ESPN, Herm Edwards Diss Eli

[Buddy333]

Still can not say for sure because the can't play he same defense. The Green Bay defense was horrible. That's not to take away from a great win, but the last three times these two teams met the Giants have scored over 100 points. It is fair to say that Eli beat on a defense and Rodgers was stopped by a defense.

[gmen46]

Actually it kind of does. It just kind of depends on what the word 'elite' means to you. To me, there is always going to be a ranking system... an obvious best, his equal or runner up and maybe a guy knocking on the door.

I don't think you have to call the next few guys after that 'average'. Clearly they're better than average, but that doesn't mean they're elite. Not using anyone in particular, just trying to explain what Elite means to me.

Of course, the literal definition just indicates a group of people who are considered to be the best in some setting or another... not the best of the best. So my thinking is askew.

"Of course, the literal definition just indicates a group of people who are considered to be the best in some setting or another... not the best of the best."

You just provided the best and most logical reason why many fans (and many players and ex-players in recent years, actually) are justifiable in their placing of Eli in the current "elite QB" category.

Believing that Eli is part of a "group of people (NFL QBs) who are considered to be the best" in the "some setting (aka the NFL) or another" is a reasonable belief, don't you think?

[Bing Crosby]

“He can sit at the kids table, but he can’t order from the menu”.

......

What the hell does that even mean? Elite players order from the kids menu, but non-Elite players order from the adult?

Or that Eli is elite enough to sit with the elite "kids", just not elite enough to order his own food? I.. just... what?

[gumby74]

Actually it kind of does. It just kind of depends on what the word 'elite' means to you. To me, there is always going to be a ranking system... an obvious best, his equal or runner up and maybe a guy knocking on the door.

I don't think you have to call the next few guys after that 'average'. Clearly they're better than average, but that doesn't mean they're elite. Not using anyone in particular, just trying to explain what Elite means to me.

Of course, the literal definition just indicates a group of people who are considered to be the best in some setting or another... not the best of the best. So my thinking is askew.

That's exactly where I'm coming from. Without a ranking system, terms like "good", bad", "elite" have no meaning.

Coming from an armed forces point of view, you have the grunts in the army, then the navy, then the seals, then seal team 7. To mean, Seal team 7 is elite or best of the best. But just a navy seal isn't - although it's still freaking awesome.

It so happens to happens that maybe my definition of "elite" is not as broad as others. When 7 members out of 32 are termed elite, something just doesn't sit right.

[nhpgiantsfan]

It so happens to happens that maybe my definition of "elite" is not as broad as others. When 7 members out of 32 are termed elite, something just doesn't sit right.

But that goes back to my previous point. Take the early '90s when you have 7 future HOF's playing. Who in the group do you say is good but not elite. Do you say sorry Aikman and Young, even though you're both going to the hall of fame, we can't call you elite because then we would have too many elite QB's.
We'll call you elite when some of the older guys retire and there is more room for you?

[gmen46]

That's exactly where I'm coming from. Without a ranking system, terms like "good", bad", "elite" have no meaning.

Coming from an armed forces point of view, you have the grunts in the army, then the navy, then the seals, then seal team 7. To mean, Seal team 7 is elite or best of the best. But just a navy seal isn't - although it's still freaking awesome.

It so happens to happens that maybe my definition of "elite" is not as broad as others. When 7 members out of 32 are termed elite, something just doesn't sit right.

Maybe something doesn't sit right because you're looking at the subjects from a flawed perspective--as many do when debating "elite" NFL QBs, in fact. This is not to criticize your viewpoint (and I think your military analogy for your definition of "elite" is as good as any other I've seen, and better than most).

But I would ask you to consider a different perspective on this subject.

Each season for each team is unique, in terms of rosters, because of the normal attrition of age, retirements,free agency/trade losses and gains, and the draft. Would you not agree?

With that in mind, consider that each season begins with 32 starting QBs, ALL of whom are paid--big, big bucks in most cases--to lead their respective team to the Super Bowl and a SB victory. Agree?

Consider also that each season ends for most teams with having started at least one replacement QB for at least 1 if not more games during the season. At a very rough guess, you could say that at least 50 different QBs start at least 1 game each season. That means that each season there are at least 50 QBs vying for a Super Bowl--at least part of the season, if not for all of it.

Then let's look at the last 7 years--may seem an arbitrary number of years, but is an appropriate number when you consider the QBs most frequently referred to as "elite"

The last 7 years there were at least 50 players trying to lead their team to the Promised Land. Again, this is a guess without me reviewing all 32 teams' 16 games for each of past 7 years, but I believe I'm erring on tghe conservative side of the real number.

50 x 7 = 350 players. Overlapping players/years, yes, but as a pool from which to determine "eliteness", it is a valid contextual concept for this debate.

Consider there have been 7 Super Bowl winning teams, with 7 winning QBs, of course. Well actually 6 different winning QBs.
2006 season = Peyton Manning as SB winning QB
2007 = Eli Manning
2008 = Ben Roethlisberger
2009 = Drew Brees
2010 = Aaron "oh-my-God-he's-so-great" Rodgers
2011 = Eli Manning
2012 = Joe "is-he-now-elite-or-not" Flacco

Three of these winners--Peyton, Brees, Rodgers--are on everybody's "elite" list, as is one--Brady--who has lost 2 SBs during that time span. And Roethlisberger, who is not on everybody's "elite" list, is at least on most fans' top 5 or top 6 QB list.

And they all have won only 1 SB in that time frame, while the other has lost 2 (although of course Brady has won 3 SBs early in his career and having gone to 2 more SBs since, places him at the top of the true "elite" imo)

Yet, Eli, as 1 of 6 SB winning Qbs the last 7 years (16.6% of QBs) is the only one to win 2 of the last 7 SBs (28.5% SBs) where the other 5 winning QBs (each = 16.6% of QBs) have won 1 (14% of SBs)..

That may be too small and esoteric a sample to make the case for elite. But going back to the at least 350 players trying over the past 7 years to win the SB, Eli being the only 1 of 350 to win the prize not just once, but twice, puts him in the 99.3 percentile of top achievement of NFL Qbs over the past 7 years.

So Eli is not "elite" in the eyes of many. OK, I get that. The term is a rather ill-defined term and is often mis-applied at any rate.

But while you may think I'm overstating the pool from which to judge Eli by counting the top Qbs who have started most of their games in this time frame multiple times, your 7 out of 32 does not make for the appropriate comparison either.

[bigblue58]

That's fine. I get that completely. I personally think the "kids table" comment made no sense at all. But clearly he was just trying to be colorful. It IS ESPN after all.
And anyone is free to defend Eli. I would defend Eli in this context because I don't think Edwards was giving Eli near enough credit. Its not the defending of Eli that bothers me at all. Its the attacks on Edwards. Its the suggestion that since he had a losing record as a HC, he has no understanding of football and is in no position to comment on current players. Its the suggestions that posters on a MB, none of whom every played or coached a down in the NFL are therefore MORE credible than this guy.
We all have our opinions and they are what they are. But I knew the reaction wouldn't be "Edwards is wrong and here's why". It was "Edwards is a scumbag and an incompetent".
Thats not really a defense of Eli at all.

Blasting Edwards with both barrels is probably the very worst avenue people could go down in an attempt to defend Eli......I agree.
I only take issue with Edwards choice of words, because I believe they reeked of disrespect for Eli's toughness and all he's accomplished in his career...which is quite a lot if people would take the time to look it up.
Who among the top name QB's in the league this past season really deserved to sit at the big boys table over Eli? Brees, Peyton, Rodgers, Roethlisberger to name a few also had some awful performances at times this season, leading to early post season elimination or no playoffs at all.

[gumby74]

Maybe something doesn't sit right because you're looking at the subjects from a flawed perspective--as many do when debating "elite" NFL QBs, in fact. This is not to criticize your viewpoint (and I think your military analogy for your definition of "elite" is as good as any other I've seen, and better than most).

But I would ask you to consider a different perspective on this subject.

Each season for each team is unique, in terms of rosters, because of the normal attrition of age, retirements,free agency/trade losses and gains, and the draft. Would you not agree?

With that in mind, consider that each season begins with 32 starting QBs, ALL of whom are paid--big, big bucks in most cases--to lead their respective team to the Super Bowl and a SB victory. Agree?

Consider also that each season ends for most teams with having started at least one replacement QB for at least 1 if not more games during the season. At a very rough guess, you could say that at least 50 different QBs start at least 1 game each season. That means that each season there are at least 50 QBs vying for a Super Bowl--at least part of the season, if not for all of it.

Then let's look at the last 7 years--may seem an arbitrary number of years, but is an appropriate number when you consider the QBs most frequently referred to as "elite"

The last 7 years there were at least 50 players trying to lead their team to the Promised Land. Again, this is a guess without me reviewing all 32 teams' 16 games for each of past 7 years, but I believe I'm erring on tghe conservative side of the real number.

50 x 7 = 350 players. Overlapping players/years, yes, but as a pool from which to determine "eliteness", it is a valid contextual concept for this debate.

Consider there have been 7 Super Bowl winning teams, with 7 winning QBs, of course. Well actually 6 different winning QBs.
2006 season = Peyton Manning as SB winning QB
2007 = Eli Manning
2008 = Ben Roethlisberger
2009 = Drew Brees
2010 = Aaron "oh-my-God-he's-so-great" Rodgers
2011 = Eli Manning
2012 = Joe "is-he-now-elite-or-not" Flacco

Three of these winners--Peyton, Brees, Rodgers--are on everybody's "elite" list, as is one--Brady--who has lost 2 SBs during that time span. And Roethlisberger, who is not on everybody's "elite" list, is at least on most fans' top 5 or top 6 QB list.

And they all have won only 1 SB in that time frame, while the other has lost 2 (although of course Brady has won 3 SBs early in his career and having gone to 2 more SBs since, places him at the top of the true "elite" imo)

Yet, Eli, as 1 of 6 SB winning Qbs the last 7 years (16.6% of QBs) is the only one to win 2 of the last 7 SBs (28.5% SBs) where the other 5 winning QBs (each = 16.6% of QBs) have won 1 (14% of SBs)..

That may be too small and esoteric a sample to make the case for elite. But going back to the at least 350 players trying over the past 7 years to win the SB, Eli being the only 1 of 350 to win the prize not just once, but twice, puts him in the 99.3 percentile of top achievement of NFL Qbs over the past 7 years.

So Eli is not "elite" in the eyes of many. OK, I get that. The term is a rather ill-defined term and is often mis-applied at any rate.

But while you may think I'm overstating the pool from which to judge Eli by counting the top Qbs who have started most of their games in this time frame multiple times, your 7 out of 32 does not make for the appropriate comparison either.

Maybe I missed something, but why doesn't my 7 out of 32 make an appropriate comparison? My rebuttal to your statements would have been that you went a little overboard on creating the pool of QBs to compafre Eli with. But you already said at the end that you did go overboard.

And you should know by now that SB wins don't mean a whole lot in my book.

[gumby74]

But that goes back to my previous point. Take the early '90s when you have 7 future HOF's playing. Who in the group do you say is good but not elite. Do you say sorry Aikman and Young, even though you're both going to the hall of fame, we can't call you elite because then we would have too many elite QB's.
We'll call you elite when some of the older guys retire and there is more room for you?

Ok. Let me put it this way. When Marino, Elway, and Kelly were playing in their primes, Aikman and Young were NOT elite. However, when Marino Elway and Kelly were gone or over the hill, Aikman and Young became elite. It's might be just me, but i don't use the term elite loosely.

It absolutely is a numbers game.

[nhpgiantsfan]

Ok. Let me put it this way. When Marino, Elway, and Kelly were playing in their primes, Aikman and Young were NOT elite. However, when Marino Elway and Kelly were gone or over the hill, Aikman and Young became elite. It's might be just me, but i don't use the term elite loosely.

It absolutely is a numbers game.

That's just not true. Aikmen had 3 rings before Elway got his first. Aikmen also beat Jim Kelly in the SB twice. Steve Young also got his ring before Elway got his. And when Marino retired Aikman had 10 years in the league already, and 3 championships.

Young and Aikman were "elite" QB's long before these guys were over the hill.