ESPN, Herm Edwards Diss Eli

[Buddy333]

A loss is a loss but a player can play well in that loss. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Rudyy]

Missing wide open receivers and fumbling the ball is not playing well lol.

[gmen46]

Hey. If a player plays well while losing, at least you know that that player is not the problem. Playing well consistently, win or lose, is everything.

This is the precise dividing line between those who (like me) believe Eli is a better QB than many Eli "realists" (you may or may not be in that category) are willing to admit.

I'm not talking about the "Rodgers,, Brady, etc is a better Qb than Eli" ongoing argument. That's a somewhat subjective argument that depends upon whether the debate is centered on the current year, the respective careers in total, statistics, number of wins vs losses, number of championships played (and won), and so forth. In that context, Brady comes out on top no matter which way you slice it, then the other rankings factor in everything plus personal bias--no way around that, it appears--on either side of the debate.

The dividing line I refer to is your last sentence. You say "playing well consistently, win or lose, is everything". I think Lombardi would take issue with that, and I would agree with him. He even went further, in order to make his point about the driving attitude of his that made him such an iconic sports figure.

You know it--"winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".

That underscores the importance of collective effort and achievement over one's individual importance. Consistently good individual performances are important, even crucial most of the time. But that is not "everything".

I'm sure all Packers fans agree with those here who insist that Rodgers is not only the best QB in the NFL today, but that he's the greatest thing on Earth since the invention of the automobile. But you really believe they take solace in the fact he played well in either or both playoff games the past 2 years at the expense of losing both games and the opportunity to repeat as SB champs either year? The fact he played well in either or both games was "everything" to them?

I don't.

[Rudyy]

That's silly to me. So as long as you look good losing it's okay? Since this thread was originally about Herm, I'm going to quote him; "You play to win the game", not "It's okay if you lose, as long as you throw pretty passes".

[Buddy333]

Missing wide open receivers and fumbling the ball is not playing well lol.

So you count the one or two misses he has but not the multiple drops his WR's and TE's had? The fumble did not hurt them. The Giants went 3 and out after that. Both teams then traded field goals and punts.

[Buddy333]

That's silly to me. So as long as you look good losing it's okay? Since this thread was originally about Herm, I'm going to quote him; "You play to win the game", not "It's okay if you lose, as long as you throw pretty passes".

Have you ever seen a game where the Giants lost and Eli played well enough to win?

[Rudyy]

So you count the one or two misses he has but not the multiple drops his WR's and TE's had? The fumble did not hurt them. The Giants went 3 and out after that. Both teams then traded field goals and punts.

So? That was a possession lost that possibly could have been a touchdown. Who cares if we didn't convert a 3rd down afterward. It's a playoff game, turnovers in situations like that are a no no.

[Rudyy]

Have you ever seen a game where the Giants lost and Eli played well enough to win?

The entire 2011 season. Also, didn't I answer this already?

[Buddy333]

This is the precise dividing line between those who (like me) believe Eli is a better QB than many Eli "realists" (you may or may not be in that category) are willing to admit. I'm not talking about the "Rodgers,, Brady, etc is a better Qb than Eli" ongoing argument. That's a somewhat subjective argument that depends upon whether the debate is centered on the current year, the respective careers in total, statistics, number of wins vs losses, number of championships played (and won), and so forth. In that context, Brady comes out on top no matter which way you slice it, then the other rankings factor in everything plus personal bias--no way around that, it appears--on either side of the debate.The dividing line I refer to is your last sentence. You say "playing well consistently, win or lose, is everything". I think Lombardi would take issue with that, and I would agree with him. He even went further, in order to make his point about the driving attitude of his that made him such an iconic sports figure. You know it--"winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".That underscores the importance of collective effort and achievement over one's individual importance. Consistently good individual performances are important, even crucial most of the time. But that is not "everything".I'm sure all Packers fans agree with those here who insist that Rodgers is not only the best QB in the NFL today, but that he's the greatest thing on Earth since the invention of the automobile. But you really believe they take solace in the fact he played well in either or both playoff games the past 2 years at the expense of losing both games and the opportunity to repeat as SB champs either year? The fact he played well in either or both games was "everything" to them?I don't.

There is probably not a single Green Bay fan or football fan that thinks that Rodgers was the reason for those losses.

[Buddy333]

So? That was a possession lost that possibly could have been a touchdown. Who cares if we didn't convert a 3rd down afterward. It's a playoff game, turnovers in situations like that are a no no.

It didn't effect the game.