The Everything Eli Manning Thread - Overrated Edition

[some hero]

We were in the 3-4 last year, keep that in mind (although we played a lot of snaps at 4-3). We moved to a 4-3 this year. Last year, Shawne Merriman went out in the 3rd or 4th game with the Achilles injury, and Kyle Williams, our Pro Bowl NT, played with a bad foot for weeks before finally ending up on IR in week 6 or 7, somewhere around there. Once we lost those guys, it was down to Dareus alone to get push up the middle and Chris Kelsay (ugh) and Dwan Edwards (meh) to come off the edges. Our linebackers were also in and out with injuries, and they were an average group to begin with aside from Nick Barnett. Our D started bad and got significantly worse. Coming back (1) healthy and (2) in a 4-3 is going to change the way this D looks and feels for the better.

Also, I don't think anyone is going to LA. They can't support a fucking team there, and they've proven that multiple times in the past.

I see, even though you dropped several names i never heard of i kind of get it. I thought the Bills used the standard 4-3 which is why i was a little perplexed with such a huge DE signing when you said it was working early in the season. But even if you assume your front seven get to NFC East-level do you really think paying a defensive player that much is worth it? I mean, i understand Megatrons contract. He scores points after all. But giving a DE 100 million seems crazy to me. Do you know how much he will have to do to make that contract look appropriate? He better push them to top 3 sackiest teams... Also, i make a big deal about this contract and not LF/CJ/anyQB because offenses are easier to build and you need fewer players to have a good offense. So having a gigantic contract on them doesn't hurt the team as much. The defense is a different story and you really need a lot of quality guys(just look at the Vikings).

Also, the Raiders left because they had a crazy owner. Not our fault. Don't know(or care) why the Rams/Chargers left. LA is a huge bandwagon city and will only pay attention when a team is winning(which is why i expect riots when the Kings win even though nobody cared a few months ago). But should us loyal football fans be punished for the stupidity of the general population? I don't think so. And trust me, when a stadium gets approved and the ball gets rolling several teams will be more than tempted to move to this great(if way to shallow) city. Though if the Raiders move back, i'll stay a Giants fan for life or until they get a QB i like enough to obsess over.

 

[CaptKirby]

What I have always heard from "people who actually have good opinions" has always been that Las Vegas is the best place for an NFL team. Think like what happened with the Thunder in the NBA with hype, it would happen. The obstacle is the tacit/overt problems related to gambling being officially supported by any sport and any sport being unwilling to even tacitly go there.

 

[TheValkyries]

But even if you assume your front seven get to NFC East-level do you really think paying a defensive player that much is worth it?

NFC East has shitty Front Sevens. Giants and Eagles have great DLines with one good LB and two shit ones. The Cowboys don't really have anyone spectacular outside of Demarcus Ware, and the Redskins have two to three great Linebackers and a shit DLine. Great Front Sevens require solid players at every spot. If you want a benchmark division to compare to, compare it to the AFC North. Their Front Seven's are all rather good (Even the Browns).


@CK: There will never be a professional franchise of any Major League sport in Vegas as long as there is gambling in Vegas.

 

[CaptKirby]

Like I said, I understand the reason. It is also a bad reason, and if any sport could defy it would be the NFL. They are not going to brave it though, the NFL only usually takes progressive steps when their hand is forced or if they know it is enough of a slam dunk to take on some risk, they never make actually risky moves!

 

[Wikey]

I don't get the whole Las Vegas thing. People bet on sports already. What would a team being there change? I guess it might be a negative influence on players who would have to live near Vegas? But they already spend all their off time at casinos even if they play for teams in places without casinos nearby.

Would they be able to support a team? I figured that the people who actually lived in Vegas would be poor. And that there is a lot of emptiness all around it.

 

[TheValkyries]

The problem Wikey is Game Fixing. And CK, that's definitely a damn good reason to not have a franchise there. What are the benefits of having a team there? The league gets bigger and more people watch it... okay. At what cost? The possibility of jeopardizing the integrity of the sport? Nope. Not worth it.

 

[Wikey]

But how does a team being there increase the chance of game fixing?

 

[TheValkyries]

Ease of access to such a large gambling Mecca could open up a crime of opportunity to everyone involved in the franchise. It's a ridiculously easy way to make an exorbitant amount of money. Some of those players could make more money on fixing one game then they could after an entire year of NFL paychecks.

 

[Wikey]

But they could do that now. They all have huge crews made up of their boys from high school. Just have one of them move to Vegas and do the work.

 

[CaptKirby]

The problem Wikey is Game Fixing. And CK, that's definitely a damn good reason to not have a franchise there. What are the benefits of having a team there? The league gets bigger and more people watch it... okay. At what cost? The possibility of jeopardizing the integrity of the sport? Nope. Not worth it.

This is the internet era. Do you not think that people could work out a way to fix games if they wanted to? The reason is just one thing, endorsing gambling as good versus publicly putting on a face of it being bad while secretly totally tacitly endorsing it. The NFL already not so secretly secretly approves of gambling, anyone who has paid attention to the sport knows this.

 

[YTP]

Welp Justin Blackmon arrested for DUI.

loljags

 

[HeroMasaki]

.24 jesus he was piss drunk

 

[some hero]

NFC East has shitty Front Sevens. Giants and Eagles have great DLines with one good LB and two shit ones. The Cowboys don't really have anyone spectacular outside of Demarcus Ware, and the Redskins have two to three great Linebackers and a shit DLine. Great Front Sevens require solid players at every spot. If you want a benchmark division to compare to, compare it to the AFC North. Their Front Seven's are all rather good (Even the Browns).

Kind of messed up, but you're right. And i wanted to ask you. You know how Brees hasn't been signed yet? It got me thinking. I always thought he was the 4th/5th best quaterback in the league but now i'm having my doubts. Is Drew Brees just a byproduct of the Saints offense? The more i think about it the more i think that Brees is not up there with Rodgers and Brady. You think Rodgers did so well because of his receivers right? But how about Brees who has pretty much all a quaterback can ask for. And he also has a terrible defense that inflates his stats even more. Sound ridiculous but i don't place that much weight on passer ratings and/or yards but more on their overall performance(which is why Romo and Rivers will go down as average and forgettable quaterbacks). And lastly, how good are Gronkowski and J. Graham at blocking?

 

[YTP]

he pleaded not guilty.

he wont last long :l

 

[Mr.E]

Kind of messed up, but you're right. And i wanted to ask you. You know how Brees hasn't been signed yet? It got me thinking. I always thought he was the 4th/5th best quaterback in the league but now i'm having my doubts. Is Drew Brees just a byproduct of the Saints offense? The more i think about it the more i think that Brees is not up there with Rodgers and Brady. You think Rodgers did so well because of his receivers right? But how about Brees who has pretty much all a quaterback can ask for. And he also has a terrible defense that inflates his stats even more. Sound ridiculous but i don't place that much weight on passer ratings and/or yards but more on their overall performance(which is why Romo and Rivers will go down as average and forgettable quaterbacks). And lastly, how good are Gronkowski and J. Graham at blocking?

Brees' receivers are a lot closer to Brady-level than Rodgers-level, that's for sure. (Colston = Welker, a bunch of second-rate dudes and worse on the TE front.) His yardage is inflated by the Saints' vertical passing system and the fact their "running" game is screen passes but dude's still a baller. Green Bay has had the best, deepest receiving corps in da lee for years now and it's not even close.

You know passer rating is a measure of overall performance, right? Well, passing performance. It takes into account completions, touchdowns, and interceptions in addition to yards and applies attempts to all of them, so it's also a measure of efficiency. Passer rating doesn't tell me that Big Ben holds onto the ball too long, taking 5347538 sacks as a result, or that Matt Moore fumbled jesus christ 14 times last year, so it's not an end-all measure but it's a fairly complete stat for pure passing performance.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...artin-wrote-the-script-to-the-2012-nfl-season

 

[Justin8649]

thats the stupidest thing ive ever read. bleacher report is an awful website by the way.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

you dont like 99% of things

 

[TheValkyries]

Kind of messed up, but you're right. And i wanted to ask you. You know how Brees hasn't been signed yet? It got me thinking. I always thought he was the 4th/5th best quaterback in the league but now i'm having my doubts. Is Drew Brees just a byproduct of the Saints offense? The more i think about it the more i think that Brees is not up there with Rodgers and Brady. You think Rodgers did so well because of his receivers right? But how about Brees who has pretty much all a quaterback can ask for. And he also has a terrible defense that inflates his stats even more. Sound ridiculous but i don't place that much weight on passer ratings and/or yards but more on their overall performance(which is why Romo and Rivers will go down as average and forgettable quaterbacks). And lastly, how good are Gronkowski and J. Graham at blocking?

Rodgers may very well be as great as everyone says, but to me I have to see him do it with less than the deepest and best receiving corps in the league for me to buy into it. Brees on the other hand, has performed at this high of a level for quite sometime without these same Receivers so it's safe to assume he's the real deal and the Receivers look good because of the QB's.

Also, shitty Defense doesn't inflate Offense. Shitty Defense in fact makes Offense look worse, because they can't put the ball back in the hands of the Offense. Also, the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots had the two worst defenses in the League last year, so saying that Brees's defense was shit and his numbers were inflated by it is naive to the fact that the two guys you're holding above him had worse defenses.

Romo is a very good QB, you thinking he's not is because you're a Giants fan. Rivers is also good. They aren't elite (Romo could potentially be eventually).

Gronkowski is one of the better blocking Tight Ends in the League. Jimmy Graham is one of the worst.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Also, shitty Defense doesn't inflate Offense. Shitty Defense in fact makes Offense look worse, because they can't put the ball back in the hands of the Offense. Also, the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots had the two worst defenses in the League last year, so saying that Brees's defense was shit and his numbers were inflated by it is naive to the fact that the two guys you're holding above him had worse defenses.

Not only that, but the Patriots and Packers had two of the worst defenses in the history of the league, not just the two worst of 2011. So it makes his point even less meaningful

Romo is a very good QB, you thinking he's not is because you're a Giants fan. Rivers is also good. They aren't elite (Romo could potentially be eventually).

The only word I disagree with in this post is "eventually". He's 32 years old and he's been in the league for 8 years. If he's not "elite" (whatever that means) now then he will likely never be. I'm pretty sure Romo has already peaked. Rivers was once elite but he gradually lost his surrounding offensive talent. Both QBs are still above average, but the word elite should be reserved for the top one or two percent of players and there's no way either of them will ever hit that point ever.

 

[TheValkyries]

The only word I disagree with in this post is "eventually". He's 32 years old and he's been in the league for 8 years. If he's not "elite" (whatever that means) now then he will likely never be. I'm pretty sure Romo has already peaked. Rivers was once elite but he gradually lost his surrounding offensive talent. Both QBs are still above average, but the word elite should be reserved for the top one or two percent of players and there's no way either of them will ever hit that point ever.

This is fair, in that my use of eventually could be misplaced here, but in terms of what makes a QB elite in my opinion, it's the ability to read a defense, and make the proper adjustments and make good decisions and accurate throws on an almost every down basis. This kind of ability comes from both experience and shear work at developing it. Brees, Manning, and Brady all definitely have this ability. Rodgers appears to have this ability. Rivers, in my opinion, has never had this ability. So I certainly believe a QB can become Elite late in his career, especially since physical ability has very little to do with being Elite (Maybe Arm Strength... Maybe).

Also Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers make up 12.5% of the League's starting QB's so the 1 or 2% metric is a little off, although I understood what you meant.

 

[some hero]

Rodgers may very well be as great as everyone says, but to me I have to see him do it with less than the deepest and best receiving corps in the league for me to buy into it. Brees on the other hand, has performed at this high of a level for quite sometime without these same Receivers so it's safe to assume he's the real deal and the Receivers look good because of the QB's.

So you would take the Packers receivers over the Saints? And by that i mean the TE and their RBs. The Saints had a good running game so the other defenses couldn't really focus on the passing alone. Which is why the Saints humiliated the Giants.

. Also, shitty Defense doesn't inflate Offense. Shitty Defense in fact makes Offense look worse, because they can't put the ball back in the hands of the Offense. Also, the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots had the two worst defenses in the League last year, so saying that Brees's defense was shit and his numbers were inflated by it is naive to the fact that the two guys you're holding above him had worse defenses.

What are the odds that two of the most dangerous passing offences had crappy defenses? How many times did the patriots start 0-14+? Forcing Brady to score like crazy? Having a crappy defense really forces the offense to be better or at least put up better numbers(of course this only works if the offense is good enough to score). Also most teams don't waste 10+ minutes per drive on these teams and usually end up scoring fast anyways... Giving the ball back to their offense and encouraging more agressive playstyle.

Brees' receivers are a lot closer to Brady-level than Rodgers-level, that's for sure. (Colston = Welker, a bunch of second-rate dudes and worse on the TE front.) His yardage is inflated by the Saints' vertical passing system and the fact their "running" game is screen passes but dude's still a baller. Green Bay has had the best, deepest receiving corps in da lee for years now and it's not even close.

You know passer rating is a measure of overall performance, right? Well, passing performance. It takes into account completions, touchdowns, and interceptions in addition to yards and applies attempts to all of them, so it's also a measure of efficiency. Passer rating doesn't tell me that Big Ben holds onto the ball too long, taking 5347538 sacks as a result, or that Matt Moore fumbled jesus christ 14 times last year, so it's not an end-all measure but it's a fairly complete stat for pure passing performance.

The biggest problem i have with it is that it doesn't show how much help a QB had. Which is why i asked the Brees thing since he is surrounded by everything he needs(his coach also counts). Take Matt "give the ball to Arian Foster on first and second down, then throw the ball anywhere within a ten feet radius of A. Johnson" Shaub, he is an average quaterback(at best) and yet is praised as a saviour and vastly overrated.

 

[TheValkyries]

So you would take the Packers receivers over the Saints? And by that i mean the TE and their RBs. The Saints had a good running game so the other defenses couldn't really focus on the passing alone. Which is why the Saints humiliated the Giants.

The Giants are a shitty Defense outside of their front four. They were third worst in the league in Passing Yardage behind the Packers and Patriots. Their ability to Pass Rush is what makes them tick on that side of the Ball and in the Saints game, their DLine just didn't play well (also because I think Osi was injured, blah blah).

And yes, I would to the Green Bay receiving corps over the Saints one every single day of the week. The Saints Receivers were good at best and alright most of the team. Brees just makes them look good. It's partially why I don't think Welker is as good of a receiver as his numbers look, because Brady makes him look good.

What are the odds that two of the most dangerous passing offences had crappy defenses? How many times did the patriots start 0-14+? Forcing Brady to score like crazy? Having a crappy defense really forces the offense to be better or at least put up better numbers(of course this only works if the offense is good enough to score). Also most teams don't waste 10+ minutes per drive on these teams and usually end up scoring fast anyways... Giving the ball back to their offense and encouraging more agressive playstyle.

It's also a bullshit ideology that people have saying "Oh you're down points that means your Offense's production afterwards is inflated" or "your defense sucks so you have to score more points so your yards are inflated." Shitty Offenses are down points all the time, and will still not perform well. Their production isn't inflated by the fact that they're down on the scoreboard. If a team can score on a defense, then they fucking will, and that's entirely independent of how their Defense is performing (barring Turnovers on opposing territory). In reality a good defense always contributes more to an Elite Offense than a Shit Defense since a good defense can produce quick turns of possession. And even in terms of quickness in getting the balls into the hands of the Offense, a two minute three and out is always better than a 15 second Touchdown for the other team.

The biggest problem i have with it is that it doesn't show how much help a QB had. Which is why i asked the Brees thing since he is surrounded by everything he needs(his coach also counts). Take Matt "give the ball to Arian Foster on first and second down, then throw the ball anywhere within a ten feet radius of A. Johnson" Shaub, he is an average quaterback(at best) and yet is praised as a saviour and vastly overrated.

Number of Games Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson played together last season: 4. Matt Schaub still finished with the 6th best passer rating. He's praised as a passer because he's a good passer, even if he doesn't do it as often because he has one of the top Running Backs in the League.

 

[Mr.E]

thats the stupidest thing ive ever read. bleacher report is an awful website by the way.

posting to point out that bleacherreport is so shitty I didn't even bother to click the link *thumbs up*

Get on my level, son.

To the below: Wouldn't know because I didn't read it! 8)

 

[DM]

yeah because that article was so serious and was meant to be taken as such