I don't totally agree with Simms, but I definitely understand why someone would say that. Outside of the 2 Super Bowl runs Eli hasn't been great when it comes to production. "But but but Eli is great in the 4th quarter"....that's the niche Eli has had to keep his name in the debate along with the 2 Super Bowl MVPs. What about all the issues though? Throughout the Coughlin era Eli and KG are the biggest constants on offense. Eli has to share a lot of the blame for the teams redzone issues. Elite QB's put up a lot of touchdowns. There's no debating that. So it's difficult to make strong arguments for Eli when he struggles in that department.
"Landry built the 4-3 defense around me. It revolutionized defense and opened the door for all the variations of zones and man-to-man coverage, which are used in conjunction with it today." —Sam Huff
I don't even care anymore... I wouldn't trade Eli for anyone. He doesn't need to prove anything to Phil Simms. He will go down as the Giants greatest quarterback of all time and that's fine with me. Yes he will be better then Simms when all is said and done.
If you take Eli Manning and put him in the system that Phil Simms was in, Eli would have dominated that era. The system Phil Simms was in was painless and seamless. Eli would have thrived with that O line and run game. Heck, if Eli Manning were the QB back then, Mark Bavarro may have put up Gronkowski numbers. Our O line and run game was so great that when Hoss, a guy that ran a 4.28 40 took over, he rarely had to run.
I think Phil Simms would have had issues with this system under Gillbride. I am not saying that he would not have gotten it but it would have taken him longer than Eli. Heck, it took Phil awhile to get the system he was in down and that one was simple as it gets.
I am not spewing angst at Phil but in my opinion, Eli is a better QB.