Phil Simms: "No, Eli Is Not One Of The Elites....."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morehead State

We can all disagree about the Phil vs. Eli discussion.
My real point is that suggesting that Eli isn't an "elite" QB isn't an insult to Eli. Its not a slam. Its not sour grapes. Its just one guy's opinion who knows a lot more than we do about playing QB in the NFL.
And he's using his own definition of "elite". Because its very subjective.
To me there are only 3 right now. Brady, Peyton and Brees. i don't include Rodgers yet because I don't love his mental toughness. He's a great talent and a great player but he's still a little mentally inconsistent.

---

To be honest I could honestly care less about who says who is elite, it is just an opinion and everyone is entitled to them, and I also think that in the end it doesn't matter what people think, all that matters is what happens on the field. The thing that got me is that you made a statement that Simms was just a better football player than Manning and it made me wonder what made you think that.

Getting a little tired with Morehead having to defend Phil against some who never saw him play. Phil played in a stadium that was renowned for its swirling winds. If he didn't throw one of the tightest spirals of his time his completion % would have been even worse. As it was, it surely effected his % by several points.
He had guys like Ernest Grey dropping 2-3 passes every single game. The receivers of Phil's time would have trouble making 3rd string on today's team.
As Morehead said, Phl had no short passing game.
If Eli had to pass in Giants stadium for his whole career his stats would be much worse.
The Giant offensive line was very good at run blocking, but Phil was sackedover 50+ X in 3 seasons, 2 seasons of 40+, and 5 seasons in the high 30's Eli's highest sack year was 30.
Hard to compare in different eras, but please don't even begin to lean on stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimonami

Getting a little tired with Morehead having to defend Phil against some who never saw him play. Phil played in a stadium that was renowned for its swirling winds. If he didn't throw one of the tightest spirals of his time his completion % would have been even worse. As it was, it surely effected his % by several points.
He had guys like Ernest Grey dropping 2-3 passes every single game. The receivers of Phil's time would have trouble making 3rd string on today's team.
As Morehead said, Phl had no short passing game.
If Eli had to pass in Giants stadium for his whole career his stats would be much worse.
The Giant offensive line was very good at run blocking, but Phil was sackedover 50+ X in 3 seasons, 2 seasons of 40+, and 5 seasons in the high 30's Eli's highest sack year was 30.
Hard to compare in different eras, but please don't even begin to lean on stats.

---

He is not defending Simms against anyone zim...I personally think Phil was great and I do not think anyone is saying other wise, I think we are just supporting the guy we have now...MH made great points, most of which I agree with but where he accuses some of wearing blinders when it comes to Eli, I feel he does the same with Phil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joemorrisforprez

100 pages here we come!

---

come 100 i give up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alentown pa

He is not defending Simms against anyone zim...I personally think Phil was great and I do not think anyone is saying other wise, I think we are just supporting the guy we have now...MH made great points, most of which I agree with but where he accuses some of wearing blinders when it comes to Eli, I feel he does the same with Phil.

---

Yes, MH might be biased, but most of his points are valid.
Simms is my favorite Giant of all time (LT, Carson and Bavaro are close). Given that, I think Eli is the best Giant QB of all time.
I'm not a blind Phil supporter.
But, it's a lot closer than some think.
Phil's time was all about Marino, Kelly, and Montana... and, the Giant D. Phil rarely got credit for his solid play and helping win games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimonami

Getting a little tired with Morehead having to defend Phil against some who never saw him play. Phil played in a stadium that was renowned for its swirling winds. If he didn't throw one of the tightest spirals of his time his completion % would have been even worse. As it was, it surely effected his % by several points.
He had guys like Ernest Grey dropping 2-3 passes every single game. The receivers of Phil's time would have trouble making 3rd string on today's team.
As Morehead said, Phl had no short passing game.
If Eli had to pass in Giants stadium for his whole career his stats would be much worse.
The Giant offensive line was very good at run blocking, but Phil was sackedover 50+ X in 3 seasons, 2 seasons of 40+, and 5 seasons in the high 30's Eli's highest sack year was 30.
Hard to compare in different eras, but please don't even begin to lean on stats.

---

I saw Simms play, and I don't really see why you feel the need to defend anything, can't everyone have an opinion? The only reason I ever got started on this was because of a statement that Simms was just the better football player, which I disagree with. Then all the things used to back up that claim were focused around rule changes. i have no problem if someone prefers Simms to Eli, but i do think if someone makes a point blank claim comparing the two that others should be able to ask why.

For all the points you made you can argue about the high degree of turnover the Eli has dealt with, less than stellar running games, poor defenses. Simms had some of his worse games away from Giants stadium (49ers playoff loss) What about the sack ratio, does that say nothing about the qb? I think Eli himself is a big reason he gets less sacks than Simms.

The other thing I don't get is the hatred of stats, they do not tell the whole story, and it is easy to manipulate them to prove a point, but how can you say completion percentage over a career does not matter, that I just don't understand. I think stats are an important tool to use when analyzing players, especially the new total qb rating system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimonami

Yes, MH might be biased, but most of his points are valid.
Simms is my favorite Giant of all time (LT, Carson and Bavaro are close). Given that, I think Eli is the best Giant QB of all time.
I'm not a blind Phil supporter.
But, it's a lot closer than some think.
Phil's time was all about Marino, Kelly, and Montana... and, the Giant D. Phil rarely got credit for his solid play and helping win games.

---

I never knew he was ur fav zim..makes sense with ur avatar..Ipegged you as a Sam Huff or Del shofner guy...my favorite giant was Bavaro, with Armstead,Hampton, and Richie S. not far behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimonami

Yes, MH might be biased, but most of his points are valid.
Simms is my favorite Giant of all time (LT, Carson and Bavaro are close). Given that, I think Eli is the best Giant QB of all time.
I'm not a blind Phil supporter.
But, it's a lot closer than some think.
Phil's time was all about Marino, Kelly, and Montana... and, the Giant D. Phil rarely got credit for his solid play and helping win games.

---

but agreed about the valid points on Simms, the guy was great..my favorite Simms game was the 1986 divisional game against SF...I've watched that over and over on VHS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gimaniac

That's like saying Tiki didn't take any shots at all. He expressed his opinion.

---

Not the same thing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dline83

The other thing I don't get is the hatred of stats, they do not tell the whole story, and it is easy to manipulate them to prove a point, but how can you say completion percentage over a career does not matter, that I just don't understand. I think stats are an important tool to use when analyzing players, especially the new total qb rating system.

---

Because particularly in this case, stats most certainly don't tell the whole story. Completion percentages in Simms days were just not as high as they are today, in large part due to the rule changes since then.