2011 NFL Offseason Thread

[Mysterio2000X]

The Philadelphia Eagles sent the quarterback to the Arizona Cardinals on Thursday in exchange for cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie and an second-round draft pick, NFL Network insider Michael Lombardi reported.

The Eagles later confirmed the deal and said they were sending a 2012 second-round pick to Arizona.

As part of the deal, Kolb agreed to a five-year contract extension worth $63.5 million with $21 million guaranteed, a league source told NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8210ca92/article/eagles-deal-kolb-to-cardinals-for-cb-rodgerscromartie-a-pick?module=HP11_cp

Anybody hear anybody else confirm this?

[HailtotheYo]

How in the blue hell do the rest of the teams in the league continue to allow the Pats to do this ?

Holy fuck.

[Lowerdeck]

My day gets even better. I still want Randy Moss back though.

After last season, I probably wouldn't

[Boltstrikes]

Odd how a quarterback with a losing record and has proven just about nothing is traded for an good albeit overrated cornernback, a 2nd round pick, and gets a contract worth $60 million while a quarterback with a winning record and actually not that bad of a quarterback, just a headcase, ends up getting released.

Kevin Kolb's ceiling is that of Matt Hasselbeck in my opinion, which isn't bad but not good enough to win a Super Bowl. Too bad chances that are he won't be hitting that ceiling. I can, however, see Arizona and Kolb suffering from "Hasselbeck Syndrome" (soon to be "E. Manning Syndrome") in that they cling onto him for years because he's alright/good but never really going to be good enough. In other news, Carolina absolutely have to be the winners of Free Agency thus far unless the Jets or Houston sign Scrabble. They've managed to re-sign Anderson, Davis, Johnson, and Williams, all extremely good/great players, traded for Greg Olsen for merely a 3rd rounder, signed one of the best kickers in the league in Mare, and will be extending top 4-3 MLB Jon Beason and top five center Ryan Kalil soon. Wouldn't surprise me if they brought in Braylon Edwards either, a guy who had his best and to this date only great season in '07 under Rob Chudzinski, who happens to be Carolina's offensive coordinator.

Unfortunately for them, their quarterback line up is Newton (Rookie)/Clausen (Awful)/Null (Awful)/Pike (Awful).

[Mysterio2000X]

Carolina? Saying they overpaid for Johnson is a HUGE understatement, and re-signing a 28 year old DeAngelo to the deal they did when they have Jonathan Stewart ready to go seems like a waste of money.

[naiwf]

Odd how a quarterback with a losing record and has proven just about nothing is traded for an good albeit overrated cornernback, a 2nd round pick, and gets a contract worth $60 million while a quarterback with a winning record and actually not that bad of a quarterback, just a headcase, ends up getting released.

Kevin Kolb's ceiling is that of Matt Hasselbeck in my opinion, which isn't bad but not good enough to win a Super Bowl. Too bad chances that are he won't be hitting that ceiling. I can, however, see Arizona and Kolb suffering from "Hasselbeck Syndrome" (soon to be "E. Manning Syndrome") in that they cling onto him for years because he's alright/good but never really going to be good enough.

"E. Manning" won a Super Bowl and was an integral part of that whole playoff run. If the Giants decide to hang with him for another 5+ years, he's earned it. I think just about any team in the league would sign up for a few years too long with a SB winning QB because it means they won a SB. Also, Hasselbeck should have won his but the refs made sure that he didn't. At the end of the day, I think Kolb maxes out somewhere along the lines of a Kerry Collins/Drew Bledsoe/Trent Green mold. At best he ends up being a slightly less overrated Tony Romo.

[Boltstrikes]

Carolina? Saying they overpaid for Johnson is a HUGE understatement, and re-signing a 28 year old DeAngelo to the deal they did when they have Jonathan Stewart ready to go seems like a waste of money.

This isn't true at all, well the first part, anyway. People need to remember that Johnson's deal is primarily because of how the CBA has been structured. Unlike previous years, teams aren't going to have much of a choice but to spend money in free agency (well, that or extending their guys). As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you've got to spend something like 99% of $120 Million. On top of that, a rookie salary cap has been implemented, meaning that instead of teams overpaying rookies, they might instead actually have to overpay players have EARNED their pay by their performance on the field. Charles Johnson had an elite season in 2010 with 11.5 sacks, was fantastic against the run, and was 2nd among defensive ends in impact plays (number one was Chris Long). On top of all of this, they had to pay SOMEBODY as they were way under the cap floor due to moves they made in the '10 offseason. So I'll just ask you. Would you have preferred they waste the money on a rookie or give it to somebody who has clearly earned their paycheck? It's not a coincidence that there are a lot of other deals that have been raising eyebrows. Santonio Holmes is getting the most guaranteed money for any wide receiver all-time. Quinten Mikell got a fairly huge deal. Eric Weddle is getting paid more than Troy Polamalu. Alex freakin' Smith is getting $5 Million. It's called inflation. It's also called the money that would typically go to rookies going to guys who have earned their pay.

It's almost as if it is a lose-lose for owners. Overpay rookies, get criticized. Overpay guys who've earned their pay, get criticized. Regardless, I prefer the latter. It's why I worry about the Bears and Bucs so much. Now, to be fair to the Bucs, they've reportedly offered to make Scrabble the highest paid cornerback of all-time or something of such. But the Bears have a ton of money they have to spend and have done absolutely nothing. It makes me think they are just going to end up having to overpay some old veteran well past his prime (OG Brian Waters was recently released and might be a candidate) or get desperate and give someone like Roy Williams a huge deal.

As for Williams, you've got a point - I think they probably should have stuck with Stewart and Goodson, both very good backs. But when Williams is in, he and Stewart form easily the best halfback duo in the league and lets be perfectly honest here - if Newton has to be thrown out to the wolves this year, he's going to need all the help possible. On top of that, again, they HAVE to spend the money somehow to get to the cap floor and they decided to give it to Williams. As of now, they've still got a lot of money to spend to get up to that required spot, and it'll likely go to extending Beason/Kalil and getting Newton's contract worked out. All things considered, I think they've done a great job not only retaining their guys, two of which were going to get a ton of $$ regardless, but also bringing in guys such as Olsen and everyone knows that a rookie quarterbacks best friend is a good, talented tight end. Maybe I'm wrong on them having been the best team in FA thus far but they are definitely in the argument.

[Mysterio2000X]

This isn't true at all, well the first part, anyway. People need to remember that Johnson's deal is primarily because of how the CBA has been structured. Unlike previous years, teams aren't going to have much of a choice but to spend money in free agency (well, that or extending their guys). As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you've got to spend something like 99% of $120 Million. On top of that, a rookie salary cap has been implemented, meaning that instead of teams overpaying rookies, they might instead actually have to overpay players have EARNED their pay by their performance on the field. Charles Johnson had an elite season in 2010 with 11.5 sacks, was fantastic against the run, and was 2nd among defensive ends in impact plays (number one was Chris Long). On top of all of this, they had to pay SOMEBODY as they were way under the cap floor due to moves they made in the '10 offseason. So I'll just ask you. Would you have preferred they waste the money on a rookie or give it to somebody who has clearly earned their paycheck? It's not a coincidence that there are a lot of other deals that have been raising eyebrows. Santonio Holmes is getting the most guaranteed money for any wide receiver all-time. Quinten Mikell got a fairly huge deal. Eric Weddle is getting paid more than Troy Polamalu. Alex freakin' Smith is getting $5 Million. It's called inflation. It's also called the money that would typically go to rookies going to guys who have earned their pay.

It's almost as if it is a lose-lose for owners. Overpay rookies, get criticized. Overpay guys who've earned their pay, get criticized. Regardless, I prefer the latter. It's why I worry about the Bears and Bucs so much. Now, to be fair to the Bucs, they've reportedly offered to make Scrabble the highest paid cornerback of all-time or something of such. But the Bears have a ton of money they have to spend and have done absolutely nothing. It makes me think they are just going to end up having to overpay some old veteran well past his prime (OG Brian Waters was recently released and might be a candidate) or get desperate and give someone like Roy Williams a huge deal.

As for Williams, you've got a point - I think they probably should have stuck with Stewart and Goodson, both very good backs. But when Williams is in, he and Stewart form easily the best halfback duo in the league and lets be perfectly honest here - if Newton has to be thrown out to the wolves this year, he's going to need all the help possible. On top of that, again, they HAVE to spend the money somehow to get to the cap floor and they decided to give it to Williams. As of now, they've still got a lot of money to spend to get up to that required spot, and it'll likely go to extending Beason/Kalil and getting Newton's contract worked out. All things considered, I think they've done a great job not only retaining their guys, two of which were going to get a ton of $$ regardless, but also bringing in guys such as Olsen and everyone knows that a rookie quarterbacks best friend is a good, talented tight end. Maybe I'm wrong on them having been the best team in FA thus far but they are definitely in the argument.

The salary floor doesn't go into effect until 2013, and Johnson is a one year wonder who in no way, shape or form deserves to be the highest paid defensive end in the game (even if that's only until Osi signs his deal).

[Meacon Keaton]

I'm glad Carolina re-signed DeAngelo Williams. I was shitting bricks when they said Denver was actually considering him. In an age where 'er-body and dey mommas' can become a piece of a team's running back core, we don't need to waste cap space on an aging running back. I'm still aggravated about the signing of Travis Henry and his 48 children a few years back.

[Boltstrikes]

"E. Manning" won a Super Bowl and was an integral part of that whole playoff run. If the Giants decide to hang with him for another 5+ years, he's earned it. I think just about any team in the league would sign up for a few years too long with a SB winning QB because it means they won a SB. Also, Hasselbeck should have won his but the refs made sure that he didn't. At the end of the day, I think Kolb maxes out somewhere along the lines of a Kerry Collins/Drew Bledsoe/Trent Green mold. At best he ends up being a slightly less overrated Tony Romo.

Well, that would be assuming he'd have the exact same success he had with the Giants on another team but nonetheless, him winning a Super Bowl doesn't mean jack. Yes, he played extremely well in the '07 postseason (well, compared to his performance in the actual regular season, anyway), I'd be a fool to deny that. However, what exactly have he - and the Giants for that matter - done since then? He's only posted one season with a quarterback rating of 90 or higher. Sorry but in this day and age of football, that is completely pathetic. I don't like falling back on statistics but his just scream mediocre. Has led the league in interceptions on two separate occasions. Whenever he's started the complete 16 games, or close to it, he's only posted below 15 interceptions twice out of six of those seasons in question. This all despite having an elite offensive line prior to '10, an always solid running game to fall back on, and not that bad of wide receivers. Alright, maybe I'm sort of lying on the last part but he's had very talented receivers in '09 and '10 with Smith, Nicks, and Manningham. Boss ain't too shabby, either.

My point is, in the seven years Manning's been in the NFL, all but one of his seasons (2009) have been anything but mediocre/average, which is why I feel that the Giants are going to always hang onto him because he's "good" but I don't see him ever being "good enough". Yeah, I'm positive there are plenty of teams in the league that would rather have him than their current situation (more bad/meh QBs than good QBs) but that doesn't change the fact Manning is arguably not even top ten. Freeman, Ryan, and Flacco are just three examples off the top of my head that have outdone Manning statistically already and haven't been in the league nearly as long. So I think what I said was accurate. Manning has so far been good/average but not good enough. Super Bowls aren't the be all, end all in evaluating talent and since that '07 playoff run, Manning's not been that great of a quarterback. Hell, he wasn't beforehand.

The salary floor doesn't go into effect until 2013

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is wrong. They are giving them an extra couple of million to spend to get comfortable with the new CBA but there absolutely is a salary floor at the moment and teams absolutely do have to spend a certain amount of money. As for you comments on Johnson, again, I'll disagree. First, I wouldn't exactly call Johnson a one year wonder. He had a very good season in 2008. Only 6.5 sacks, but that was in limited time and despite that, was still one of the leagues best in pressures that season. He was well on his pace to repeating that in '09 when he was finally given the starting spot but after he was injured, he never really managed to be the same. Anyone that followed his career wasn't surprised by his season in '10. Also, yeah, he is making a bit of money. But not only are you kidding yourself if you don't think if a guy like Allen or so was in the market right now, they wouldn't make a LOT more cash but you are also ignoring everything I said. The money that isn't going to the rookies now have to go somewhere and since they have a lot of money they've got to spend, it has to go somewhere and it happened to go to the only good defensive lineman on the team.

Another thing to consider is that if they didn't re-sign him, he would have been going to the Atlanta Falcons, their division foe. Not exactly something they would have wanted. But anyway, I'll agree with you. He shouldn't be the highest paid defensive end in the NFL (not sure about the #s so I can't say for sure if he is or not but I'll take your word for it). However, it's called inflation and how the CBA is structured. It was either the money go to the rookies or the money go to the guys hitting the market or needing to be extended. I don't know about you but personally, I like the money going to the guys who have actually earned it. I mean, it's either "Sam Bradford doesn't deserve to be the highest paid quarterback in the league" or "[so and so in free agency coming off a great season] doesn't deserve to be the highest paid [position] in the league."

EDIT - I was wrong about the percentage of the hard cap that teams have to spend. It's 90% at $108 Million.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Boltstrikes

[naiwf]

Words.

If you honestly think you could just plug and play guys like Freeman, Flacco, and Ryan into New York's pressure and they would have won that SB against the unbeaten juggernaut that was the Pats, then you know nothing about football. Flacco has a lot of playoff wins, but always loses to the Steelers. Ryan wasted a # 1 seed in a dome last year and Freeman's Bucs have yet to play a meaningful game in his young career. Eli's stats are not great, but he is the undisputed leader of that offense and if the DEFENSE didn't play like shit down the stretch of the last few seasons (AND Plax hadn't shot himself) the Giants may very well have made another run to play in a 2nd SB with a guy you think is barely adequate.

2010 - they had the Eagles beat, but the defense choked away a 21 pt lead late and they missed the playoffs. They were also curbstomped by the Packers the following week in another game that would have put them in the postseason mix.

2009 - 5-0 start, then they gave up 40+ points 5 times, 30+ 6 times, and only held one team under 24 points in their last 11 games.

2008 - they were 11-1, Plax shot himself and they've never really been the same since.

While Eli throws a lot of picks, many of which were not his fault last year, he has completed over 62% of his passes and thrown for over 8,000 yards and 58 TDs the last 2 seasons, all without a "name" WR. If that's mediocre, then I'd like to know what you consider above average.

[Boltstrikes]

If you honestly think you could just plug and play guys like Freeman, Flacco, and Ryan into New York's pressure and they would have won that SB against the unbeaten juggernaut that was the Pats, then you know nothing about football.

Good thing I didn't say that, then.

Flacco has a lot of playoff wins, but always loses to the Steelers.

Manning has zero playoff wins outside of '07 and always loses to the Eagles. Not sure what your point is.

Ryan wasted a # 1 seed in a dome last year

Just like the Giants did in 2008. What does this matter, anyway? Giants haven't even made the playoffs the past two seasons and have for three straight seasons now choked down the stretch. It's not all Manning's fault but he hasn't done that much to help.

and Freeman's Bucs have yet to play a meaningful game in his young career.

You're right which is why I wouldn't take him over Manning at the moment. My point was simply this: Despite playing in four less seasons, his season in 2010 still trumped anything Manning did in his entire career, statistically. Outside of Manning's season in 2009, he's really been average.

Eli's stats are not great, but he is the undisputed leader of that offense and if the DEFENSE didn't play like shit down the stretch of the last few seasons (AND Plax hadn't shot himself) the Giants may very well have made another run to play in a 2nd SB with a guy you think is barely adequate.

I'd like to see where I said he's "barely adequate". I think you are seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not calling the guy a bad quarterback. What I'm saying is that I think he might end up being a guy who is good but not good enough. I don't care how many times you want to tell me about him being the almighty Patriots in the Super Bowl (and by the way, he didn't do it alone; that Giants Pass Rush was insane that game). He's never really been anything more than average outside of '09. Is he a good quarterback? Definitely, I won't dispute that. But he's yet to really take that next step. And lets not act like the defense is the only reason the Giants have tanked these past couple of seasons. Manning did not play well whatsoever at the tailend of '08 and threw 25 interceptions in '10. However, as I've said, I will give you '09 - their defense was god awful. But outside of that year, Manning's really not done much of anything and in this day and age, if you've only got one season out of 6 with a 90 quarterback rating and you've started the majority of them, there is sort of a problem. As for the Greenbay game you mentioned, Manning threw 4 interceptions. They got hammered for a reason.

While Eli throws a lot of picks, many of which were not his fault last year, he has completed over 62% of his passes and thrown for over 8,000 yards and 58 TDs the last 2 seasons, all without a "name" WR. If that's mediocre, then I'd like to know what you consider above average.

He's posted high interception totals damn near his entire career. I seriously doubt most simply just aren't his fault although I will agree that his receivers didn't help him out at times.

Anyway, as I've said, I consider him a good quarterback. There are a lot of teams that would want him over their current quarterback situation, primarily because there are a lot more bad/meh quarterbacks than good/great ones. But what you seem to be misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to argue that he isn't good. I'm trying to say that I think they may end up sticking with him like the Seahawks did with Hasselbeck despite the fact that while he may be good, he's still yet to show any steps to becoming an undoubtedly top ten quarterback. I mean, off the top of my head of guys arguably better than him:

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning

Philip Rivers

Aaron Rodgers

Ben Roethlisberger

Drew Brees

Tony Romo

Matt Schaub

Matt Ryan

Joe Flacco

All ten arguably better than him. Actually, scratch that. I can't imagine an argument for him over some of those names on the list that doesn't make one sound like a complete Giants homer. Then you've got a guy like Vick that I could understand one taking over him although it really depends on how much one likes to see a player do it for more than one season and Freeman in consideration (he certainly needs to do it for one more season). That's the point I'm trying to make. Eli Manning is, at this point in time, arguably not a top ten quarterback. I worry that he's going to end up being a guy thought of to be good, which he is, but never really good enough as he's hardly progressed since he's entered the NFL. However, I'm in no way, shape, or form trying to argue that he's a bad quarterback or anything. But compared to the guys above, who have seemingly progressed every single year? Eh, I just don't know about Eli.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Boltstrikes

[mystikz]

If you honestly think you could just plug and play guys like Freeman, Flacco, and Ryan into New York's pressure and they would have won that SB against the unbeaten juggernaut that was the Pats, then you know nothing about football.

Good thing I didn't say that, then.

Flacco has a lot of playoff wins, but always loses to the Steelers.

Manning has zero playoff wins outside of '07 and always loses to the Eagles. Not sure what your point is.

Ryan wasted a # 1 seed in a dome last year

Just like the Giants did in 2008. What does this matter, anyway? Giants haven't even made the playoffs the past two seasons and have for three straight seasons now choked down the stretch. It's not all Manning's fault but he hasn't done that much to help.

and Freeman's Bucs have yet to play a meaningful game in his young career.

You're right which is why I wouldn't take him over Manning at the moment. My point was simply this: Despite playing in four less seasons, his season in 2010 still trumped anything Manning did in his entire career, statistically. Outside of Manning's season in 2009, he's really been average.

Eli's stats are not great, but he is the undisputed leader of that offense and if the DEFENSE didn't play like shit down the stretch of the last few seasons (AND Plax hadn't shot himself) the Giants may very well have made another run to play in a 2nd SB with a guy you think is barely adequate.

I'd like to see where I said he's "barely adequate". I think you are seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not calling the guy a bad quarterback. What I'm saying is that I think he might end up being a guy who is good but not good enough. I don't care how many times you want to tell me about him being the almighty Patriots in the Super Bowl (and by the way, he didn't do it alone; that Giants Pass Rush was insane that game). He's never really been anything more than average outside of '09. Is he a good quarterback? Definitely, I won't dispute that. But he's yet to really take that next step. And lets not act like the defense is the only reason the Giants have tanked these past couple of seasons. Manning did not play well whatsoever at the tailend of '08 and threw 25 interceptions in '10. However, as I've said, I will give you '09 - their defense was god awful. But outside of that year, Manning's really not done much of anything and in this day and age, if you've only got one season out of 6 with a 90 quarterback rating and you've started the majority of them, there is sort of a problem. As for the Greenbay game you mentioned, Manning threw 4 interceptions. They got hammered for a reason.

While Eli throws a lot of picks, many of which were not his fault last year, he has completed over 62% of his passes and thrown for over 8,000 yards and 58 TDs the last 2 seasons, all without a "name" WR. If that's mediocre, then I'd like to know what you consider above average.

He's posted high interception totals damn near his entire career. I seriously doubt most simply just aren't his fault although I will agree that his receivers didn't help him out at times.

Anyway, as I've said, I consider him a good quarterback. There are a lot of teams that would want him over their current quarterback situation, primarily because there are a lot more bad/meh quarterbacks than good/great ones. But what you seem to be misunderstanding is that I'm not trying to argue that he isn't good. I'm trying to say that I think they may end up sticking with him like the Seahawks did with Hasselbeck despite the fact that while he may be good, he's still yet to show any steps to becoming an undoubtedly top ten quarterback. I mean, off the top of my head of guys arguably better than him:

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning

Philip Rivers

Aaron Rodgers

Ben Roethlisberger

Drew Brees

Tony Romo

Matt Schaub

Matt Ryan

Joe Flacco

All ten arguably better than him. Actually, scratch that. I can't imagine an argument for him over some of those names on the list that doesn't make one sound like a complete Giants homer. Then you've got a guy like Vick that I could understand one taking over him although it really depends on how much one likes to see a player do it for more than one season and Freeman in consideration (he certainly needs to do it for one more season). That's the point I'm trying to make. Eli Manning is, at this point in time, arguably not a top ten quarterback. I worry that he's going to end up being a guy thought of to be good, which he is, but never really good enough as he's hardly progressed since he's entered the NFL. However, I'm in no way, shape, or form trying to argue that he's a bad quarterback or anything. But compared to the guys above, who have seemingly progressed every single year? Eh, I just don't know about Eli.

I'll give you some of those.... but Flacco better than Eli? I don't see it. Ryan maybe. Romo chokes in the playoffs so I'd still rate him below Eli as well.

[Boltstrikes]

Outside of 2007, when has Tony Romo exactly "choked in the playoffs"? His offensive line was dreadful vs. Minnesota and I really don't see how him messing up as a placeholder has anything to do with his quarterbacking skills. He needs to work on getting more consistent, most definitely, but he's actually been one of the leagues best in the fourth quarter. On top of that, he's posted four straight seasons with a quarterback rating over 90 and his numbers and performance have outdone Manning over his career. If you ask me who I want in the clutch, I'll probably go with Manning. But overall, give me Romo. Besides, the last game Manning played in the postseason, he choked and he hasn't really been some great, clutch player over the past couple of years.

As far as Flacco/Ryan go, they were two of the players that I could understand if people took Manning over him. But I've just simply been more impressed with them when it comes to how they've progressed compared to Manning, which is what my original comment on Manning was about; progression. I will say this and that is Flacco is really underrated. I'm not sure why every media outlet pretends like Ryan is so much better than him or anything. Maybe it is because Flacco doesn' do it the traditional way but not only have they posted identical stats (and Ryan's had better talent), Flacco's also outperformed him in the postseason. They are much closer than people make them out to be and I wouldn't even hesitate to say Flacco might actually be better than Ryan. Only problem I've got with Flacco though is consistent. For Ryan, he's just too much of a dink-and-dunk passer for my liking but then again, that may have something to do with his conservative offense that he plays in. His #s when he attempts passes beyond twenty yards aren't pretty, though. On throws beyond 20 yards in the air, he only completed 10 out of 45 passes. So when it comes down to the deep ball, Flacco's got him beat but it all comes down to preference.

[TCO]

Obviously I'm a severe Eli Manning mark and anything I say will be biased slightly.

The start of your argument was

(soon to be "E. Manning Syndrome") in that they cling onto him for years because he's alright/good but never really going to be good enough.

Wait so what is it that qualifies as "good enough"? Not everybody can have a Brady, Peyton, Brees or Rodgers, so every team is supposed to just cut ties with a QB who isn't part of the core elite in the league before they hit 30? You've said winning a Super Bowl isn't the "be all and end all", but quite frankly, yes it fucking is. I'm sorry but if I could go back in time and take Rivers, have a QB who's "good enough" in your system, but give back the Lombardi that Eli won then no thanks.

Eli won a Superbowl aged 27, what the hell do expect the team to do, Dilfer him immediately? Since then he's actually improvedif you look at his stats. A no.1 seed in the 2008 season before his no.1 guy shot himself, a career year in 2009 and another 4000 yard season last year that would've seen a post season run if the defence hadn't decided to take the 2nd half off against the Eagles. Yes he threw a lot of picks last year, but if you were to watch all of the Giants games, an exceedingly large percentage of those were off the recievers hands.

So yeah Eli is more than "good enough" to be kept around and is easily top 10 in the league. To survive this long in New York it takes a special personality and a special type of leader and Eli fits the bill whilst also bringing home a Lombardi in the procees. It's all good though Eli has his haters, but I'll sit back happily and listen to them while I watch Rivers become an inferior Marino 2.0 and rewatch Superbowl XLII and smile.

Oh yeah here's how I'd personally rank QBs in the league, for comparitvie reasons. Admittedly Eli may be a little high in many people's books, but Joe Flaccid top 10? Please.

1. 
   
   
2. Tom Brady
   
3. Peyton Manning
   
4. Aaron Rodgers
   
5. Drew Brees
   
6. Phillip Rivers
   
7. Ben Roehlisberger
   
8. Mchael Vick
   
9. Eli Manning
   
10. Tony Romo
    
11. Matt Ryan/Matt Schaub
    

[Damian WayLNKe]

Nnmadi narrows list to two teams...Jets and Cowboys. Fuck.

[Dan]

Jags sign Landry, our D is looking much better this year.

[bill_da_bill]

Nnmadi narrows list to two teams...Jets and Cowboys. Fuck.

Agree with this sentiment. These are my least two favorite teams in football and the Jets are up there with my least favorite in all of sports. Adam Schefter keeps saying there is a mystery team involved in this, I can only hope that's true and rush in and steal him away.

[naiwf]

Matt Ryan couldn't beat an injury depleted 6 seed in a weather controlled environment where he'd rarely lost before. I wouldn't trust him to do any better in the Meadowlands. Joe Flacco has playoff victories with some of the worst statistical efforts ever thanks entirely to his defense. Romo finally picked up Dallas' first playoff win in over a decade in spite of playing with tons of guys who are considered top players at their respective positions. Matt Schaub has never played a meaningful game in his career either. So you can choose to look at stats or results, but I would not trade Eli straight up for any of those QBs at this point in their respective careers. The younger Manning is not great, but he's thrown for over 4,000 yards in consecutive seasons with essentially a stud slot receiver, and a group of young talented guys with severe cases of the dropsies. If Manningham and Nicks ever cut down on the number of deflected INTs, he could easily throw for 4,500 yards and 30+ TDs while keeping his INT total below 16 in a stadium where no one has EVER put up those kind of numbers, and yes I'm counting both versions of the Meadowlands.

Again, your premise was that Eli Manning was the definition of a QB that's not good enough to lead your team to success, but then you want to reference guys who have done less with more as superior QBs and I completely disagree with that. Before that douchebag Plax shot himself the Giants were 11-1 and favored to repeat as champs, but then Eli lost the one guy he had 100% confidence in and the team hasn't fully recovered from it because #1 WRs aren't available very often. If you take away any QB not named Brady's top receiver, I'd like to see them continue to put up the same numbers they did before.

[Boltstrikes]

Wait so what is it that qualifies as "good enough"? Not everybody can have a Brady, Peyton, Brees or Rodgers, so every team is supposed to just cut ties with a QB who isn't part of the core elite in the league before they hit 30? You've said winning a Super Bowl isn't the "be all and end all", but quite frankly, yes it fucking is. I'm sorry but if I could go back in time and take Rivers, have a QB who's "good enough" in your system, but give back the Lombardi that Eli won then no thanks.

It isn't the be all, end all when evaluating a PLAYER. Marino's a top five quarterback of all-time and he's missing a Lombardi. Jim Kelly was/is better than Eli and he's missing a ring. Rivers is still better than Manning, regardless of if he might not have a Super Bowl win or not and if I had to choose between Manning or Rivers, I'm without a doubt taking the latter. Manning's got Rivers beat in the clutch admittedly until Rivers finally translates his regular season play until the postseason but right now, I'm taking Rivers, mainly because outside of '07, Manning's either been poo in the postseason or just didn't make it in the first place. That and Rivers has shown to be far more consistent than Manning since '04.

Eli won a Superbowl aged 27, what the hell do expect the team to do, Dilfer him immediately?

Sigh, again, people seem to be completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, which is what I get when you act like I'm comparing him to Dilfer. He's never posted a season above average sans '09 and outside of '07, has not seen any postseason success. He's hardly progressed whatsoever since he debuted in the NFL and the Giants have collapsed these past two seasons down the stretch. I've already said he's also a good quarterback as well. But considering he's shown very little progress, at least compared to guys like Ryan and Flacco who have shown quick improvement already, I'm not all that sure about him making much of a jump anytime soon and he's already arguably not top ten at his position.

Since then he's actually improvedif you look at his stats. A no.1 seed in the 2008 season before his no.1 guy shot himself, a career year in 2009 and another 4000 yard season last year that would've seen a post season run if the defence hadn't decided to take the 2nd half off against the Eagles. Yes he threw a lot of picks last year, but if you were to watch all of the Giants games, an exceedingly large percentage of those were off the recievers hands.

The guy has only thrown less than 15 interceptions twice in six seasons. His receivers didn't help him out like they should have but lets not act as if those 25 interceptions all just weren't his fault. And I have looked at the stats. Outside of '09, he's been average.

So yeah Eli is more than "good enough" to be kept around and is easily top 10 in the league. To survive this long in New York it takes a special personality and a special type of leader and Eli fits the bill whilst also bringing home a Lombardi in the procees. It's all good though Eli has his haters, but I'll sit back happily and listen to them while I watch Rivers become an inferior Marino 2.0 and rewatch Superbowl XLII and smile.

I'm not hating him on at all and I've already said he's a good quarterback and I'm sure there are quite a bit of teams that would prefer to have him right now. However, all this time, my problem with him hasn't been if he is a good quarterback but if he'll ever really take that next step which is what I mean by "good enough." Maybe I could have worded it differently but I've already explain it quite a bit of times. Manning's shown little progression compared to other guys on the year and I don't care if he has a ring or not, which is a team accomplishment anyway. He's done nothing since then.

Oh yeah here's how I'd personally rank QBs in the league, for comparitvie reasons. Admittedly Eli may be a little high in many people's books, but Joe Flaccid top 10? Please.

Joe Flacco Previous 2 Seasons:

7.3 Yards/Attempt (Efficiency over total numbers and in this case, total yards)

46 touchdowns (4.6 Touchdowns Per Pass Attempt)

22 interceptions (2.2 Interceptions Per Pass Attempt)

62.6% Completion Percentage

91.3 Quarterback Rating

Eli Manning Previous 2 Seasons:

7.6 Yards/Attempt

58 Touchdowns (5.5 Touchdowns Per Pass Attempt)

39 Interceptions (3.7 Interceptions Per Pass Attempt)

62.6% Completion Percentage

89.2 Quarterback Rating

It isn't that ridiculous, especially considering Flacco's working with a worse offensive surrounding cast sans Rice. But anyway, that wasn't my actual top ten. Just guys off the top of my head with an argument over Manning.

1. Tom Brady

2. Aaron Rodgers

3. Philip Rivers

4. Drew Brees

5. Peyton Manning

6. Ben Roethlisberger

7. Tony Romo

8. Matt Ryan

9. Eli Manning

10. Matt Schaub / Joe Flacco / Michael Vick

So I do consider Manning a top ten quarterback but I could definitely see if someone took Schaub and/or Vick over him. Same with Flacco. My point has, and will always remain, is that with how "little" (again, compared to other guys) Manning's progressed in six seasons, I'm not sure if he's ever going to be able to stick there. I mean, if Freeman repeats the season he had last year and then some in the postseason, I'm sure how you don't take him over Manning. Then you've got Bradford, who looked very good for a rookie and now will be patched up with Josh McDaniels. Flacco's already shown more progress in three seasons than Eli Manning did and if Schaub can finally make some noise in the postseason, I wouldn't hesitate to take him over Manning as well although if we're going to defend Manning by blaming his defense, I'll happily do the same for Schaub.