After Victory

Obviously, Eli Manning won the Super Bowl on Sunday and nobody can take that away from him. That said, efforts to crown him the hero of the city seem to me to founder on the fact that scoring 17 points isn't an especially impressive performance for an NFL offense. Patriots opponents scored more than 17 points eight times during the course of the past season, but all of those teams lost.

The difference-maker was that the Giants defense held New England to just 14 points. Teams that score 14 points tend to lose games whether or not the opposition musters a great quarterback to face off against them.

Comments

Every commentator not writing for the Post or the Daily News has said something along the lines of "well, I'm usually against co-MVPs, but maybe they should have given it to the Giants D-Line."

That is the only correct answer for Super Bowl MVP, since all of them performed spectacularly at harrying Brady in a way no team had done all year - not even in that last regular season game.

Posted by Greg | February 5, 2008 1:23 PM

Of course the final drive is affecting perceptions. But by that logic it could just as easily be Tyree or Burress (that was not an easy catch in the endzone) as Manning. But then again, Manning has taken the abuse as well.

Posted by P O'Neill | February 5, 2008 1:26 PM

As spackerman wrote, the MVP belongs to Tyree's helmet.

Posted by jay | February 5, 2008 1:28 PM

If Brady could be MVP of Super Bowl XXXVI on the strength of a 1 TD,

Posted by gustav | February 5, 2008 1:30 PM

Obviously a tossup between manning and the defensive line, but if eli hadn't miraculously channeled fran tarkinton, the giants don't win. He got out of that sure sack situation on his own...he deserves a fair amount of credit for that

Posted by steve | February 5, 2008 1:32 PM

...sub 200yd performance, then Eli's effort certainly qualifies.

Damn html. I put in a "less than" symbol and it ate the rest of my comment.

Posted by gustav | February 5, 2008 1:34 PM

I think the game-winning possession with 1:30 left in the game might have had something to do with that. It was, after all, in response to a defensive collapse by the Giants.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 5, 2008 1:34 PM

Well, gee, when it came down to crunch time at the end of the 4th quarter, the Giants defense let the Patriots drive 80 yards for a go-ahead touchdown. As I see it, that defensive failure was only redeemed by Eli's 80+ yard drive to take the lead again.

And, yes, drives at the end of the 4th quarter really are more important than drives in the 1st half.

Posted by Al | February 5, 2008 1:36 PM

I think the MVP award this year is absolutely meaningless, and I say that as a huge Giants fan. Obviously the performance of the defense was incredible, and was the one real, defining reason that Giants are champs.

But that being said, Eli had 2:45 in the 4th quarter to drive for a touchdown. No touchdown, no win. For a quarterback who has taken a lot of heat, he kept his composure and engineered a hell of a drive.

Posted by Jason Trigger | February 5, 2008 1:44 PM

Al,

That is true, but if Tyree doesn't make a miracle catch on the ball Eli threw up for grabs into several defenders that last drive looks a lot different. That pass had a much greater chance of being picked off than completed. An INT there and Eli is back to being a goat.

I think the story line then would be that Giants D put up a valiant effort only to run out of steam at the end, you can only hold that Pats down so long, you hold them to 14 and you should win, the O cost them the game, etc, etc.

Posted by Eric k | February 5, 2008 1:45 PM

As an Eagles fan I can't stand to think about any of this.

Posted by Naveen | February 5, 2008 1:50 PM

Are you out of your effin mind? You see that last drive? Did you even watch the game?

The Giants D was amazing, and clearly the key to the victory, but Eli stood up and became a man on Sunday.

QBs get too much blame and too much credit, but Eli delivered the Super Bowl victory over a team that thought it was going down as the best ever.

Stick to hoops analysis.

Posted by Michael Strahan | February 5, 2008 1:53 PM

Ditto to Al's comments above. Also, I wondered why Jints abandoned the blitz during the Patsie's 4-qtr scoring drive. Nevertheless, and while the defense deserves great praise for the game in toto, including its efforts & disruptions when the Pats got the ball back w/ 35-seconds left, The Drive fell on Eli's shoulders, and he carried it.
Aided by the Football Gods and Tyree as he was (but how about his ripping himself out of the clutches of Seymour & Co.!!), all praise should go & has gone to Easy E. Also, as Obermann has pointed out (& repeatedly tooted-his-own-horn in reminding us), Eli has become quite the 4th-Qtr comeback artiste. Finally, much of the game goes to show just how impressive was the '72 Fin's perfect season, & what a wanker Bellicheck is.

Posted by mofo | February 5, 2008 1:56 PM

Eric k,

Yes, if events had turned out differently on the last drive, Eli might not be MVP. If Tyree drops it... if Asante Samuel makes the interception... if Brandon Jacobs doesn't fall forward for 2 yards on 4th and 1. But events turned out the way they did. Eli really did lead the team on a game-winning drive in the last couple of minutes of the game. And the defense really did give up a long touchdown drive to the Pats just before that.

Look, I think the defense played great for the majority of the game. But the game was decided in the last half of the 4th quarter - when Eli came up bigger than the defense did. Hence the MVP.

Posted by Al | February 5, 2008 1:56 PM

Perhaps there doesn't need to be an MVP every time?

Posted by Mike | February 5, 2008 1:57 PM

Matt, you clearly do not understand football. I do give enormous props to the Giants D. But beating a team as dominant as the NE Pats required more than just good defense. It required nearly flawless offense. Keep in mind that the pats D was ranked number 4 and had a habit of running back interceptions, getting great field position from fumbles, etc. Manning not only mastered several flawless drives, he avoided the mistakes that the Pats D will kill you on every single time.

Posted by Nick | February 5, 2008 2:03 PM

Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Lost
19 34 55.9 255 7.5 2 1 3 8 87.3 3 4 1.3 0 2 0

The stats cut and paste in like garbage, but 255yds, 87.3 rating, 2 TD, 1 INT, and 2 Fumbles do not an MVP quarterback make.

The Pats only managed 274 total yards of offense (20 more than Manning), with only 45 rushing yards.

Sure Manning had a good drive at the end, but if the defense hadn't played as well as they did (against a team that pretty much had the #1 offense in the league) then the fourth quarter wouldn't have mattered one bit.

Posted by daveNYC | February 5, 2008 2:04 PM

Al,

I agree, I'm just sayin' the luck factor played a big part, the margin between hero and goat was pretty tiny.

This wasn't Joe Montana in his prime or Simms going 20-22 or whatever

Posted by Eric k | February 5, 2008 2:05 PM

I haven't seen anyone point out that Eli used to pull games out of his ass, or nearly so, all the time at Ole Miss. If he'd had Auburn's defense he would've won the Heisman.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | February 5, 2008 2:05 PM

Perhaps there doesn't need to be an MVP every time?

But what are they gonna do with the Escalade? Take it back to the dealership?

(BTW, Eli apparently chose an Escalade hybrid, which isn't even out yet.)

Posted by Al | February 5, 2008 2:11 PM

Al's got a point, with the MVP award now attached to a car, you're never going to see a split MVP again. They're not going to cut the car in half.

And I really have no problem with Eli winning it. MVP's (of both a Super Bowl and Regular Season nature) go to quarterbacks and running backs the vast majority of the time anyway, that's just the nature of the MVP beast in the NFL. And yeah, he did catch some breaks, but MVP's always do. You can't tell me he was luckier than Larry Brown!

Posted by Just Another Greg | February 5, 2008 2:16 PM

This wasn't Joe Montana in his prime or Simms going 20-22 or whatever

Actually, it was like Joe Montana in his prime. The only other Super Bowl that was decided by a winning TD drive in the last minute was... Joe Montana's drive against in Bengals in 1989.

(BTW - Simms: 22-25, 268 yds, 3 TDs. Yes, I still have my 20-year old Giants #11 jersey.)

Posted by Al | February 5, 2008 2:17 PM

I like Eli Manning, and he put in a solid performance, but to pick one good drive over the the amazing whole-game performance of the Giant's D is unfortuante. QB's put together great looking drives all the time, but no one the entire season was able to do what the Giants D did in the superbowl.

Eli has shown himself to be a solid QB, a good leader, and cofident when the game is on the line, and that might be enough to win you MVP in many superbowls, but to not recognize the truly astonishing achievement of the giants D is sad.

Posted by JK | February 5, 2008 2:19 PM

You see that last drive?

Well, I saw two passes that should have been intercepted. Not counting the prayer that Tyree answered.

That said, I thought Eli played quite well under the circumstances. I would have given the MVP to Tuck or the entire D-line, but I don't really have a problem with it going to Eli. QBs always get the bigger part of the blame, too.

Posted by rb | February 5, 2008 2:20 PM

So the complaint against Eli seems to be "but it took the entire team to beat the Patriots"? Do I hear this correctly?

Posted by Anderson | February 5, 2008 2:22 PM

In that game Montana was:

23/36 357 yards 2 tds 0 ints

You really wnat to compare Manning to that?

Posted by Eric k | February 5, 2008 2:32 PM

The fact is Eli didn't really play that well. He got picked off on what could have been a game turning drive in the first half, he fumbled twice, he nearly got picked off by Asante on the final drive and was simply lucky that Tyree came down with that ball - it could just as easily have been intercepted. That was a decent game manager performance, nothing more. And yes - a good comparison probably is Brady in '01, but it was ridiculous when he got the MVP as well. The Patriots, with the best statistical offense in the history of the NFL, only crossed the Giants 40 yard line 3 times! All the props for the victory have to go the Giants defensive line - the MVP should have been Strahan.

Posted by vanya | February 5, 2008 2:34 PM

I agree with Greg - the D-line was clearly the difference maker.

How does Superbowl MVP voting work, by the way? Is it possible that Eli won because Justin Tuck (who had the best game statistically) and Strahan (a fan-favorite veteran) split the D-line vote?

As for Eli, he's turned into a competent quarterback IF you assume his last five week's performance was indicative of a larger improvement in his basic abilities. However, I don't believe this is true. Eli's key liabilities -- his poor accuracy, his shaky leadership skills, sometimes questionable judgment -- were all still apparent in this and previous games, he's just been lucky enough to be throwing in completions instead of interceptions in the last five weeks.

If I'm a Giants fan (which I most definitely am not) I'm rooting for the Hefty Lefty, Jared Lorenzen to take over at QB.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 5, 2008 2:34 PM

Well, also Montana didn't win the MVP that year, Rice did. (Shhhh, don't tell anyone that I'm undermining my own argument.)

Posted by Al | February 5, 2008 2:35 PM

Gustav, the MVP choice in Super Bowl 36 was even worse than this year's (Brady only led one drive past the 50 yard line in SB 36, the one that led to the game-winning field goal). That's no excuse for making the same mistake again.

The defense obviously deserves more credit than the offense for the reason Matt mentioned. But in the absence of a rushing star, someone who caught multiple touchdown passes, or a defensive player with easily quantified stats such as interceptions or sacks, the Super Bowl MVP will always be a quarterback, especially when there's a lead change in the final minute of the game, which has only happened one time previously (and as some of you may remember, Jerry Rice complained bitterly about not being MVP when the Niners beat Cincinnati 19 years ago).

Posted by ChuckE | February 5, 2008 2:35 PM

Al corrected me before he saw my comment. I should have said Rice was MVP of SB23, but he complained about not getting to do "I'm going to Disney World."

Posted by ChuckE | February 5, 2008 2:39 PM

Eli is a hero. Give the kid a break.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | February 5, 2008 2:40 PM

"Teams that score 14 points tend to lose games whether or not the opposition musters a great quarterback to face off against them."

It depends on the game. Despite predictions, the Super Bowl was a defensive struggle. The Pats' defense played almost as well as the Giants' defense. That happens in football sometimes: the defenses are dominant and scoring is a struggle. This isn't the NBA. In such a defense-oriented game, a fourth quarter, game-winning comeback drive by Eli is worthy of the MVP. Especially since there was no obvious individual player more worthy of the title.

Sure, the D-Line was the best unit Sunday, but the sacks and pressures were too evenly distributed to make one player worth of the MVP. And we all know it can't go to a unit. And an MVP can't go to a receiver for one clutch reception, when other players made other key receptions.

In a broader sense, Eli's MVP was a justified capstone to his great play from the regular season finale to the Super Bowl: 10 TDs versus only 2 INTs, etc.

Posted by Fred | February 5, 2008 2:43 PM

Maybe they should have pulled a "Chuck Howley" and given it to Welker. He had probably the most impressive individual performance. Not good enough to get MVP for the loser, though.

So...JEFF FEAGLES!

Posted by Njorl | February 5, 2008 2:49 PM

Personally, I think there should be both offensive and defensive MVP awards, sort of like with the AP's Player of the Year awards.

But no one is asking me.

Posted by DTM | February 5, 2008 2:54 PM

Performances in Super Bowls get judged differently. The close ones are usually defensive battles over field position, not shootouts. This often doesn't lend itself to singling out one performance; good coverage, pressure on the QB, stopping the run are all things that a defense kind of does together.

The stage is then set for somebody on the offense to break things open with a game-changing play or series of plays. This is what Eli Manning was able to do with that last drive.

So just looking at his yardage numbers and QB ratings is kind of beside the point. He brought his team back from oblivion - when you're down by four points against the Patriots with 2:42 left in the game, you're not usually going to emerge victorious. And he did it by doing exactly what star QBs are supposed to do - last-minute, field-length drives with the game on the line.

Say the baseball Cardinals are playing the Yankees in the World Series, and there's a 4-4 deadlock through 12 innings. Each team's starter gave up all the runs that have been scored. Their bullpens subsequently have pitched shutout ball. Then, in the top of the 13th, New York goes ahead by one. But in the bottom of the inning, the Cards get a runner on with two out. Albert Pujols comes up and hits a series-winning home run.

Of course, baseball doesn't give out awards for individual games, but if they did, surely it would belong to Pujols, right? Even if, say, the home run was his only hit of the game and overall he was only 1 for 5?

That's essentially what Eli managed to do, although of course it's football which is always more of a team effort; even the greatest passes don't mean shit if the receiver drops them. Separating individual excellence from the overall quality of a team is just very, very difficult.

Posted by Jason C. | February 5, 2008 2:59 PM

I rewatched the final drive last night, being a Giants fan, and Eli threw more wobbly passes than crisp ones. That final drive was truly a miracle, and it shows the good guys sometimes win after all.

Posted by American Citizen | February 5, 2008 3:33 PM

"I rewatched the final drive last night, being a Giants fan, and Eli threw more wobbly passes than crisp ones. That final drive was truly a miracle, and it shows the good guys sometimes win after all."

Not to mention that, despite almost getting sacked twice, Eli got the ball off, and despite his height advantage, his helmet and his catch through not one but two Pats swatting at the ball, Tyree *STILL* nearly lost the ball to Rodney Harrison.

To quote Arthur Wellesley, "It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life."

Posted by Greg | February 5, 2008 4:03 PM

If 51%-48% in a presidential election is a mandate, 17-14 is a blowout in football.

Posted by C.L. | February 5, 2008 4:10 PM

It's too weird seeing commentators from FO show up here. I disagree with Vanya in both places.

Eli led 2 4th quarter drives to re-take leads. That hadn't happened before in SB history. Good teams had been held to low points.

Posted by crack | February 5, 2008 4:17 PM

Crack, if you're smart enough to read FO, then you should know enough about football to realize Eli was not the MVP. Go check out his DPAR, he actually played worse than Brady when you run the numbers:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7760298/Quick-Reads:-Giants-had-luck-on-their-side-

Posted by vanya | February 5, 2008 4:39 PM

For what it's worth, Eli outplayed Brady in their regular season meeting too. He was clutch in that last drive, and even if Tyree didn't make the catch, they would have had another shot to convert, though perhaps on a less-spectacular looking play.

Posted by Juan | February 5, 2008 4:49 PM

Go check out his DPAR, he actually played worse than Brady when you run the numbers

Oh, please. Does DPAR take into account that Eli's interception was in no way, shape or form his fault? No? Then DPAR is lame.

Posted by Al | February 5, 2008 4:55 PM

The reason why there was no defensive MVP is that there was no one standout performance. Tuck had 2 sacks and 6 tackles, but they were all in the first half. The excellence of the defensive line was spread among 4 to 5 players.

The quaterback is always the default winner. The game winning drive was critical, but the opening drive, in which they converted three third downs and held the ball for 10 minutes, set the tone for the game.

John Elway was always in the middle of the pack in quarterback ratings every year (look it up) but he is considered one of the greatest QBs ever because of his ability to mount a last minute comeback drive. That's what QBs are known for.

Posted by pj | February 5, 2008 4:56 PM

QB's who play tolerably well tend to get Super Bowl MVP's when there isn't another particular dominant individual you can point to. Most of the time, as in this game, defense is a team phenomenon and there isn't a single dominant defender to name. Look at last year's Super Bowl. Peyton was OK, not great, but what other individual could you have picked?

Posted by CJColucci | February 5, 2008 4:59 PM

He got picked off on what could have been a game turning drive in the first half

You're blaming the QB for a ball that bounced out of the receiver's hands? What was he supposed to do?

Anyway ...

Stat-geek note: the 17 points was the lowest winning score in a Super Bowl since the 1978 rule changes. Had the Pats' 14 points held up, it would have tied the mark for lowest winning score ever -- a mark held by, of all teams, the '72 Dolphins.

Posted by Thlayli | February 5, 2008 5:06 PM

You're blaming the QB for a ball that bounced out of the receiver's hands? What was he supposed to do?

You can't have it both ways - no Eli shouldn't get blamed for the interception, but neither was the throw to Tyree a perfect bullet - that catch was all Tyree. Give Tyree the MVP.

Posted by vanya | February 5, 2008 5:11 PM

Ugh. More DPAR DVOA? Isn't that what told us the Giants had next to no chance? Should they just have compared DVOA and declared the winner? I'll give 'DPAR Accumulator of the Game' to whoever has the highest number. I treat MVP as a much more subjective award. If you don't want to, then don't. Just go by DPAR which means Tom Brady is Super Bowl MVP. If you take highest DPAR on the winning team, who is it? Justin Tuck? Wait, Eli. What there is no DPAR for defense? So the Giants D gave up more DPAR to Brady than the Pats D did to Eli, who do we pick again? Brady?

From your link

This game was Manning's season in a nutshell. Through three quarters, he was erratic and unable to sustain drives, completing just 50 percent of his passes with -3.7 DPAR. In the fourth quarter, he was the great quarterback he was throughout the playoffs, completing 65 percent of his passes with no turnovers for a 7.8 DPAR. Note that while the official stats charge the botched handoff fumble to Manning, I've charged it to Ahmad Bradshaw; otherwise Manning's rating would be much lower.

So Eli gets 7.8 DPAR (which is a counting stat) in the 4th quarter to win the game and he isn't deserving. If you wanna pick someone else go for it. Buy them an Escalade. Manning to me was a justifiable choice.

Posted by crack | February 5, 2008 5:20 PM

no Eli shouldn't get blamed for the interception, but neither was the throw to Tyree a perfect bullet - that catch was all Tyree.

Jeebus - the guy had just escaped from a near-certain sack, fercrissakes. It wasn't a perfect pass, but to say that the play was "all" Tyree is unfathomable.

Posted by Al | February 5, 2008 5:25 PM

matt, are you joking? did you watch the last quarter of this game? Eli looked like a hero to me.

Posted by morningsider | February 5, 2008 6:49 PM

People will see what they want to see. If y'all want to see Eli as a hero, go ahead. He played a damn good game, I don't mean to say he didn't, and he's certainly proved he's really a top QB who can perform. But it's like this - any of the other top playoff teams had QBs who did (Garrard, Rivers) or could have (Romo, Favre, that other Manning guy) put up more than 17 points on the Patriots D. Not one of those teams could have held the Pats to 14. I think giving Eli the award is almost condescending - "dude, you don't suck after all!"

Posted by vanya | February 5, 2008 7:04 PM

How often to defensive players get mvp awards? Ever?

Posted by gerontion | February 5, 2008 7:11 PM

"But it's like this - any of the other top playoff teams had QBs who did (Garrard, Rivers) or could have (Romo, Favre, that other Manning guy) put up more than 17 points on the Patriots D. Not one of those teams could have held the Pats to 14. I think giving Eli the award is almost condescending - "dude, you don't suck after all!"

This grasping to maintain the Eli-bashing is starting to sound petty. Eli threw for four TDs against the Pats in week 17, and he outplayed Romo and Favre while beating their teams in the playoffs.

Posted by Fred | February 5, 2008 7:49 PM

"How often to defensive players get mvp awards? Ever?"

It's happened. Reggie White won an MVP. So did a Tampa DB when Tampa beat Oakland in the Super Bowl.

Posted by Fred | February 5, 2008 8:08 PM

Actually, Desmond Howard won MVP in the Packer's SB win, not Reggie White. But let's be honest here. Skills players tend to get these types of awards, and nobody from the Giants in those positions were obviously better candidates. And if you want to be picky, what single defensive player stood out more than Manning. He did make plays to move them down the field and take them into the end zone in the fourth quarter when it counted. His performance was definitely a step above mere game management.

Posted by demisod | February 5, 2008 9:03 PM

If you have to give it to a single defensive player, I'd go with Tuck.

Offensively, I think maybe Tyree should have had it rather than Manning, but I'm not really upset with Manning getting the MVP.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 12:09 AM