Kornheiser on Eli Manning

Roethlisberger did more than manage games like Dilfer did in the playoffs, he got them there. Remember how the Steelers went up 14-0 at Indy right off the bat? That wasn't the defense (though it did make one stop) or the ground game -- that was the Steelers trusting Ben to make plays with his arm and his legs.

Ben got the Steelers quick, sizable leads at Indy and Denver, allowing the ground game and defense to do the rest.

 

Archie played 10 full seasons with the Saints. They didn't have a winning record in any of them. He was NFC Player of the Year in 1978 on a 7-9 team.

If you didn't see the Saints play in those years, there's no way you could grasp how good he was. Had he played for the equivalent of the Patriots of the past 10 years, he'd have won at least four or five Super Bowls. Bledsoe and Brady couldn't scramble like Archie, and he had a hell of an arm.

 

I'm not saying he was crap. But put Manning with that D and that running game and how would he have done? Of course, we'll never know the answer. But the jury is still out in my opinion.

 

I think the jury's still out too, but I just think that Kornheiser had a point about Manning's draft position.

 

To be fair, I've never seen him play. I am strictly looking at his numbers. However, I can't think of a single other quarterback who is called "great" with such lousy numbers and defended by saying he played for bad teams. I also never once heard him called great until Peyton started blowing up in the NFL.

I find it hard to call someone great with a record and numbers like Archie had, supporting cast be damned. Vinny Testaverde played with some shitty-ass teams and he's still in the top 10 all time in completions, yards and touchdowns, yet he's never called a great quarterback (nor should he be -- longevity obviously helped him out).

But again, I will admit that I never saw Archie play.

 

I didn't even use the word "great," but Archie was a hell of a lot better than a lot of people think he was. I think "great" is overused, but I also think Archie doesn't get enough credit.

 

Archie was as good for about 8 years as Eli has been so far this season. Very good, not great. Of his contemporaries, he was never in the Staubach-Bradshaw level.

Peyton's worst season, so far, is better than any Archie ever had. But Archie, indeed, was playing for a god-awful team.

 

I don't think Staubach or Bradshaw do any better with the Saints teams Archie played for, and they possibly don't do as well. Like Ragu said, he had nothing to protect him.

 

Eh. In the end, Manning will be much better than Rivers. If you can get a franchise-type QB, and most projected Manning that way, you've got to pull the trigger.

Two of those "Pro Bowlers" are Rivers -- who isn't any good -- and Kaeding, a kicker. The other is a steroid freak who hasn't been the same this season.

 

There was an NFL Films piece about Archie, I think from before Peyton was playing, where they talked about how good he was. Lots of old-school guys saying believe it.

 

I saw Manning play.

Physically, he could sure as hell play on my team.

But he's one of the toughest reads in sports, in terms of trying to translate talent between generations.

Those Saint teams were pitiful.

And in college, Manning played within a conference in which NO black football players participated prior to the fall of 1968.

Mississippi football had not yet integrated when Manning left for the pros after the 1970 season.

What you DO know is the game's a damn sight better now, skillwise, than it was, then. Inclusiveness, and specialized substitution, have seen to that.