East Coast Bias Bowl -- Running Super Bowl XLVI Thread

^ This.

Judging individual football players by their stats is dirty, dirty business. There's just too much that goes into it that has nothing to do with the player's ability.

 

Well said, DD.

I think one thing that is maybe a bit forgotten -- it's not just that people are waking up and finally realizing Eli is a damn good quarterback. A lot of it is that Eli has changed into that damn good quarterback. It's unusual for someone to get that much better between, say, Years 6 and 8 of a career in the same system, but he has.

When (if?) he dismisses the tendency to throw in a clunker like the Redskins game, sky's the limit.

 

Rick, the perfect example of misuse of football statistics came on ESPN's NFL Today yesterday when they offered up a graphic of Brady's passing stats MINUS his 16 straight completions. In other words, if you take out all the good plays, Brady had a terrible game.

 

That is awesome.

Minus the 13 shutouts, was Bob Gibson really that good in 1968?

 

I present this picture of Tom Coughlin and Flava Flav embracing without comment.

 

Brady did not play well in the AFC title game and while he played better Sunday, it was not what was expected, and, ultimately, needed. However, that team had no business playing for the Lombardi Trophy. Really, if you want to make a Brady-Elway comparison, it's this: Like Elway's early Super Bowl teams, Brady, through his overall performance and will, dragged an undeserving team to the brink of the title. Ya, he lost his second Super Bowl. But he did it with by far the worst "team" he's been a part of in his five appearances. Given the circumstances, his play in No. 5 was certainly better than it was in No. 4, and probably in No. 1.

 

They showed that on one of the late night shows last night and I thought it was a joke.

 

"HEY TOM BRADY, THAT'S THE WAY THE BALL BOUNCES G!"

 

Evaluating players by statistics may be difficult, but it's still fun to use them to compare players.

The QB class of 2004 is remarkably similar and, unlike a year like 1998 when it Peyton Manning (franchise cornerstone/legendary QB) vs. Ryan Leaf (major flameout), I don't think any of the GMs who took the top three QBs that day regret their decisions.

OOP has argued the Giants were foolish to give up Rivers and two later picks (which the Chargers turned into Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding) for Manning. I hope he, like Double Down, is willing to admit he was wrong on that one. Not because of the statistics, but because Manning has proven to be exactly the player the Giants hoped they were getting, and because he has done what Rivers hasn't been able to do, win the Super Bowl. Twice.

These are three damn fine quarterbacks.

Comp Comp% YDS TDS INTS Y/Att
Manning 2,291 .584 27,579 185 129 7.0
Roethlisberger 2,090 .631 26,579 165 100 8.0
Rivers 1,920 .635 24,285 163 78 8.0

 

I think it was Tuck who tweeted that Coughlin made Flav set his clock five minutes earlier.

 

Edited for clarity.

 

No doubt they were discussing their shared affection for the New York Post.