's not even counting Favre as "recent"). That will increase to 6 of 10 if Carson Palmer makes another 20 or so starts (he's currently about 4,500 yards behind Warren Moon, who will likely be passed by Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger this season). Matty Ice is on a pace to surpass all those guys eventually. In sum, career passing yards isn't going to be a meaningful statistic by the time Eli is eligible for induction, and as we've seen with WRs in recent years, HOF voters are smart enough to contextualize numbers that reflect a fundamental change in the game rather than true greatness. Eli probably gets in because of the rings, but 60,000 yards (if he gets there) won't make much difference.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

You know who is more deserving? Tony Romo. Carson Palmer for sure. Marc Bulger. McNair. McNabb. Friggen Chad Pennington. Hasselbeck. Rivers has consistently been a better QB. Matt Ryan was better as a rookie than Eli has literally ever been. Forget the obvious ones like Brees, Brady, PManning, Roethlisberger.

Are we talking about the same Chad Pennington who won 44 games in his career and never threw for over 3,750 yards and whose only two post-season awards were comeback player of the year?

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Are we talking about the same Chad Pennington who won 44 games in his career and never threw for over 3,750 yards and whose only two post-season awards were comeback player of the year?

We're talking about the same Chad Pennington, who, for a couple of years, was one of the best quarterbacks in the league, something Eli can never claim. Doesn't belong anywhere near the HOF, but was absolutely a better player than Eli.

Eli's major accomplishments at this point are playing a long time in an extremely friendly passing environment, and getting traded for by a team that managed to put up some elite defenses. That shouldn't be enough to get you into the HOF - which should be reserved for players who were significantly good, or changed the game somehow.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

We're talking about the same Chad Pennington, who, for a couple of years, was one of the best quarterbacks in the league, something Eli can never claim. Doesn't belong anywhere near the HOF, but was absolutely a better player than Eli.

Eli's major accomplishments at this point are playing a long time in an extremely friendly passing environment, and getting traded for by a team that managed to put up some elite defenses. That shouldn't be enough to get you into the HOF - which should be reserved for players who were significantly good, or changed the game somehow.

I think you misunderstand the HOF. Chad Pennington may have been a better player than Eli Manning in two individual seasons but your original post said that he was more deserving of being in the HOF and that's simply not true.

Whether you think that Eli Manning deserves to the in the Hall of Fame, that's fine but there's no question that if he doesn't get into the HOF, he would be one of the best QBs not to make it, and that's not something we'd ever say about Chad Pennington, despite his two (and only two) good years.

I.e., as SF121 states, HOF is about the resume. Eli has a pretty good resume. Certainly not all-time great but certainly quite good.

 

[BaseballJones]

In a few weeks, when Philip Rivers overtakes Fran Tarkenton, 5 of the top 10 players in career passing yards will either be currently active or recently retired (and that's not even counting Favre as "recent"). That will increase to 6 of 10 if Carson Palmer makes another 20 or so starts (he's currently about 4,500 yards behind Warren Moon, who will likely be passed by Eli, Rivers, and Roethlisberger this season). Matty Ice is on a pace to surpass all those guys eventually. In sum, career passing yards isn't going to be a meaningful statistic by the time Eli is eligible for induction, and as we've seen with WRs in recent years, HOF voters are smart enough to contextualize numbers that reflect a fundamental change in the game rather than true greatness. Eli probably gets in because of the rings, but 60,000 yards (if he gets there) won't make much difference.

I think it will all come into play. Counting stats will still matter, changed times and all. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Whether you think that Eli Manning deserves to the in the Hall of Fame, that's fine but there's no question that if he doesn't get into the HOF, he would be one of the best QBs not to make it, and that's not something we'd ever say about Chad Pennington, despite his two (and only two) good years.

I think that Eli Manning being one of the best quarterbacks to not make the hall of fame is absolutely in question.

Eli Manning is a compiler - he's a below average player who was durable, and whose stats currently look impressive because of a huge increase in passing stats league wide, and only a few players having played their whole career in that environment.

In 2001, the average NFL team passed for 3292 yards, threw 20.5 TDs, and 17.6 INTs
in 2005, the average NFL team passed for 3355 yards, threw 20.1 TDs, and 15.8 INTs - a little cleaner - but basically the same (this was Eli's first full year starting).
in 2010, the average NFL team passed for 3550 yards, threw 23.5 TDs, and 16 INTs
in 2015, the average NFL team passed for 3901 yards, threw 26 Tds, and 13 INTs

His career was perfectly timed to get an enormous statistical boost from an enormous increase in passing statistics, and the fact that guys like Bulger and Hasselbeck were able to put up similar stats in a significantly less friendly passing environment is a huge strike against the argument that Eli "would be one of the best QBs not to make it".

 

[reggiecleveland]

Fellas he is going to make it. I am can understand the frustration but he will make it because as already stated:

It is assumed he in comparable to his brother a legit GOAT candidate.
Perception that he was "the better Manning" due to superbowl wins
His brother has made millions with a self mocking style that downplays his greatness
His comedy game is close to his brother's and the running joke is how he is better than his brother, often linking how TB12 and Eli are the two cool winners.
No other signature star gets credit for SB wins, even his great coach is overlooked
The signature play was by a guy, Tyree, that did not emerge as a star or even a good player to steal the credit
New York

Also you know Superbowls matter in these discussions.
Malcolm Butler, Strip Sack don't happen, Montana is still the GOAT, despite what Brady has done.

Save the "Yeah but then if Tyree didn't happen" etc. I get Tom was close to 6 SB wins.

 

[Super Nomario]

I don't really have a dog in this fight (I don't care about the HOF and have never studied what makes a guy a deserving HOFer or not), but that's not going to stop me from doing a drive-by on like eight posts:

Eli also gets sacked much less often than Cutler, which of course is more on the QB than is commonly supposed.

FWIW, ANY/A does include sacks (that's the "N" part).

Somewhat related, no QB has fumbled as much as Eli since he came into the league (although his fumble rate is not especially high per dropback or per game): http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/2017/09/08/where-do-fumbles-come-from/

And Marc Bulger. Tremendous comparison.

Bulger had a wacky career. I was looking at the worst QBs in the league 10 years ago and Bulger was on there. He had been really good up until that point, but the wheels fell off for him (and really, the whole Rams organization). Crazy to think he was in the same draft class as Brady. In hindsight, he was probably buoyed a lot by an outstanding supporting cast a la Daunte Culpepper. Bulger's top four receiving targets for his career: Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Steven Jackson, Marshall Faulk. Damn, Gina.

I don't know why Tomlinson/Gates aren't brought up more for Rivers since his case is strongly built on his career passing numbers ...

Eli doesn't get to bitch about not having Rivers' supporting cast, since, y'know, San Diego drafted him and he forced his way out of town.

I'll grant Rodgers and probably Ryan and Stafford. But the other guys - yeah, you brought up the key point: longevity. One thing Eli has going for him that's not to be undersold is his durability. Since game 10 of his rookie season (2004) the guy has played in, and started, EVERY SINGLE GAME since. I don't know if that's a miracle or what. If he gets through this season, he'll be #2 all time in this category behind only Favre. It's really amazing.

It is.

The imbalanced schedule creates a sample that isn't directly comparable - Tom Brady and Jay Cutler will both probably start 16 games in the AFC East this season, but will only have 10 common opponents. The Dolphins will face the Chiefs in Week 16, without Eric Berry - the guy who so effectively muffled Rob Gronkowski in week 1 when Brady was (statistically) awful. If Cutler lights up Kansas City for 350 yards, is Cutler better than Brady? Stats would tell you yes. But the context matters. This is where statistics fail in football - every situation is so context dependent that measuring anything with statistics is basically worthless without the context.

I agree with this 100%, although it's worth noting that taking all these factors into account might hurt Eli's candidacy as much as help it. I don't know without studying in closer detail.

Let's say Eli plays another 3 seasons - the way he's going, why not, right? His per 16 game numbers project to: 3,931 yards per 16 games (246 per game).

3 full seasons is another 46 games beyond the two he's already played this year. That projects him to finish with another 11,301 yards on top of the 48,673 he already has, meaning he'd finish at age 39 with 59,974.

I'm taking the under.

Also, I don't know where you're getting 246 per game, but he's averaged 240 / game for his career and is at 229.5 / game for this season.

 

[BaseballJones]

I don't know where you're getting 246 per game, but he's averaged 240 / game for his career and is at 229.5 / game for this season.

I realize what I did. I went to pro-football-reference.com and highlighted all the seasons where he played 16 games - which was every one but his first partial season and then this current one. He threw for 47171 yards over 192 games, which comes to 246 yards a game (245.68 to be more precise).

 

[bankshot1]

I just opened Simmons new mail bag and his first response purportedly about the Jets veers into skewering Eli

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/9/22/16349532/week-3-nfl-picks-bill-simmons

12. At least the Jets don’t have an expensive 36-year-old QB who’s 30-36 in his past 66 starts.
13. Eli Manning has more losses since 2013 than anyone other than Philip Rivers.
14. Eli has a lower QB rating since 2013 than Nick Foles, Jay Cutler, and Colin Kaepernick.
15. Eli was the recent subject of a FiveThirtyEight piece headlined “Eli Manning Is Profoundly Mediocre” that includes a graphic titled “Eli Manning is more Mark Sanchez than Peyton Manning” and unapologetically compares him to Vinny Testaverde.
16. For the 2017 season, Eli makes three times as much as Josh McCown.
17. Eli’s cap hit is $22.2 million next season.
18. You can make fun of any Giants fan about reasons 11 through 17. At least Jets fans have a sense of humor. Giants fans have no sense of humor about Eli—none, zero, zilch. It’s like teasing an uptight soccer mom about her kid getting benched.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Taking this down the stats and Stabler route for kicks...

Wow, I had no idea that in one obscure statistic that Eli Manning and Matt Hasselbeck are comparable. Did you know that Eli's career AV is 143 and Vinny Testaverde's is 142? With a spread that tight, I can barely tell the two apart.

On a somewhat related note, I cannot stand stats based arguments in football. They don't measure the same thing. Referencing Stabler's 103 as a contrast to Manning's 102 is completely worthless. The relative eras each played in make those numbers worse than useless. They aren't even remotely comparable.

And Stabler is a much more deserving HOF than Eli Manning. The Snake would have had another ring or two had he played a few years outside the Steel Curtain's dominant years. And resumes matter. Stats are a small part of the narrative the football HOF requires for entrance. Do I agree with the standards as they exist? No. But I am also not going to pretend they don't exist. Eli Manning will quite likely be the worst individual player in the pro football hall of fame. Life will go on.

Four things:

1) You are underestimating the work done by people to adjust for era. We all know people threw for less yards and more interceptions in 1974 than they did now, stats has moved long away from the people who seriously think Joe Namath is the worst player in the Hall because he threw lots of picks. As core said, Stabler's 1976 is considered a monster season by football stats people, almost certainly the best passing season anybody had in the 1970s. This is despite numbers that would be 'meh' today.

Nobody would argue it's perfect, certainly not as contextually nailed on as baseball, but there's been a lot of work done here.

2) It is not surprising Stabler has a low career ANY/A+, no matter how made it makes ya, because he objectively sucked ass in Houston and New Orleans. The man only started for 12 seasons, 7 in Oakland, 5 in Hou/Nola. He cancelled out a lot of good he did in Oakland.

3) The Raiders were friggin' loaded too in the 70s, that they routinely lost the AFC title game to Miami or Pittsburgh seems to just underline that maybe they weren't *that* good. Especially when you consider stuff like them losing to the Broncos in 1977 and then failing to make the playoffs at all in 1978 and 1979.

4) Everybody gets that Snake has the narrative down cold. The swashbuckling, nightlife loving epitome of the fun lovin' criminals, the Oakland Raiders. That's great, and there weren't a lot of stats people protesting Stabler's induction (for the numbers' sake - I'd have protested it for not giving it to him when he was alive). But, you know, there's now a lot of other QBs (JOHN BRODIE) who get to make a case now that Stabler's in.

 

[dcmissle]

I also don't care about the HOF, especially in football, where it seems to be more closed and political than other major sports.

But the Bulger comp was ill considered. He had less than half the playing time of Eli ( 96 games to 203 and counting, 8 seasons to 14 and counting). Bulger washed out of the League around 32.

In addition, as noted above, he was supported by Canton class teammates. So, to echo soxfan 151, you really do have to watch the games and consider them in the mix. A nose in the stat book alone will not yield reliable conclusions. It's a team game, in which longevity and reliability count for something.

I'm reminded of this whenever someone, usually a youngin, says John Elway wasn't that good. I laugh and pour some good whiskey.

 

[Michelle34B]

Eli doesn't get to bitch about not having Rivers' supporting cast, since, y'know, San Diego drafted him and he forced his way out of town.

When has Eli bitched about...anything? Besides playing for the Los Angeles Chargers at the StubHub Center?

The point is Rivers doesn't have a ring, so his case is going to be measured against similar Hall of Fame quarterbacks. It's quite a good list.

From the thread Borderline HOF QBs Who Has Gone Criminally Underappreciated by the Public

Donovan McNabb: His mobility led to the Eagles dominating their division from 2000-2004. 15,978 passing yards, 110 passing TD; 2,146 rushing yards, 20 rushing TD. The issues against him are the missed games, playoff results, and his sharp decline after leaving Andy Reid and the Eagles. I think you have to have a hard look at Andy Reid as a Hall of Fame coach before considering McNabb. The bar has also been set high for quarterbacks without a Super Bowl Ring.

I might be missing someone here, but quarterbacks in the Hall of Fame without a Super Bowl ring during the Super Bowl era are:

Sonny Jurgensen: He won an NFL championship in 1960, was injured and could not play in Super Bowl VII, and played the majority of his career before the Super Bowl era.

Fran Tarkenton retired as the career leader in passing yards and touchdowns, both records held by Johnny Unitas.

Dan Fouts retired as only the third person with 40,000 passing yards (Tarkenton, Unitas), and the fourth person with 250 TD (Tarkenton, Unitas, Jurgensen).

Dan Marino retired as the career leader in passing yards and touchdowns. Dan Marino 1984, 5,084 yards, 48 TD. The first time a QB had over 5,000 yards and/or 40 TD in a season. Dan Marino became the first QB with 50,000 and 60,000 passing yards.

Jim Kelly went to four consecutive Super Bowls.

Warren Moon played six years in the CFL with the Edmonton Eskimos before entering the NFL.


Ben Roethlisberger: Now that Kurt Warner is a hall of famer, every quarterback that has played in three Super Bowls has made it into the Hall of Fame.

Eli Manning: Continuing on the point about Roethlisberger, if Manning doesn't make it to a third Super Bowl, or have some deep playoff success with All-Pro talent Odell Beckham Jr., his candidacy continues to be quite vexing.

Tony Romo: "Let's not put him in Canton yet, fellas."

 

[SMU_Sox]

121 and Coremiller both have good points. I don't post here much anymore but my 2 cents: you are both clearly intelligent individuals. Why you guys feel the need to make this a competition I just don't get. 121, I largely agree with you but Jesus man - is it the rush of being a dick to someone online when you might have an upper hand on them logically? You're a nice person. You're helpful. You were so patient too as an editor. Don't forget that because this is some anomymous message board. I'll get off my carebear soapbox now and sit back in the non-confrontational anxiety corner.

I think a normalizing stat which compares peers to their peers has some value. ERA isn't a perfect stat and neither is ERA+ but when I am comparing how good Pedro was to his historical peers ERA+ normalizes the different eras (deadball, steroids, high mound, low mound, etc.). If ANY/YA+ does the same it could have some value. Unlike baseball though there isn't a proven and generally useful stat to quickly summarize a players performance like say a starting pitchers ERA, FIP, xFIP, Siera, etc. And those stats are derived from other stats like HRFB%. So I'm not sure ANY/YA+ actually has value but in theory I can see how it could.
Football stats need to be contextualized more than baseball stats. A QB's performance depends on so many things: his O-line, receivers, defensive matchups. 121 brings this up. A QB starts the game with an incomplete pass. Did he throw it away to avoid a sack? Did a receiver run a bad route? Did he almost throw a pick on a risky decision? Did he throw a perfect deep bomb that the receiver dropped? Not all incomplete passes are the same. With baseball now with exit velocity we can approximate the expected result of a ground ball leaving the bat. We can't do that with football.

So, Core, how would you respond to the lack of validity to individual stats in football given all the noise? How do you think ANY/YA+ overcomes this if at all? Is this a valid line of criticism?

121, regarding the resume are you saying individuals should get credit for their team accomplishments? I am a Pats fan but don't get irrational about Eli. I always considered him like Flacco, a mediocre QB who got not a few times in his career at the right time on the right team. Also, his durability does count for something by again he's so mediocre to me. But then again a mediocre QB is better than half the QBs in the league anyway (exaggerating here but noting the lack of good QBs across the league trend).

As for stats in football: I used to read Football Outsiders religiously. They were my Bill James. Now I might check in with that site once every month or so. The more I learned about their methodology and lack of transparency the more I turned away. They have some good analytics on predicting some college prospects and occasionally come up with a new and insightful idea but when your model can't break .500 3-4 years in a row against the spread (maybe not the right number of years) and your picking winners is consistently below the yahoo fantasy Pick'em % I don't think your model is that useful. It is more than that but going into detail over why I gave up on FO is not worth the energy.

 

[coremiller]

SMU, that line of criticism is valid, to a degree. The defense of ANY/A is not that it's perfect, but that it's more meaningful than any other widely available passing statistic. It a) includes yards, sacks, TDs, and INTs, with reasonable weights among the various components, b) can be calculated easily based on box score statistics (unlike, say, Expected Points Added, which is probably a better metric but far harder to calculate, and as a result is not widely available), and c) correlates pretty highly with winning, more so than any other widely available stat. Here's a correlation analysis for various passing stats: http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

Of course, it doesn't factor in a) scheme/coaches/teammates, b) opponent adjustments, or c) dome/weather. It also doesn't include rushing. But there are well-established methods for doing opponent adjustments, and for career-sized samples the effect tends to be small (obv in smaller samples the effect can be much larger). I'm also somewhat skeptical about the magnitude of the dome/weather effect over career-sized samples, especially in the modern era (although this is an area where I've never seen any really conclusive research). I also think a lot of the stuff about receivers catching bad throws/dropping good ones, etc. washes out in career-sized or even season-sized samples. You need approx. 300-400 attempts for ANY/A to stabilize, which is less than a season's worth for most starting QBs (http://intentionalrounding.com/when-does-anya-stabilize/).

But anyway, my point was never that ANY/A+ is definitively conclusive for evaluating QB performance. I do think, however, that it provides useful information. You can look at a QB's career ANY/A+ as a sort of rough starting point, and then do some subjective adjustments for things it doesn't account for. But if your opinion is wildly out of line with what the data is telling you, it's helpful to think about why, and whether your subjective reasons for rejecting what the stats say are actually good reasons (e.g. John Elway, who played with mediocre-at-best offensive teammates and bad offensive coaches for much of his career), or dumb reasons (e.g. Eli Manning, where a lot of people reject the data for stupid reasons like "his team beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl twice").

As for Football Outsiders, their inability to beat the spread might be because both Vegas and lots of bettors are now incorporating EPA-style analysis (which is really what DVOA is) into setting the lines in the first place. If Vegas is using a similar model to yours, they become a lot harder to beat. I agree that their lack of transparency is frustrating, and I worry that they too often they adjust at too detailed a level to generate sufficiently large samples for determining the adjustment. Also I like DVOA much more for teams than for individual numbers (although the individual numbers for which their system works best are non-running QBs.)

 

[BaseballJones]

I agree with everyone who argues that football is such a hard sport to compare stats-wise. I mean, look at Brady and the Patriots. Brady posts crazy good numbers, but last year Blount ran for 12 touchdowns of 5 yards or less when Brady was playing. He EASILY could have thrown for touchdowns on half of those. If he had, this is what Brady's line would have been:

WAS: 291-432, 3554 yds, 28 td, 2 int, 112.2 rating
COULD HAVE BEEN: 297-438, 3560 yds, 34 td, 2 int, 116.4 rating

A 4+ point jump in his passer rating just converting six of Blount's 1-yard TD runs into short TD passes.

But all the Patriots care about is the touchdown, not who gets it. Not HOW they get it. Brady doesn't seem to give the impression of caring how they score. He's as happy as a 1-yard Blount TD run as he is with a 1-yard pass to Gronk.

Moreover, not all 50 yard touchdown passes are the same. It could be an incredible deep ball slotted in a tight window to a receiver, who catches it 50 yards downfield. Or it could be a screen pass to a RB who breaks a tackle, jukes four other guys, and weaves his way downfield for the touchdown. In both cases, the QB gets credit for a 50 yard touchdown pass. But one required FAR more skill on the part of the QB than the other.

But, that said, we do the best we can with what we have.

 

[ifmanis5]

Can't wait for Eli's plaque in Canton to read 'Benched for Geno Smith.'

 

[dbn]

Can't wait for Eli's plaque in Canton to read 'Benched for Geno Smith.'

If I were a troll, I'd start a thread at gang green arguing how it's a victory for the Jets that their former QB is taking over for a QB that is 2-0 against Brady in Super Bowls.

 

[Michelle34B]

Eli usually gets immediately compared to Roethlisberger and Rivers because of the draft class and the trade. Romo had All-Pro seasons from Demarco Murray, Dez Bryant, Jason Witten, and Terrell Owens at skill positions. Matt Ryan has had Michael Turner, Tony Gonzalez, Roddy White, and Julio Jones.

I don't know why Tomlinson/Gates aren't brought up more for Rivers since his case is strongly built on his career passing numbers, and Roethlisberger doesn't get remembered for some of the less than spectacular performances.

I don't even start New York Football Giants threads here because people lose their mind discussing anything related on this board.



Eli came out and stated he was elite and pretty much got laughed at. He didn't have the regular season numbers to match Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, but he had a fantastic season, all the way through the Super Bowl.


After that 2011 season, Chris Mara was promoted to Senior Vice President, Player Personnel, the same title General Manager Jerry Reese holds.(crickets)

Ben McAdoo is going to find his Aaron Rodgers to run the offense(good luck...), and Reese & Co. will bail water out of the sinking ship blaming Eli.

Eli will need 2018 and a Super Bowl win with the Jacksonville Jaguars to really solidify his Hall of Fame career.

Before all that happens, I hope they can beat score twenty points against the Eagles this week.

UPDATE: They scored 24 points against the Eagles!

 

[Time to Mo Vaughn]

I imagine Eli could find another team to take him for a year, maybe two, but if he has taken his final snap (or last few) here's where he stacks up in some of the counting stat rankings:

Completions: 4,319 (6th) - He's 600 behind Marino who's ahead of him, so even if he plays a bit longer it'd be extremely unlikely for him to move up. Rivers and Roethlisberger will both pass him if they play the full season next year. With another 16 played Carson Palmer would likely pass him, but I'd say it's 50/50 if he can hang onto the league that long with his injury history and age. Matt Ryan will pass him with 2 more seasons, Rodgers with 3 more, Flacco with 3 more, Stafford with 4 more.
Passing Yards: 50,625 (7th) - He'll finish 850 behind Elway, who he almost certainly would have passed with a healthy receiving corp all year, but he might be unlikely to reach even if he started the rest of the way. Roethlisberger is 850 yards behind him and will likely pass him by the end of this year. Rivers will pass him, if he plays at all next year. Based on his Y/G the last two seasons, Palmer would need a full 16 games to pass Eli. Matt Ryan would probably need 2 1/4 seasons. Rodgers would easily pass him with 3 full seasons. Flacco would need 4 seasons. Stafford would need 4 seasons.
Passing Touchdowns: 335 (T7th) - But not for long as he's tied with Rivers who will probably over take him on Sunday. Big Ben is 13 back, so while it's possible he could do it this year with a strong finish to the season, he'd like need a game or two next season to pass him. Rodgers would pass him with a full season next year. Palmer would probably need a season and a half. Ryan would pass him with 3 more seasons. Stafford would probably need 5 seasons.
Wins: 118 (9th) - Certainly a much harder category to extrapolate. Rivers is at 106 so would probably be a coin flip to pass him with one more full season, definitely should with 2. Rodgers at 103, should definitely pass him with 2 seasons. Flacco at 99 would probably do it with 3. Ryan at 95 could do it in 3 or 4 seasons. Russel Wilson at 71, probably has as good a shot as anyone else to pass him in the next 5 seasons.

Certainly all of those players won't be able to do pass him in those categories. If we're looking at where he stands in 5 years when he's eligible (or perhaps we should go 6 because everyone can agree he's not gonna get in on his first try), I could see him being around:
Completions - 10th or 11th
Yards - 12th
Touchdowns - 11th
Wins - 12th

 

[TomTerrific]

If I were a troll, I'd start a thread at gang green arguing how it's a victory for the Jets that their former QB is taking over for a QB that is 2-0 against Brady in Super Bowls.

No need to waste time with that. If you really want to get your schadenfreude on, just stroll over to any one of the Giants' fan boards and you will see a full-on meltdown in progress.

Simmons point #18 above about Giants fans was spot on. The idea that Eli is being benched because, well, he's just not worth anything close to $22M/yr and the Giants need to start planning for the future just doesn't compute for them.

 

[uncannymanny]

Mike Francesa on Ben McAdoo: “Maybe on the way out you can look at Eli’s rings because that’s the closest you’ll ever get to one”.

 

[Oppo]

Tied for 21st among active QBs with a career passer rating of 83.8.
Who is he tied with? Flacco
Who is he behind? Cutler, Bradford, and Tannehill
Tied for 33rd among QBs that played most or all of their careers in the 21st century.

QBR
2017: 24th out of 34
2016: 27th out of 30
2015: 16th out of 33
2014: 14th out of 30
2013: 27th out of 31
2012: 9th out of 32
2011: 10th out of 32
2010: 13th out of 31
2009: 7th out of 28
2008: 6th out of 30
2007: 18th out of 27
2006: 20th out of 29

Eli is a league average QB with longevity/health and 2 miracle SB runs.

 

[E5 Yaz]

You know what would be perfect symmetry? For Eli to tell the Giants to play him or cut him. He forced his way there, maybe he should try to force his way out.

 

[uncannymanny]

Wouldn’t Archie have to handle it for him?

 

[BigSoxFan]

Tied for 21st among active QBs with a career passer rating of 83.8.
Who is he tied with? Flacco
Who is he behind? Cutler, Bradford, and Tannehill
Tied for 33rd among QBs that played most or all of their careers in the 21st century.

QBR
2017: 24th out of 34
2016: 27th out of 30
2015: 16th out of 33
2014: 14th out of 30
2013: 27th out of 31
2012: 9th out of 32
2011: 10th out of 32
2010: 13th out of 31
2009: 7th out of 28
2008: 6th out of 30
2007: 18th out of 27
2006: 20th out of 29

Eli is a league average QB with longevity/health and 2 miracle SB runs.

He’ll get in on account of the rings, last name, and counting stats but there is a pretty compelling argument to the contrary. He’s outside of the top 20 for total playoff TDs and is tied with the immortal Matt Hasselbeck.

 

[Michelle34B]

Eli has a NTC. Today was all about McAdoo taking the hit and moving past an ugly situation in 2018 with Eli since he doesn't want to retire. Most people expect the New York Football Giants to pick a QB with their first round pick next year. I've heard most fans say Geno Smith is the best way to finish 2-14, so that definitely sounds like planning for the future.