Who is the better QB - Eli Manning or Aaron Rodgers?

[DogPatch]

Put the knife back in the box Miss Sharp and answer your own question, or stop whining about who answers it. Because you have two more than you originally had.

I don't care if anyone responds or not, I was simply pointing out how you, and everyone else, expects Selma to answer everything.

 

[81usaf92]

I don't care if anyone responds or not, I was simply pointing out how you, and everyone else, expects Selma to answer everything.

lighten up Francis. Not everyone has the insane amount of time you apparently do t ok pick one guy out of 300+ and give an educated answer.

 

[DogPatch]

lighten up Francis

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I made a statement. You got your panties in a wad.

 

[81usaf92]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I made a statement. You got your panties in a wad.

Yet you are the one whining about getting a response. But if that’s what makes you happy then cool you be you. But anyways....

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Lighten up, Francis. I couldn't care less if anyone responds to the question, or not. I find it humorous that any time a question is posed on a topic more than 5 years old, everyone thinks Selma is the only one who could possibly answer.

It's more because he's the only one who will take the time to actually research anything 5 years back with any sort of effort. So when you've got someone who's willing to put in the work to provide as much accurate information as possible to have an honest discussion, why complain about it?

 

[81usaf92]

It's more because he's the only one who will take the time to actually research anything 5 years back with any sort of effort. So when you've got someone who's willing to put in the work to provide as much accurate information as possible to have an honest discussion, why complain about it?

The issue is more that it’s an on the spot question and no one except someone has a Selma like memory or actively keeps up with the HOF inductees to the point of when they went in can have a really educated opinion. Because when someone goes in probably speaks more than that someone just going in. Like Polamalu probably doesn’t go in the HOF in years like last year, but goes in dry years. Shaun Alexander probably goes in eventually but it’s not going to be in a heavy list year.

My point is for all these guys whining about guy X getting in usually miss the context. Really the only reason I asked Selma was to get an answer to a question that required more research and context that most don’t have or don’t have the time to seriously devote to it.

 

[DogPatch]

It's more because he's the only one who will take the time to actually research anything 5 years back with any sort of effort. So when you've got someone who's willing to put in the work to provide as much accurate information as possible to have an honest discussion, why complain about it?

That's my point. Hardly anyone else wants to put any effort into the discussion other than referencing Selma, or calling for him to do the work for them.

I get that the man has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of almost everything, but come on.

 

[81usaf92]

That's my point. Hardly anyone else wants to put any effort into the discussion other than referencing Selma, or calling for him to do the work for them.

I get that the man has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of almost everything, but come on.

yet you put 0 effort into engaging in the discussion nor did you add to it. So really why should you expect us to do research for you on a highly complicated issue. Especially when you whine about and ignore the responses you do get.

 

[DogPatch]

yet you put 0 effort into engaging in the discussion nor did you add to it. So really why should you expect us to do research for you on a highly complicated issue. Especially when you whine about and ignore the responses you do get.

I think think it could be an interesting topic. I don't care about it. I posted a couple of links for anyone who was interested, and thought so. I don't expect anyone to research anything for me on any issue, complicated or not.

I didn't cry to Selma asking him to look it up for me.

 

[seebell]

Damn People! Aaron Rodgers is the answer.

 

[81usaf92]

I think think it could be an interesting topic. I don't care about it. I posted a couple of links for anyone who was interested, and thought so. I don't expect anyone to research anything for me on any issue, complicated or not.

I didn't cry to Selma asking him to look it up for me.

1) I’m sure Selma rarely has to look up the answer.

2) linking someone else’s top list is just as bad as asking Selma to look it up. It still isn’t an opinion you yourself researched.

But anyways I’ve given 2 more names than you or Selma. But yet you want to ignore that fact. I personally don’t want to get into this debate because it ultimately leads to a Joe Namath debate which I’ve had too many to count and they lead to nowhere. So asking Selma in this case was more of getting different names because I personally am always going to say Namath, Lebeau (as a player), or Griese.

But again, in the NFL... context matters because there is no 10 ballot limit or control by a particular organization over the selection. So an “overrated” hall of famer could slip in on a dry year.

Again I think it’s best to start another thread because your “debate” will be lost.

 

[DogPatch]

2) linking someone else’s top list is just as bad as asking Selma to look it up. It still isn’t an opinion you yourself researched.

I don't have an opinion. I don't really care. I was just providing information for folks who might like to read it.

But anyways I’ve given 2 more names than you or Selma. But yet you want to ignore that fact.

I'm not ignoring anything. While I think such a topic would make for an interesting discussion, it's not a discussion that interests me.

I personally don’t want to get into this debate.

Seems like you do. As you stated, you provided 2 more names than Selma and I.

Again I think it’s best to start another thread because your “debate” will be lost.

Couldn't care less.

 

[81usaf92]

I don't have an opinion. I don't really care. I was just providing information for folks who might like to read it.


I'm not ignoring anything. While I think such a topic would make for an interesting discussion, it's not a discussion that interests me.


Seems like you do. As you stated, you provided 2 more names than Selma and I.


Couldn't care less.

If you don’t have an opinion or interest in the question then why ask it?

But whatever floats your boat.

 

[DogPatch]

If you don’t have an opinion or interest in the question then why ask it?

But whatever floats your boat.

I didn't ask a question.

 

[81usaf92]

I didn't ask a question.

Well good for you....

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It's more because he's the only one who will take the time to actually research anything 5 years back with any sort of effort. So when you've got someone who's willing to put in the work to provide as much accurate information as possible to have an honest discussion, why complain about it?

Damn, I take two days off away from a computer and all hell erupts, ha ha. Thank you for the nice words.

It is IMPORTANT for me that our conclusions - whoever we are - are supportable and justifiable with the available constructs to all of us. Evaluation of anything consists of both subjective AND objective data - and both are important. I think that's what gets lost in the whole deal. We cannot JUST "look at numbers" and let that decide things for us. CONTEXT will always matter. Think of it like this - if baseball used 1950s standards and set them in stone for the HOF, does anyone think that John Smoltz or Dennis Eckersley would be in the Hall? Relief pitching was a mostly foreign concept back then as were five-man pitching rotations. The same is true of football. I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to pretend Eli Manning is somehow the equal of John Elway because they look at a few numbers. (Clay Travis - despite his accompanying less adored qualities - USUALLY works well with the data, but his comparison of these two was so tone deaf I couldn't bring myself to take it seriously).

MANY times - not just a few - I've had an opinion that turned out to be totally bogus and wrong. A few months ago I made a comment about Archie Griffin's SECOND Heisman Trophy, and B1G politley said that I was wrong. When I went on my scavenger hunt it was NOT "well, I'm gonna show that good for nothing so and so whatever," it was, "Let's see if what he remembers is correct." And, in fact, it WAS and IS correct. That moved my opinion at least to the point of "okay, I see why he won. I still disagree with it, but it wasn't as bad as I thought." I once thought Bobby Ross was a REALLY good coach, but the data show he's nothing more than a .500 football coach at all levels. That's pretty good considering some places he coached, but he's not a really good one, no.

Too often people START with the opinion and build the analysis to prove the opinion. I TRY to approach it with "okay, I have an opinion but is there something that might overturn it?" I do this with politics as well, but I quit bothering to post counter-information when I realized on that subject how futile it was. On sports at least SOME people are willing to revisit their assumptions and change their views or at a minimum realize I'm not just being a contrarian.

People have a love affair with simplicity. I'm no exception to that. But football - like any sport - is a game of MANY different skills required to win. One of my biggest problems is - to speak bluntly - douche bags who START with "X has won X Super Bowls." Yeah, because that player won those ALL BY HIMSELF, right? That wasn't a TEAM accomplishment, right? Of course, the problem is that it is TRUE that a quarterback has a much higher percentage of credit or blame for that outcome simply because he handles the ball on virtually every single offensive play. So the ring is important to a point, but the debate can be "to what point"? Just because Charles Haley won five Super Bowl rings does NOT make him the greatest defensive player in the history of football. It's funny how many people will accept that - but they'll turn right around and their argument for Tom Brady is "won the most Super Bowls." Brady MIGHT be the best QB ever. He MIGHT. But starting with Super Bowls is something only simpletons can do - since those same people would never say that about Haley and rightly not.

I'm old school enough that I recall when batting average was the determining factor of a value of a player's offense. We now know that batting average is about like rushing yardage - meaningless in and of itself. So a guy hits .319 for the year. But did he run up a bunch of singles in the final three innings of blowouts his team lost versus the middle relief of some spotty pitchings staffs? Did he - like Curtis Martin - get a truckload of yards by running the ball for 13 yards on a bunch of 3rd and 18 plays when the team was expecting a pass? (that actually did happen btw).

I'm going to take a couple of examples from Dog Patch's links to show where I have problems with the analysis. Good links btw.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

That would be an interesting discussion.

Here's Bleacher Report's thoughts. And a few more.

And Stadium Talk.

This is a good discussion to have, and I"m not so sure @81usaf92 is wrong on this. It would require more thought than I want to use. Pro football's HOF BY DEFINITION gets watered down because of the "we have to induct at least four." What if you don't have four guys worthy of induction on the ballot????

But let's take your first link. I nearly hurled when I read the name Gale Sayers. And comparing him with....looks.....Maurice Jones-Drew????

Let's pick up his argument:

Listen to these outrageous stats: 68 games played, 4,956 yards, 54 total touchdowns.
On a team that was 28-37-3

Oh wait, those aren't outrageous numbers at all. In fact, those are pretty average.
Not if you played 1965-69 they aren't.

In 1965, Sayers rushed for 867 yards - which was second in the league behind.....Jim Brown.
In 1966, Sayers lead the entire NFL in rushing...with 1231 yards.
In 1967, Sayers was 3rd with 880 (the leader had 1205).
In 1968, Sayers 5th in rushing with 858 yards in ONLY NINE GAMES and led the NFL in yards per game despite going out in game 9 with a knee injury.
In 1969 - after the injury - he led the NFL in rushing with 1231.

The guy led the NFL in ALL-PURPOSE yeards THREE TIMES despite the knee injury. He led in rushing yards per game three times despite playing for some lousy teams.

They belong to Gale Sayers, who played less than five full seasons' worth of games, back when they played 14-game seasons.
And a smart person would realize that that fact alone reduces numbers.

Sayers was a very good running back but never got the kind of touches that a modern running back sees year in and year out.

Uh, how could he playing fewer games????

However, you have to go by the context of his time. TWICE Sayers was in the top three in attempts and two other times he finished 7th.

For example, if Maurice Jones-Drew were to retire right now, he would have played in a few more games and have over 500 more rushing yards, 1,000 more receiving yards and 12 more total touchdowns.

This article was written on 9/30/11, so I can conveniently exclude the 2011 season since he said "retired now."

Yeah, he'd have all those higher stats - in a time of higher powered offenses and diluted defenses. Let's take MJD's five years and compare it with Sayers's five.

SAYERS has:
4 Pro Bowls vs 2
4 years top 10 rushing attempts vs 2
2 years leading league in rushing vs 0
1 year leading in TDs to 0
1 year leading in points scored to 0
3 times leading in all purpose yards to 0

And done all this on a team MUCH WORSE than the 39-41 Jags of MJD.

Sayers, known partially for his incredible kick-return skills, has only two more return TDs than MJD as well.

While playing fewer games for lesser teams when fewer guys did that but whatever....

If anyone tried to tell even a diehard Jaguars fan that MJD deserves to be a Hall of Famer right now, he'd get laughed out of town,

And deserve to be.

so why is Sayers in the Hall?
Gale Sayers was - until Barry Sanders anyway - considered by coaches and eyewitnesses to be the greatest open field runner in the entire history of the NFL. Keep in mind Sayers accomplished all of this despite two horrific knee injuries, the second which killed his career. Sayers made it because IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS TIME, his numbers show he was one of the better players.

He accomplished more in context than MJD.
While playing for lesser teams than MJD.
His PER GAME AVERAGE is substantially better.
And he played in a time before passing rules (1978) changed the game.

Anyone who compares MJD to Gale Sayers probably thinks Tony Orlando has something in common with Mozart.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Btw, I actually agree - and always have - that Lynn Swann has no business in the Hall of Fame. Let's be honest - he got there because of a series of superstar catches in two different Super Bowls. In a way, he's kind of like Curt Schilling sans the sandpaper personality, a guy who came up REAL BIG on the biggest stage when everyone was watching. Because he was one of the most visible guys on a team that won four Super Bowls in six years, he got the rub from those successful teams and got elected. I also think - like with Don Drysdale - he was helped by hanging around as a good-looking media person who the voters could enjoy on CFB telecasts. I never thought Swann belonged, and I think that like a lot of guys on the Packers and Cowboys - and someday probably the Patriots - he got into the Hall because he was on a team that won a lot of game.

He's not by any means "godawful", but he doesn't really even meet the usual Hall standards.

 

[81usaf92]

Btw, I actually agree - and always have - that Lynn Swann has no business in the Hall of Fame. Let's be honest - he got there because of a series of superstar catches in two different Super Bowls. In a way, he's kind of like Curt Schilling sans the sandpaper personality, a guy who came up REAL BIG on the biggest stage when everyone was watching. Because he was one of the most visible guys on a team that won four Super Bowls in six years, he got the rub from those successful teams and got elected. I also think - like with Don Drysdale - he was helped by hanging around as a good-looking media person who the voters could enjoy on CFB telecasts. I never thought Swann belonged, and I think that like a lot of guys on the Packers and Cowboys - and someday probably the Patriots - he got into the Hall because he was on a team that won a lot of game.

He's not by any means "godawful", but he doesn't really even meet the usual Hall standards.

But again. Look at who went in the class that Swann did.

2001

As a Steelers fan I think the one true wrong in Swann’s inclusion was that he went before Stallworth. Swann is basically the Eli Manning of receivers in terms of stats, moments vs reality, and comparison to peers. You knew he was getting in but where was always going to be the debate. I seriously think HOF voters knew they couldn’t induct both in the same year, and would have a better chance of getting Stallworth in the next year with Kelly than trying Swann.

But again the inductee class makes the argument of “who is the worst guy to get in” a tougher argument than what it seems on the surface. The NFL HOF is basically a better version of the WWE HOF. More or less you have to factor in classes before you consider if someone was worthy. In baseball they don’t have to have a class, and your name on the ballot has a time limit. So criticizing who gets in baseball is far easier.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

But again. Look at who went in the class that Swann did.

2001

As a Steelers fan I think the one true wrong in Swann’s inclusion was that he went before Stallworth. Swann is basically the Eli Manning of receivers in terms of stats, moments vs reality, and comparison to peers. You knew he was getting in but where was always going to be the debate. I seriously think HOF voters knew they couldn’t induct both in the same year, and would have a better chance of getting Stallworth in the next year with Kelly than trying Swann.

But again the inductee class makes the argument of “who is the worst guy to get in” a tougher argument than what it seems on the surface. The NFL HOF is basically a better version of the WWE HOF. More or less you have to factor in classes before you consider if someone was worthy. In baseball they don’t have to have a class, and your name on the ballot has a time limit. So criticizing who gets in baseball is far easier.

As I said above - when you "have" to take 4-8 every year, you eventually water down the Hall to an unrecognizable entity. When Swann went first I was like, "what the hell?"

Did I figure he was going in? Yes.

That doesn't change the fact he's largely in because of the team he played for and a few highlight catches in the Super Bowl. As I said, Curt Schilling. A so-so player in the regular season with a couple of very prominent moments in the post-season that got everyone's attention.