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.
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.
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.