Sample Size

Speaking of undeserved good press coverage, Eli Manning played a good game, beat Tampa Day and suddenly I'm hearing guys on television speculating that we may look back at this game as "the day Eli Manning grew up" or some such nonsense. Sure, we may do that if, over the rest of his career he suddenly starts playing like his brother. But there's no reason to expect that whatsoever. Manning's not so bad that he's never put a good game together.

But take a below-average NFL quarterback, surround him with some other talented offensive players, and he's going to play well some of the time. That's just the basic math of it. Meanwhile, 24 points is only slightly above league average -- it's not as if we witnessed some dominating offensive performance.

Comments

100% right.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | January 6, 2008 4:15 PM

...except for "Tampa Day."

To add, that Ahmad Bradshaw guy was quite a pleasant surprise.

Posted by rj3 | January 6, 2008 4:27 PM

Eli Manning stinks. He had an OK game today, which looks good only because it was better than he usually plays. But OK is the best he will ever do. How many horrible passes did he throw today, missing wide open receivers? Even on completions, how often did he hit recievers in stride, allowing them a chance for more yardage? The Giant coaching staff is not altogther blind--the way they sat on the ball at the end of the first half--with a minute and two timeouts left--revealed just how little faith they have in Manning. Their decision was probably right, too--they could see Ronde Barber ending the half by running in an interception for a TD, or a TB lineman picking up one of Manning's patented fumbles as he--untouched--lifts up his passing arm. Manning is not even mediocre, but the Giants have too much invested in him (with the humiliation of dumping him probably weighing even more than the money) to do the right thing and move him.

Posted by Marlowe | January 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Eli does not have below average skills. The knock on Eli is that he thinks too much. If he can improve the mental aspect of his play (specifically, if he gets rid of the ball faster) he can become an above average QB.

As for today's game, I didn't see it.

Posted by Just Karl | January 6, 2008 4:29 PM

If we went on what the announcers have said over the last several years, Eli's 'turned the corner' about a dozen times. When it happens he is announced to have 'finally assumes the leadership mantle of the team', he starts 'reminding people of Peyton', his teammates 'look at him as THE guy', and so forth.

NFL pundits are more desperate for a story to fit into a pre-packaged narrative than political reporters.

Posted by ssdagg | January 6, 2008 4:29 PM

I'm with ssdagg. NFL/Newtork pundits are obsessed with creating a compelling storyline, regardless of reality. Eli "coming of age" sounds exciting, but anyone who watches the games knows it's an extreme reach.

Posted by owenz | January 6, 2008 4:32 PM

24 points against the #2 defense in the league on the road is pretty damn good. Stick to basketball ...

Posted by Dave | January 6, 2008 4:33 PM

I think Eli will be like Garcia, Testeverde, Gannon, Green and many others, a serviceable enough QB to win more than not on a good team, but not somebody who is good enough to win it all unless there is a perfect storm (eg Dilfer on the Ravens, Johnson on the Bucs)

Posted by eric K | January 6, 2008 4:35 PM

The Bucs are, hell were, a team way out of its depth this season. The only reason they made the playoffs was because the NFC South was one of the weakest divisions this year. Prolly worse than the NFC West.

It's not so much Eli Manning becoming a great QB as it was Jon Gruden proving to be a terrible head coach. He's certainly no offensive genius.

Posted by PaulW | January 6, 2008 4:40 PM

Sports announcers spew hyperbole even more than political pundits and that is something very hard to do.

Posted by bajsa | January 6, 2008 4:44 PM

i think eric K has it about right: neither great nor awful, just somewhere in the great in-between. we had a similar discussion a few weeks ago about the leastest qbs to win super bowls (including mark rypien, doug williams, jeff hostetler, earl morrall, brad johnson, and trent dilfer) and you can see that in the right situation, such a guy can win, but this year's giants aren't likely to be that situation.

and yes, the desperate quest for storyline does lead sportscasters to say silly things....

Posted by howard | January 6, 2008 4:44 PM

Marlowe is way too harsh. Giants receivers lead the league in dropped passes...does not inspire confidence in a QB. I would like to see Shockey and Burress spend the off-season working out with the team (like Marvin does with Peyton) instead of wasting their time in Florida. Eli will never be Peyton, but I can definitely see the Jints winning a Suoer Bowl (or two) with him as their QB. Maybe as soon as this year.

Posted by Joe S | January 6, 2008 4:48 PM

Marlowe is way too harsh. Giants receivers lead the league in dropped passes...does not inspire confidence in a QB. I would like to see Shockey and Burress spend the off-season working out with the team (like Marvin does with Peyton) instead of wasting their time in Florida. Eli will never be Peyton, but I can definitely see the Jints winning a Super Bowl (or two) with him as their QB. Maybe as soon as this year.

Posted by Joe S | January 6, 2008 4:48 PM

Pretty much right. We hear this "coming of age" line every time he has a decent game. Fact is Eli is still average to below average. He's got a decent (although certainly not great) supporting cast. Of course he'll have some good games.

As long as he's in the bottom third in QB rating every year it'll be really hard to argue he's an above average QB.

Posted by DJ | January 6, 2008 5:22 PM

How different is this from the talk about Obama the Messiah.

Posted by Koshembos | January 6, 2008 5:56 PM

I'm pretty sure that the CW before the game was that Manning would be helpless against the (at least relatively) mighty TB D. So when he puts up above-average numbers against them... "it's not as if we witnessed some dominating offensive performance."

Confirmation bias, anyone?

Only 3 QBs scored more than Eli did against TB this year - one of them against the second string in Game 16, and some guy named Peyton.

PS - Not saying Eli "came of age" today, or will be good. Just saying that the last sentence of this post is pretty dumb.

Posted by JRoth | January 6, 2008 5:59 PM

You are aware only 4 teams scored 24 or more points. One was in week 17 (when scrubs were on the field), two were against Indy and Jax and the last was against the Texans (who would be a playoff team in the NFC). Not saying that Eli has finally turned the corner, but scoring 24 against the Bucs is pretty impressive.

Posted by Mo | January 6, 2008 5:59 PM

I'm with Dave: MY should stick to basketball. Eli Manning is not below average, he's probably a little bit above average.

Posted by Gene | January 6, 2008 6:53 PM

Phil Simms, fiery though he was, wasn't that great either his first few years. But good enough to take a good team to the Super Bowl, which is all you can want. And receivers. If you gave Eli Randy Moss or TO, he'd be up on a whole other level.

If you're a Giants fan, it feels very good to see Big Blue win their first playoff game in quite a while.

The Bucs were favored, and all four of the pre-game talking heads picked them to win. Eli was 20-26 with no interceptions. It was awesome.

Posted by scott | January 6, 2008 7:00 PM

Yglesias seems to forget that Tampa has, sort of like, a really good defense. The praise for Manning today is deserved, plain and simple.

Posted by Lk09 | January 6, 2008 7:01 PM

Eli manning had a good game today, but nothing special. 24 points when your team has a 3-0 turnover advantage isn't particularly special against anyone. In any event, yards per play is a much better indicator of how well an offense or defense performed, and the Giants offense was decidedly mediocre here. Eli didn't look like his brother today; he looked like the good-but-not-great version of Chad Pennington.

The Giants defense won the game today. Eli mostly just managed not to screw it up, taking the available short pass and not stretching the field, which, while better than his usual, still doesn't manage to meet expectations for him.

I've got to strongly agree with MY here; Eli's had a couple of good games, but that's a small sample size and, given Eli's history, it's definitely far too soon to think he's turned any kind of corner.

Posted by R Johnston | January 6, 2008 7:05 PM

Eli Manning is a solid quarterback, but not great. He's a playoff-caliber starter, but not a franchise player.

Posted by asl | January 6, 2008 7:24 PM

Phil Simms is a solid quarterback, but not great. He's a playoff-caliber starter, but not a franchise player.

-asl, 1984

Posted by Lk09 | January 6, 2008 7:31 PM

Matt, Matt, Matt:

Haven't you learned yet to *never* turn up the volume on the TV on any game called by Buck and Aikman?

Eli's biggest issue has always been consistency, and today was no different. He overthrew or one-hopped plenty of balls to wide-open receivers in the second half.

Posted by Darren | January 6, 2008 8:27 PM

darren, i'm not eli's biggest admirer, but he had all of 4 incomplete passes in the second half. in most dictionaries, that's not something the word "plenty" applies to. the bad one, of course, was the short throw to bradshaw on 3rd and 15; the other 3 were all acceptable, and by eli's standards (his problem, by the way, is not consistency, it's accuracy) he was quite accurate today.

Posted by howard | January 6, 2008 9:31 PM

The Eli Manning bashing is just stupid. He'll never be Payton, he's not "elite" but he's still above average and quite capable of winning with the right team around him. Hell, he's the best QB who played today by far, would you really rather have Garcia? Vince Young looked lousy, and this year (and certainly today) he's been better than Phillip Rivers, so maybe that trade doesn't look so bad all of a sudden (if you ignore Merriman and the kicker).

Posted by Vanya | January 6, 2008 10:25 PM

One name.

Trent Dilfer

Posted by Sharon | January 6, 2008 10:26 PM

Dude looks like a lost and alone, overcoached and brow-beating 12-year old out there. He can also look like his older brother (and maybe that's part of the problem). I think the dude needs a big boost in confidence.

Posted by Ben | January 6, 2008 11:40 PM

Hey man, the dude plays for the New York Giants, playing in the biggest market in the country. Everything anyone does on that team are magnified and over-hyped. He's either going to be dogshit or the greatest of all time.

Posted by Steve | January 7, 2008 12:41 AM

Apparently you skipped Two Dogmas of Empiricism day in school.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 7, 2008 1:17 AM

The Manning seed is devil spawn. Get those fucktard brothers off my TV. They both look like they have Down's Syndrome, which is ironic because Eli can't get a first down. Maybe the reason that the Giants' receivers drop so many passes is that they're surprised that a ball actually came near their hands instead of being thrown to the secondary. Seeing a good Eli pass is like walking down the street and going, "holy shit, a dodo!" The Giants aren't allowed to have a great quarterback in my lifetime.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the Onion article "Guy at the bar complaining about his job turns out to be Eli Manning."

Posted by Reality Man | January 7, 2008 2:06 AM

You hear the "coming of age" line about Elisha every few years. The fact is, he's a slightly better than average NFL quarterback with spotty accuracy and poor decision making and leadership skills. Even the all pro talent he's been surrounded with for most of his career (Barber, Shockey, Burress) can't disguise that fact. The Manning name is a double-edged sword: Eli gets more criticism because of the expectations, but he also gets a longer leash in New York because of what they've invested in him. If Eli's last name were Smith the Giants would be looking for other options.

Whoever said this earlier hit the nail on the head: Eli is good enough that he can win when surrounded by a great supporting cast, but he'll never be the kind of quarterback who's going to elevate the play of his teammates or carry a team on his back. I predict the Giants will begin to look at other options in another season or two, and Eli will have a long career as a "good" but not great journeyman veteran.

Posted by Mike LePost | January 7, 2008 10:01 AM

Meanwhile, 24 points is only slightly above league average

Agree with Dave and others above. 24 points against the Tampa defense is most certainly a good offensive game. I'm not sure why Matthew is looking at league average points, while not evaluating the defense against which Eli put those point up against.

Secondly, I'm curious where Matthew believes that Eli was surrounded by "other talented offensive players". I mean, Jacobs is OK, but he actually only played half the game, with 7th round draftee and rookie Bradshaw playing the rest. No Shockey. Burress is pretty good, but not even a Pro Bowler. The offensive line is OK, but not dominating. So where, oh where, are these "other talented offensive players"?

I'm not a huge Eli fan, but he's good enough.

Posted by Al | January 7, 2008 10:14 AM

Seriously, Giants fans are the worst. For all his flaws, Manning is not the weak link on this team. New York fans seem to think they're entitled to a Brady or a Romo. Well, too bad. The Giants haven't had a truly great QB since Fran Tarkenton anyway - some teams are like that. For whatever reason it's the destiny of the Giants, the Bears and the Bucs to win with great defense and never have truly elite QBs. Whereas the Colts and the Cowboys just seem to attract top QBs decade after decade. Live with it, Giant fans.

Posted by vanya | January 7, 2008 10:49 AM

Vanya:

Agreed about Giants fans (re: entitlement and their mistreatment of Eli). Romo's not a "Romo." Check out Dallas's perfs against a weak sched this year. A monster "o" line, strength three deep at the feature back position, and excellent targets at WR and TE make Romo a stud. But I'm still unconvinced that he's one of the league's elite.

And where have you been since the 1970 season? Phil Simms WAS an elite QB. Had the Giants not picked him earlier, Bill Walsh of SF would have taken Simms, rather than Montana (according to Peter King of SI). When the Giants had no ground game, Simms threw and threw. For 4000 yards/season in '84 -- one of four QBs to have eclipsed that mark at the time. His career QB rating put him third among NFC QBs from 1980-90. Parcells ran a ground-control offense, so Simms mostly played an efficient game at QB. But, really, he was the centerpiece of two juggernauts -- the '86 Giants, and the '90 Giants, which went 10-0 until Simms went down in the matchup with Buddy Ryan's Eagles. Simms was, indeed, an elite QB; he would have had first-ballot HoF stats in a West Coast offense.I still contend that he belongs in the HoF.

Posted by jamey | January 7, 2008 1:15 PM

I still contend that he belongs in the HoF.

I'm a Simms fan as much as anyone and agree that he should be in the HoF. Yet if you ever look up his stats, you'll be amazed. He didn't complete even 58% of his passes in a season until 1990, when he was 36 years old. His TD-INT ratio during those '84, '85, '86 glory years was almost even. He was first in the league in fumbles lost in '85. Basically, everything people hate about Eli, Simms did.

I still have my #11 jersey, even though it is now 15 years old (and likely doesn't fit anymore). I'm wondering if 25 years from now, somebody will be looking at Eli and thinking maybe, just maybe, he should be in the HoF, and not realizing the abuse he's taking these early years of his career.

Posted by Al | January 7, 2008 1:32 PM

eli deserves whatever abuse he gets from giants fans/nyc -- he's the one who insisted on going there, being on the big stage, having a chance to win (which includes the chance to fail), etc.

Posted by dj superflat | January 7, 2008 2:45 PM

al, we've touched on our shared affection for simms in the past (although i'm not sure that i think he should be in the HOF), but there were two critical differences: a.) in his early years, he got hurt a bunch, which slowed down his development (remember, he went to a small school and didn't have a very sophisticated grasp of defenses when he came to the nfl); b.) he was frighteningly accurate (that's why Walsh loved him, and his percent complete numbers have to be evaluated in the context of poor receivers and tough wind-chill conditions in his home field).

so the giants fans who were razzing simms were off.

but eli doesn't have those two excuses, and while giant's stadium is going to work against a qb, he still needs to up his accuracy to have been worth the number one pick.

meanwhile, though, he's the first giant qb since simms to throw 3000 yards and 20 TD passes 3 straight seasons, and i think had plaxico not had a bum ankle this year, he might have done just a touch better.

although i don't think eli's bradshaw, bradshaw is the guy i think of who was truly dumped on after his first 3-4 years and then went on to have an absolute HOF career, so i'm not ready to give up completely on eli yet....

Posted by howard | January 7, 2008 7:23 PM

The game in which Manning really "came of age"--if it proves to be the case--was the game before against the Patriots. A mediocre quarterback would not have put on such a gutty performance against the best team in football.

Posted by Tom S | January 8, 2008 11:05 AM