Eli & Archie Manning's Smart Move

The Chargers are fucking idiots. They claim that Rivers was the guy they "really wanted", and yet they won't even accept a contract that pays Rivers *LESS* than what Manning is getting in New York.

I have always supported what the Mannings did because the Chargers are just a piece of shit team with idiotic ownership. This is especially vital for a QB because getting tossed into a meat grinder with a crappy offensive line, a washed up coach, and bad ownership could spell the END of your career.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/traini...ray&id=1856939

The writer in that article made a lot of good points, but this one was really interesting and compelling:

Quote:

---

There are few enough times in a pro football player's life when he actually has leverage on his employer that it should never be wasted. Between the embedded media, the non-guaranteed contracts and the ridiculously short career life, football players get the rawest deal of any of the major team sport participants.

---

I'm reviving this thread right now because I can't help but laugh at how thigns have turned out. Now I know this thread was written before the NFL season started, but I can't help but ponder if Eli still would rather be in NY than in SD, especially with the way the season has unfolded for both teams. Well Eli got what he wanted on draft day after taking the Chargers hostage, so I guess it does not really matter.

The Chargers are looking really good after the whole Manning debacle. Being 11-3 and the surprise of the NFL, they also nabbed the Giants no.1 next year just to trade two quarterbacks with each other. That no.1 pick is looking increasingly each day like it will be a top 10 pick. The Chargers are definitely the clear winners.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
I'm reviving this thread right now because I can't help but laugh at how thigns have turned out. Now I know this thread was written before the NFL season started, but I can't help but ponder if Eli still would rather be in NY than in SD, especially with the way the season has unfolded for both teams. Well Eli got what he wanted on draft day after taking the Chargers hostage, so I guess it does not really matter.

The Chargers are looking really good after the whole Manning debacle. Being 11-3 and the surprise of the NFL, they also nabbed the Giants no.1 next year just to trade two quarterbacks with each other. That no.1 pick is looking increasingly each day like it will be a top 10 pick. The Chargers are definitely the clear winners.

---

San Diego is definitely the short term winner, but it's way too early to make a final judgement. If Eli turns out to be anywhere near as good as Payton, I'm sure the Giants will be thrilled with the decision they made.

The Chargers also went to the Super Bowl in 1994. That didn't really do much for the franchise.

From Eli's perspective, I'd still rather play for the Giants than the Chargers.

The Giants have won numerous Super Bowls and were in the Super Bowl just 3 years ago.

The fluke season the Chargers are having is really no big deal at this point. If they can string a handful of them together it might mean something.

But honestly, do you think they are going anywhere in the playoffs?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vin
San Diego is definitely the short term winner, but it's way too early to make a final judgement. If Eli turns out to be anywhere near as good as Payton, I'm sure the Giants will be thrilled with the decision they made.

---

That's a big IF. I'd definitely put Peyton in the top 5 of all time quarterbacks.

But what I didn't get about the trade was why did they give up the extra first round choice when San Diego had its back up against a wall? The Chargers took a huge gamble drafting Eli, knowing he would not sign with them at all. Why surrender that first knowing that the team has no leverage whatsoever? I mean it was only a swap of two quarterbacks, and frankly I think Phillip Rivers could be just as good as Eli Manning. I mean hell so far Ben Roethlisberger has outdone the both of them.

Simply put bad trade, even if Manning outdoes Rivers in the long-haul.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
The Chargers also went to the Super Bowl in 1994. That didn't really do much for the franchise.

From Eli's perspective, I'd still rather play for the Giants than the Chargers.

The Giants have won numerous Super Bowls and were in the Super Bowl just 3 years ago.

The fluke season the Chargers are having is really no big deal at this point. If they can string a handful of them together it might mean something.

But honestly, do you think they are going anywhere in the playoffs?

---

Since when has winning two superbowls been considered numerous? Oh yeah and their last Super Bowl win was in 1991.

As for the Chargers they haven't been a moribound franchise for their entire history. They had the great Air Coryell years with one of the best offenses to grace the gridiron. Dan Fouts, Kellen Winslow, Charlie Joiner, etc. Yes the franchise is having a bad spell, not having a playoff appearance in over eight years now, but that's the nature of the NFL. Cincinnati hasn't been to the playoffs for 14 years now. Yet Carson Palmer didn't act like a baby and demand to be traded.

Now yes, if I were Eli I'd prefer to be in New York just because of the greater marketing opportunities. But if his dad and him were worried that he'd get killed playing in SD because of a bad offensive line, well then they were soundly mistaken.

And what is this whole deal with the Chargers having a fluke season? Hey wake up and smell the coffee, the NFL is all about having fluke seasons. Who saw the Panthers going to the Super Bowl and nearly winning it last year after coming off a 1-15 season? Who saw the Patriots coming out of nowhere when a 6th round QB replaced Drew Bledsoe to win the Super Bowl in 2002? Who thought the Steelers would be 13-1 when they put a rookie QB as starter? How did the Ravens win Super Bowl in 2001 with Trent Dilfer as their QB? Who thought a previously awful Rams team would win the Super Bowl in 2000 and end up having one of the best offenses in history? Hey this is the nature of the NFL nowadays, more so with the institution to of a salary cap.

To answer your question, I don't expect the Chargers to go far in the playoffs. However if they do and end up playing in the Super Bowl, I certainly would not be the least bit surprised. Just looking at the recent history of the NFL makes is plausible for the Chargers to make it to the Super Bowl.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
To answer your question, I don't expect the Chargers to go far in the playoffs. However if they do and end up playing in the Super Bowl, I certainly would not be the least bit surprised. Just looking at the recent history of the NFL makes is plausible for the Chargers to make it to the Super Bowl.

---

The Chargers have only beaten two teams with winning records at this point in the season. They beat the Jags who are now 8-6 and they split their two games with the Broncos who are also 8-6. The rest of the teams they beat this year are 6-8 at best. They beat a bunch of mediocre teams, which puts them above average...not enough to make it to the SB.

Look at their losses: the Jets, the Broncos, and the Falcons. Add the Colts to that mix after next week and you will clearly see how well they perform against the playoff competition. They are not going to the SB, they have a good shot at the second round of the playoffs, and maybe even a chance to make it to the championship game, but that is even a bit of a stretch.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gadiantor
The Chargers have only beaten two teams with winning records at this point in the season. They beat the Jags who are now 8-6 and they split their two games with the Broncos who are also 8-6. The rest of the teams they beat this year are 6-8 at best. They beat a bunch of mediocre teams, which puts them above average...not enough to make it to the SB.

Look at their losses: the Jets, the Broncos, and the Falcons. Add the Colts to that mix after next week and you will clearly see how well they perform against the playoff competition. They are not going to the SB, they have a good shot at the second round of the playoffs, and maybe even a chance to make it to the championship game, but that is even a bit of a stretch.

---

Ehh... yeah... you know if you read that part of my statement rather than just quoting I did say that I didn't expect them to go to the Super Bowl.

By the way Gad your argument is very weak. Since when does the strength of your opponents factor into a playoff run? So what if the Chargers have beaten only two teams with a winning record?

If you look at the Panthers last year who made it to the Super Bowl, they only beat ONE team with a winning record, the Colts. Furthermore along the way, they lost to the 4-12 Falcons, and the 5-11 Texans, with the other three teams they lost to having winning records. Who have the Chargers lost to? Oh yeah, the 10-4 Jets, the 11-3 Falcons, and the 8-6 Broncos. The Chargers have not lost a game to a team with a losing record.

You have to do better than that Gad. Your argument is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
That's a big IF. I'd definitely put Peyton in the top 5 of all time quarterbacks.

But what I didn't get about the trade was why did they give up the extra first round choice when San Diego had its back up against a wall? The Chargers took a huge gamble drafting Eli, knowing he would not sign with them at all. Why surrender that first knowing that the team has no leverage whatsoever? I mean it was only a swap of two quarterbacks, and frankly I think Phillip Rivers could be just as good as Eli Manning. I mean hell so far Ben Roethlisberger has outdone the both of them.

Simply put bad trade, even if Manning outdoes Rivers in the long-haul.

---

People in Wisconsin thought Ron Wolf was nuts when he traded a first round pick to get a quarterback by the name of Brett Favre. Everyone asked, why would they give up SO much to get someone that was originally drafted in the second round and couldn't even get off the Atlanta Falcons bench. One popular radio personality went so far as to demand the immediate resignation of Wolf as soon as the trade happened. Any idea who the Falcons picked with that extra 1st round pick? If I remember correctly it was a running back by the name of Tony Smith (a former teammate of Favre at Southern Miss).

So did the Giants make a good deal? Will Eli become the next Brett Favre, or the next Ryan Leaf? It's way to early to tell, but the Giants did what they thought was necessary to get the guy they wanted. You say the Chargers had no leverage, but I totally disagree. Do you honestly think the Giants were the only team that wanted to trade for Eli? I believe the Chargers drafted him with the intention of trading him to the highest bidder all along.

The majority of draft picks, even 1st rounders, do not turn out to be quality players.

GMs take gambles because that is the only way to land good players.

This was one of those deals that was good and smart for everyone.

It was smart for the Chargers because they got more than just drafting Phillip Rivers directly.

It was smart for the Giants, because they really wanted Eli and this was the best way to guarantee they would get him. Basically, they gave up the next year's 1st round pick to move up a few spots in the current year for a guy they really thought could be special.

It was smart for Eli Manning, because the Chargers have demonstrated absolutely abysmal team management over the last 20 years and have floundered in or below mediocrity for the majority of that time.

Obviously, if Eli turns out to be a bust and Rivers turns out to be awesome, it makes the Giants look stupid and the Chargers look brilliant. But it is pretty silly to make that call at this point, and it is also pretty silly to argue that the trade did not make sense for all parties at the time it was made.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vin
People in Wisconsin thought Ron Wolf was nuts when he traded a first round pick to get a quarterback by the name of Brett Favre. Everyone asked, why would they give up SO much to get someone that was originally drafted in the second round and couldn't even get off the Atlanta Falcons bench. One popular radio personality went so far as to demand the immediate resignation of Wolf as soon as the trade happened. Any idea who the Falcons picked with that extra 1st round pick? If I remember correctly it was a running back by the name of Tony Smith (a former teammate of Favre at Southern Miss).

So did the Giants make a good deal? Will Eli become the next Brett Favre, or the next Ryan Leaf? It's way to early to tell, but the Giants did what they thought was necessary to get the guy they wanted. You say the Chargers had no leverage, but I totally disagree. Do you honestly think the Giants were the only team that wanted to trade for Eli? I believe the Chargers drafted him with the intention of trading him to the highest bidder all along.

---

Ok Vin, but did Wolf give back another quarterback to the Falcons? I can understand trading a first for a quarterback straight up, even if that QB was not a first rounder himself. Hey the Bills traded the no.5 overall pick to the Jags for some QB named Rob Johnson (Jags preceded to pick RB Fred Taylor, so that one blew up on them).

However, this trade was a bit ludicrous. The Giants gave up extra 1st round, 3rd round, and 5 round draft choices just to swap two quarterbacks who some NFL insiders had ranked equal. There was no reason to give up so much just to exchange two quarterbacks, especially when the Chargers, again, had no leverage whatsoever because both the Giants and Chargers knew that there was no chance in hell that Manning would sign with them. They would have traded Manning for far less, especially since if he sat out the year and re-entered the draft next spring the Chargers would have effectively wasted their no.1 overall draft choice.

To add more fuel to the fire you have to consider that right now Ben Roethlisberger has outdone both Rivers and Manning, making the trade look even worse. Also I'm sure the Giants at 5-9 right now could have used that first rounder of theirs to improve their team next year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Obviously, if Eli turns out to be a bust and Rivers turns out to be awesome, it makes the Giants look stupid and the Chargers look brilliant. But it is pretty silly to make that call at this point, and it is also pretty silly to argue that the trade did not make sense for all parties at the time it was made.

---

Oh I absolutely agree with you that the trade made sense for all involved. However I do not agree on the compensation involved.
You say it's silly to make that call right now? Well I don't think so, not with what Big Ben Roethlisberger has done in Pittsburgh right now. Hey the Giants could have had him.

At best the Giants should have just traded an extra couple of mid-round picks to secure Manning, and the Chargers would have eventually bit again since they had no leverage.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Ehh... yeah... you know if you read that part of my statement rather than just quoting I did say that I didn't expect them to go to the Super Bowl.

By the way Gad your argument is very weak. Since when does the strength of your opponents factor into a playoff run? So what if the Chargers have beaten only two teams with a winning record?

If you look at the Panthers last year who made it to the Super Bowl, they only beat ONE team with a winning record, the Colts. Furthermore along the way, they lost to the 4-12 Falcons, and the 5-11 Texans, with the other three teams they lost to having winning records. Who have the Chargers lost to? Oh yeah, the 10-4 Jets, the 11-3 Falcons, and the 8-6 Broncos. The Chargers have not lost a game to a team with a losing record.

You have to do better than that Gad. Your argument is moot.

---

You said:

Quote:

---

However if they do and end up playing in the Super Bowl, I certainly would not be the least bit surprised.

---

That is a chicken-shit way of saying you think they could make the SB. It is making a non-committal statement so that no matter what happens you're right. If they win you say, "I knew they had a shot" and if they lose you say, "I didn't think they'd make it."

Since my initial point was obviously lost on you let me put it another way. The Chargers will end up playing at least one of three teams in the playoffs (if they make it past the first round): the Pats, Steelers, or Colts. I would be very surprised (much more than 'not the least bit') if they were able to beat one of those three, let alone potentially having to beat two of those three. I don't even like their chances in a potential wild-card game with the Jets!

Last year in the NFC there were only two classes of teams: shitty and above average. The Eagles were as close as it got to a dominant team, and they just didn't have the offense to match up with a top-notch defense (which everyone knew), so it wasn't a surprise that the Panthers made it to the big game. Your Panthers example is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Oh I absolutely agree with you that the trade made sense for all involved. However I do not agree on the compensation involved.
You say it's silly to make that call right now? Well I don't think so, not with what Big Ben Roethlisberger has done in Pittsburgh right now. Hey the Giants could have had him.

---

You can't judge a trade on things that happen a season later.

If Eli turns out to be only 80% the QB his brother is (and bear in mind, Eli's college career was darn near equal to Peyton's, and better in some respects) then it is a winning trade.

You can't factor in anything Roethlisberger has done when judging other people's picks if what you are judging is STUPIDITY or silliness.

Sure, you can judge who made out better but it is not a matter of stupidity or bad trades.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
You can't judge a trade on things that happen a season later.

If Eli turns out to be only 80% the QB his brother is (and bear in mind, Eli's college career was darn near equal to Peyton's, and better in some respects) then it is a winning trade.

---

You can't use someone's collegiate career as a precursor to NFL greatness. If that was the case Danny Wuerrfel should have just been named to his 5th pro bowl by now. Furthermore Rivers' collegiate career puts Eli's to shame.

Quote:

---

You can't factor in anything Roethlisberger has done when judging other people's picks if what you are judging is STUPIDITY or silliness.

Sure, you can judge who made out better but it is not a matter of stupidity or bad trades.

---

I'm not going to call the Giants trade stupidity, but I will certainly call it silliness/madness. You trade two quarterbacks, yet you decide to give up an extra first, third, and fifth round draft choice to do so? Doesn't that seem a bit absurd? Especially since the team you swapped the two QB's with was in a very precarious situation, knowing that the QB they drafted would not sign with them at all. You could have called the bluff and forced their hands, and ended up giving far less just to switch two unknown commodities. Moreso since there were no other teams who were dealing with the Chargers about Manning. And this is not just judging it one season later, this is just judging it using common sense. I mean the Giants could have just done away with giving up the third and the fifth rounder and not anything mor

Let's face it. Giants GM Ernie Accorsi was haunted by ghosts from the past when he was Baltimore GM, namely the whole John Elway fiasco. He overpayed to get Eli to try to counter it. He could have had Eli for far less.

Furthermore, the compensation given away in the trade becomes more questionable when you look at the league and realize which QB's have been leading their teams to Super Bowls. You get names like Brad Johnson (9th rounder), Tom Brady (6th rounder), Rich Gannon (4th round), Jake Delhomme (undrafted), Kurt Warner (undrafted). You can win with quarterbacks drafted in later rounds, so why give up so much compensation just to switch two QB's?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
You can't use someone's collegiate career as a precursor to NFL greatness.

---

Tell that to 100% of the people who decide who to draft. What else are you going to use? Their high school performance?

The fact that it is not a perfect indicator does not mean it is not a very important indicator.

While there are great college players who end up being a bust in the pros, most great NFL players were also great (or at least excellent) in college.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar If that was the case Danny Wuerrfel should have just been named to his 5th pro bowl by now.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar Furthermore Rivers' collegiate career puts Eli's to shame.

---

Wrong.

Eli Manning played in the SEC. Rivers played in the dramatically inferior (especially before Virginia Tech and Miami joined) ACC. The ACC had one good team: FSU.

Eli Manning won the Maxwell Award, for the nation’s top collegiate player, and the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award for the nation’s top senior quarterback. He finished third in the 2003 Heisman Trophy balloting (Rivers finished 7th) and was a finalist for the Davey O’Brien Award, presented to the nation’s top quarterback, and The Walter Camp Foundation Player of the Year Award.

Code:

---

2003 stats:

        Games  Att/Comp  Pct  Yards Yds/Att TD INT Yards/Game TD/Game
Manning  12    253/410  .617  3341  13.2  27  9    278      2.25
Rivers  14    262/418  .627  3351  12.7  20 10    239      1.42

---

Manning's senior season, against better teams in a harder conference, was better than Rivers'. You certainly cannot say Rivers' career puts Manning's "to shame."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar I'm not going to call the Giants trade stupidity, but I will certainly call it silliness/madness. You trade two quarterbacks, yet you decide to give up an extra first, third, and fifth round draft choice to do so? Doesn't that seem a bit absurd?

---

So the Brett Favre trade was absurd also, eh?

When you play it safe, you build a mediocre team that averages 7-9 wins per season. When you take gambles, you have a shot at the title.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Especially since the team you swapped the two QB's with was in a very precarious situation

---

So what. At any moment San Diego could have worked out a trade to swap their draft spot with tons of other people.

They made the deal not because San Diego was in a tough spot, they made it because there were many other teams who easily could have swooped in.

If Eli Manning turns out to be even 80% as good as Peyton, do you really think a handful of pointless draft picks matter?

Most draft picks go nowhere and some years there aren't even stars available to be drafted. The weakest position for the Giants was QB so they did what they could to get who they thought was the best QB available.

There is a tremendous difference between a trade that doesn't turn out well and a trade that is foolish from the start.

It will be at least 5 years before we know how this trade turned out, but no matter what it was not a foolish trade at the time it happened based on the information that existed at that time.

Hindsight analysis and judgement of this sort demonstrates a lack of understanding of sports- especially football.

By the way, the John Elway trade is further example of how worthless draft picks are compared to a good player.

John Elway's rights were traded by the Colts to the Denver Broncos on May 2, 1983, for QB Mark Herrmann, the rights to OL Chris Hinton, and a first-round pick in the 1984 NFL Draft. That 1984 pick got them........ drum roll please....... Leonard Coleman, safety from Vanderbilt!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Furthermore, the compensation given away in the trade becomes more questionable when you look at the league and realize which QB's have been leading their teams to Super Bowls. You get names like Brad Johnson (9th rounder), Tom Brady (6th rounder), Rich Gannon (4th round), Jake Delhomme (undrafted), Kurt Warner (undrafted). You can win with quarterbacks drafted in later rounds, so why give up so much compensation just to switch two QB's?

---

The last 5 Super Bowls were won by QBs who were not high draft picks. But the 7 Super Bowls winners before that had QBs drafted in:

Code:

---

XXXIII - First round
XXXII  - First round
XXXI  - Second round
XXX    - First round
XXIX  - Projected #1, went to USFL instead (Steve Young)
XXVIII - First round
XXVII  - First round

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Tell that to 100% of the people who decide who to draft. What else are you going to use? Their high school performance?

The fact that it is not a perfect indicator does not mean it is not a very important indicator.

While there are great college players who end up being a bust in the pros, most great NFL players were also great (or at least excellent) in college.

---

You use the NFL Draft Combine and private workouts as an indicator as well. College career plays more of a secondary role. If you were going by college career alone then Danny Wuerffel, Ken Dorsey, Eric Crouch and such would have been high first rounders. The Combine is where they really begin to weed out the players

Quote:

---

Eli Manning won the Maxwell Award, for the nation’s top collegiate player, and the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award for the nation’s top senior quarterback. He finished third in the 2003 Heisman Trophy balloting (Rivers finished 7th) and was a finalist for the Davey O’Brien Award, presented to the nation’s top quarterback, and The Walter Camp Foundation Player of the Year Award.


Manning's senior season, against better teams in a harder conference, was better than Rivers'. You certainly cannot say Rivers' career puts Manning's "to shame."

---

Can you be fair and compare both Rivers and Manning's senior season? You used Rivers' junior season against Manning's senior one. So let's play fair and show the correct stats.

Code:

---

2003 stats:

        Games  Comp/Att  Pct  Yards Yds/Att TD INT Yards/Game TD/Game
Manning  12    253/410  .617  3341  8.15  27  9    278      2.25
Rivers      13    348/483  .720  4491  9.30  34  7    345      2.62

Manning Rating = 147.5
Rivers Rating = 170.5

---

Furthermore let's compare their careers.

Code:

---

2003 stats:

        Games  Comp/Att  Pct  Yards Yds/Att TD INT Yards/Game TD/Game
Manning  42    807/1332 .606  9860  7.40  79 34    235      1.88
Rivers      49  1147/1710 .671 13484  7.89  95 34    275      1.94

Manning Rating = 137.23
Rivers Rating = 144.16

---

Rivers definitely had the better college career.

Quote:

---

So the Brett Favre trade was absurd also, eh?

---

I addressed the Brett Favre trade in a previous post above in response to Vin's post. The Brett Favre trade involved trading a first rounder for a quarterback straight up. This trade involved the trading of two unproven quarterbacks with additional draft choices in the mix, most importantly including a first rounder.

Quote:

---

So what. At any moment San Diego could have worked out a trade to swap their draft spot with tons of other people.

They made the deal not because San Diego was in a tough spot, they made it because there were many other teams who easily could have swooped in.

---

No one else was in the running. There was no talk of another team being involved on draft day. Everyone and their dogs knew it had to be NY. This was affirmed when the Giants drafted Rivers with the 4th pick, that there could be no other team. San Diego definitely wanted either to end up with either Rivers or Manning.

Quote:

---

If Eli Manning turns out to be even 80% as good as Peyton, do you really think a handful of pointless draft picks matter?

---

That's an IF. A very big IF. And what IF Rivers also turns out to be 80% as good as Peyton and the first rounder they needlessly forsaked (forsook?) turns out to be some star linebacker/corner/DT/whatever. But the point here is that if Eli turns out to be 80% of Peyton, they still didn't need to give up that first rounder. And you might discount a first round draft choice as nothing, but the first round is where teams draft the best players available in any given year. It's the best chance you have of improving.

Quote:

---

There is a tremendous difference between a trade that doesn't turn out well and a trade that is foolish from the start.

It will be at least 5 years before we know how this trade turned out, but no matter what it was not a foolish trade at the time it happened based on the information that existed at that time.

Hindsight analysis and judgement of this sort demonstrates a lack of understanding of sports- especially football.

---

Eventually hindsight analysis is what will determine whether this trade was a good one or a bad one. But no matter what happens, the Giants still did not need to give up that extra first rounder in the trade. If it does turn out badly for them then they surely will be forever linked to it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar If you were going by college career alone then

---

Straw man argument.

Nobody ever said you use college career alone. It is, however, a very powerful piece of information. Furthermore, Manning did great in combines.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Rivers definitely had the better college career.

---

No he didn't. You could argue it, but it is not definie. He played in the crappy, very weak ACC that had *ONE* good team in it. Manning played in the toughest conference in college football, the SEC.

Rivers played crap teams week after weak (weak?) whereas Manning played a tough SEC opponent almost every week.

Furthermore, *YOU* said:

Quote:

---

Rivers' collegiate career puts Eli's to shame.

---

That is definitely not the case. No QB's college career put's Eli Manning's to shame, because Eli's was superb. At best, you could argue that Rivers put up better stats, but to even say that you have to completely ignore the fact that the ACC was a pitiful football conference before Miami and VaTech joined.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar But no matter what happens, the Giants still did not need to give up that extra first rounder in the trade.

---

Yes they did.

The Chargers wouldn't make the trade otherwise. Thus, obviously they *DID* have to give up draft picks. Now you're just inventing things that aren't true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Straw man argument.

Nobody ever said you use college career alone. It is, however, a very powerful piece of information. Furthermore, Manning did great in combines.

No he didn't. You could argue it, but it is not definie. He played in the crappy, very weak ACC that had *ONE* good team in it. Manning played in the toughest conference in college football, the SEC.

Rivers played crap teams week after weak (weak?) whereas Manning played a tough SEC opponent almost every week.

That is definitely not the case. No QB's college career put's Eli Manning's to shame, because Eli's was superb. At best, you could argue that Rivers put up better stats, but to even say that you have to completely ignore the fact that the ACC was a pitiful football conference before Miami and VaTech joined.

---

Ok so Rivers did not put Manning to shame, but he still had the better career. I do not care what conference you are in, a 72% completion percentage (Rivers senior season) is awesome. You don't see QB's in any other conference (no matter how bad) posting that number up over the course of a season. But anyway, getting to the most important point...

Quote:

---

Yes they did.

The Chargers wouldn't make the trade otherwise. Thus, obviously they *DID* have to give up draft picks. Now you're just inventing things that aren't true.

---

No, there was no way the Giants had to give up that extra first rounder. Look at the situation the Chargers were in. Manning says he won't sign with the Chargers, but the Chargers draft him anyhow. The Chargers have absolutely ZERO leverage. You think the Chargers would not have made the trade otherwise? They had the prospect of letting Manning sit the entire year and re-enter the draft, thus losing a no.1 overall pick for one year. The Giants just didn't force the Chargers hand.

When the Chargers traded Michael Vick a few years ago, did they pry away an extra first from the Falcons? No, the Falcons held steady and gave up only an extra second-rounder and some third-tier WR. Most importantly the Chargers had more leverage then, since Vick would have signed and played with San Diego.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
No, there was no way the Giants had to give up that extra first rounder. Look at the situation the Chargers were in. Manning says he won't sign with the Chargers, but the Chargers draft him anyhow. The Chargers have absolutely ZERO leverage. You think the Chargers would not have made the trade otherwise? They had the prospect of letting Manning sit the entire year and re-enter the draft, thus losing a no.1 overall pick for one year. The Giants just didn't force the Chargers hand.

When the Chargers traded Michael Vick a few years ago, did they pry away an extra first from the Falcons? No, the Falcons held steady and gave up only an extra second-rounder and some third-tier WR. Most importantly the Chargers had more leverage then, since Vick would have signed and played with San Diego.

---

How do you know there weren't 3 other teams trying to get Manning from the Chargers? There were a lot of teams that needed a QB, so how do you know this didn't turn into a bidding war for the rights to Manning?

And do you REALLY think Manning would have sat out the whole year if San Diego didn't trade him? Oh wait, his agent said he would, so it must be true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
I do not care what conference you are in

---

Aha. So Tommy Chang should be the #1 draft pick then, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
No, there was no way the Giants had to give up that extra first rounder.

---

Apparently so, because when they offered a straight up trade the Chargers refused.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar Look at the situation the Chargers were in. Manning says he won't sign with the Chargers, but the Chargers draft him anyhow. The Chargers have absolutely ZERO leverage.

---

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that there are more teams than just the Giants out there?

Their offer had to compete with other offers as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar When the Chargers traded Michael Vick a few years ago, did they pry away an extra first from the Falcons? No, the Falcons held steady and gave up only an extra second-rounder and some third-tier WR. Most importantly the Chargers had more leverage then, since Vick would have signed and played with San Diego.

---

The Chargers made that trade because they didn't want Vick. They were horribly gun shy about drafting a 1st round QB after the very recent disaster known as Ryan Leaf.

They actually wanted Manning, and so did tons of other teams.

When it boils down to QB's its simple. Good O-line, good Special Teams, Great D, and a good to really good running game = Good QB. In any league. Look at Krenzel, he's a good example. He played in the toughest conference went undefeated, only because of the support he got from the rest of the team. You can put either of those two QB's in the Big Ten , and neither would have as good of college stats. ACC , SEC, are passing conferences with little to no, knock the crap out of you defences. Which is why they looked so good in college.

6'4" , 225+ lbs = your ideal QB size. When he played for THE Ohio State Buckeyes he was a winner. Was it because he's actually that good? Nope. He ain't. He tosses the ball at about 12.375 MPH and runs at about 3 mph on a dead sprint. BUT he had a great core around him to make him a winner. So.. Big Ben in the NFL has that , so Big Ben is a winner. You put almost any decent QB behind all that and they'd be a winner at Pittsburg as well.

So as far as the trade for Eli , he may turn out ok eventually. I don't think it was that great of a trade though. Over all, he may end up turning into a decent QB in the future, but only if they rest of the scenerio gets shaped into existance.

Its also my belief that the Bears only picked up Krenzel to use his microbiocraposmarterthanaverageo brain to develope the perfect undetectable stick'm for the Wr's in the near future. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagsohaks
Look at Krenzel, he's a good example. He played in the toughest conference went undefeated, only because of the support he got from the rest of the team. You can put either of those two QB's in the Big Ten , and neither would have as good of college stats. ACC , SEC, are passing conferences with little to no, knock the crap out of you defences. Which is why they looked so good in college.

---

The Big Ten is the 4th or 5th best conference right now, and has been for the last 15 years.

The SEC has no knock the crap out of you defenses? Huh?

Last year LSU and UGA were #1 and #2 in scoring defense.

Then historically (in alphabetical order): Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, and Tennessee have brutal defenses perennially.

There is no conference that plays tougher defense than the SEC. Some years other conferences might be *as* tough, but not tougher.

The top two football conferences right now (and for recent history) are the SEC and the Big 12. The ACC definitely comes next with Miami and VaTech, and the PAC-10 and Big 10 are battling for 4th. The Big East is a joke.

The Big Ten has three teams with a winning record this year. The SEC has SEVEN. The ACC has seven. The Big 12 has seven. The PAC 10 has four.

Top 15 scoring defenses: 4 SEC, 3 ACC, 2 PAC, 2 Big 12, 2 Big 10, 1 Big East, 1 BS (Troy).

Since 1990, 14 National Champions.

2003: SEC / PAC 10 (LSU / USC)
2002: Big 10 (OSU)
2001: Miami
2000: Big 12 (Oklahoma)
1999: ACC (FSU)
1998: SEC (Tennessee)
1997: Big 10 / Big 12 (Michigan / Nebraska)
1996: SEC (Florida)
1995: Big 12 (Nebraska)
1994: Big 12 (Nebraska)
1993: ACC (FSU)
1992: SEC (Alabama)
1991: Miami / PAC 10 (Miami / Washington)
1990: ACC (Georgia Tech) [Seriously, Colorado here was utter bullshit. They had a loss and would have had two but for the 5th down)

1 point for unconested, 1/2 for split:

Code:

---

Big 12:  4
  SEC:  3.5
  ACC:  2.5
 Miami:  1.5
Big 10:  1.5
PAC 10:  1

 Total: 14

---

Keep in mind that the Big 12 and SEC teams both have to get over an extra hurdle just to have a SHOT at a national title game: their conference champtionship game. Numerous times an undefeated team from one of those conferences has had their national title hopes dashed by a tough conference title game. The Big 10 (and PAC 10 and ACC teams, for that matter) have never even had to worry about such a hurdle.

When Rivers was playing for the ACC, that was pre-Miami/VaTech. During that time, NC State played garbage teams with garbage defenses.

Alydar, keep in mind that nobody seems to be saying it was a great trade.

But saying it was an idiotic or silly trade at the time it happened is the sort of hindsight influenced, Monday morning quarterbacking that just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vin
How do you know there weren't 3 other teams trying to get Manning from the Chargers? There were a lot of teams that needed a QB, so how do you know this didn't turn into a bidding war for the rights to Manning?

---

I know there weren't three other teams trying to get Manning from the Chargers. How do I know? Who did the Giants draft with the no.4 overall choice? That's right, Phillip Rivers. The QB a lot of people in the Chargers organization preferred over Manning. If the Chargers were not going to get Manning then they definitely wanted Rivers, they wanted a first-round QB to replace the horrible Drew Brees with (guess who's going to the Pro Bowl?). The Giants were the team the Chargers HAD to deal with, unless Indy wished to give us Peyton, Philly wished to give us McNabb, or Minnesota wished to give us Culpepper.

Quote:

---

And do you REALLY think Manning would have sat out the whole year if San Diego didn't trade him? Oh wait, his agent said he would, so it must be true.

---

Yes. If you believe Manning would have eventually signed with the Chargers then you're beyond delusional.

He basically had daddy trash the Chargers organization and had him tell them not to draft him. Furthermore brother Peyton had signed a fat new contract which paid him a $34 mil signing bonus. So little Eli could relax and take a year off living off of his brother's bonus money then re-enter the draft and sign a brand new contract himself. He WOULD have sat out the entire year, no doubt about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Aha. So Tommy Chang should be the #1 draft pick then, right?

---

If he shows an impressive arm at the combines and warrants the selection, then sure. Hey from my last few points you should know that I disdain college stats to an extent when projecting players in the NFL. I just stated that a 72% completion percentage, for any conference, was just awesome.

Quote:

---

Apparently so, because when they offered a straight up trade the Chargers refused.

---

Of course the Chargers are not going to do the trade straight up when you consider that they were trading down from pick no.1 to pick no.4. They wanted something additional in return. However it did not have to include a first-round draft choice that certainly looks like it will be a top-10 pick now and if they lose on Sunday a possible top 5 pick.

Quote:

---

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that there are more teams than just the Giants out there?

Their offer had to compete with other offers as well.

---

Yes, there are 32 teams that play in the NFL. I just addressed this point in response to Vin's post. The Chargers would not have traded with anyone else because if they couldn't get Manning then they definitely wanted Rivers in return. A lot of people in the Chargers organization preferred Rivers to Manning too.

Quote:

---

The Chargers made that trade because they didn't want Vick. They were horribly gun shy about drafting a 1st round QB after the very recent disaster known as Ryan Leaf.

They actually wanted Manning, and so did tons of other teams.

---

Incorrect, the Chargers did want Vick (who didn't?). They even began contract negotiatons with him a week before the draft. The reason he was eventually traded was that the Chargers were still in their penurious tight-wad mode back then and Vick was asking for a bonus amount they were unwilling to match. In the end the Falcons didn't forsake a first-round draft pick. I think they learned from previous trade fiasco's such as the Chargers' Ryan Leaf trade or the ridiculous draft-day trade of Ricky Williams. Giants didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Alydar, keep in mind that nobody seems to be saying it was a great trade.

But saying it was an idiotic or silly trade at the time it happened is the sort of hindsight influenced, Monday morning quarterbacking that just doesn't pass the sniff test.

---

I wholeheartedly believed the Giants should have done this deal. You don't have to use hindsight to know that the Chargers were thrown up against a wall with a knife to their necks on draft day. The entire football-mad world knew that the Chargers had no leverage on that day.

I don't care if this was a great deal or not. Only time will tell that, and then we can use hindsight to judge. All I've been saying is that the Giants did not have to give up an extra first round choice in that trade.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Yes, there are 32 teams that play in the NFL. I just addressed this point in response to Vin's post. The Chargers would not have traded with anyone else because if they couldn't get Manning then they definitely wanted Rivers in return. A lot of people in the Chargers organization preferred Rivers to Manning too.

---

So it's your theory that the Chargers were going to deal with whatever team drafted Rivers, and were just waiting until draft day to see who picked him? I'm pretty sure the deal was made before draft day, and the Chargers knew who they'd be dealing with. Any number of teams could have traded down to get Rivers, and then dealt with the Chargers. I'd be willing to bet the Chargers spoke with three or four teams about potential deals, and had more than one offer on the table.

The point about the Big Ten is that most games played vs inter conference games as well as some of the non-conference games are , IMHO, are alot tougher than playing in some of the other conferences. I'm sure if Michigan or Ohio State played against some of the weaker opponents in the the ACC or SEC their defensive 'scoring' would rank much higher than fourth. Lets put the Bulldogs or LSU up against, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, etc for a season and see where their defenses stand for a whole year. I'd place a large sum on the fact that they would also drop down to the around 4th in defensive scoring, if we base how good a defense is on the amount of pts scored.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagsohaks
The point about the Big Ten is that most games played vs inter conference games as well as some of the non-conference games are , IMHO, are alot tougher than playing in some of the other conferences.

---

How can you say that when the facts just do not bear it out? The Big 10 is at best the 4th hardest conference.

Quote:

---

I'm sure if Michigan or Ohio State played against some of the weaker opponents in the the ACC or SEC their defensive 'scoring' would rank much higher than fourth.

---

And what if UGA, Auburn, LSU, and Tennessee got to play Illinois, Indiania, Penn State, Minnesota, Northwestern, or Michigan State? Those would be gimmes and those teams would be lucky to get ANY points against any top SEC team.

You cannot say the Big Ten is better because the best Big Ten teams could crush the worst ACC, SEC, Big 12, and PAC-10 teams. That's absurd.

The top tier conferences for the past 15 years are the Big 12, SEC, and (especially with the addition of Miami and VaTech) the ACC. Trailing behind are the PAC-10 and the Big-10, and I really do not think the Big 10 can even argue they are better than the PAC-10 over the last 15 years.

So you're looking at a conference in the Big 10 that is 4th or 5th best not only this year, but overall for the last 15 years.

The actual FACTS and records bear this out. I do not have to rely on supposition or imaginary game matchups to conclude that.

Quote:

---

Lets put the Bulldogs or LSU up against, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, etc for a season and see where their defenses stand for a whole year.

---

Firstly, it is silly to try and base your argument off "what-ifs" when there are actually plenty of hard facts (See above and below). But lets go there for a moment.

UGA has played a Big Ten team in the Outback and/or Citrus Bowl (the two main bowls where SEC and the Big 10 match up) four times (twice in each bowl) in the last 15 years. UGA has won *** ALL FOUR GAMES ***.


Secondly, it is utterly absurd to say the SEC doesn't have knock you in the mouth defenses when they invented it. You do realize, don't you, that Auburn and Georgia have been playing each other since 1892.

Thirdly, history shows that over the last 15 years those matchups would not end favorably for the Big 10.

In the two major bowls where the SEC and the Big 10 go head to head:

<HR>

CITRUS BOWL (Capital One Bowl... grumble)

2004 - SEC
2003 - SEC
2002 - SEC
2001 - Big 10
2000 - Big 10
1999 - Big 10
1998 - SEC
1997 - SEC
1996 - SEC
1995 - SEC
1994 - Big 10
1993 - SEC

(I could not easily get the seed/ranking information for these games like I could for the Outback Bowl).

12 times since 1990 the Big 10 and SEC have met in the Citrus Bowl (Capital One Bowl). This is generally Big 10 #2 vs. SEC #2 or #3.

Results: 8 SEC wins, 4 Big 10 wins.


<HR>
OUTBACK BOWL

2004 - Big 10 (Big 10 Favorite)
2003 - Big 10 (Big 10 Favorite)
2002 - SEC (SEC Favorite)
2001 - SEC (Big 10 Favorite)
2000 - SEC (Big 10 Favorite)
1999 - Big 10 (Big 10 Favorite)
1998 - SEC (SEC Favorite)
1997 - SEC (Big 10 Favorite)
1996 - Big 10 (Big 10 Favorite)
1990 - SEC (SEC Favorite)


10 times since 1990 the Big 10 and SEC have met in the Outback Bowl. 7 of those times the Big 10 sent a higher seed to play a lower seeded SEC team (Big 10 #3 vs. SEC #4).

Results: 6 SEC wins, 4 Big 10 Wins. Big 10 never won when they were not the higher seeded team. SEC won three times when they sent the lower seeded team.

This would be even uglier if Ron Zook (lost the last 2 in a row) wasn't such a worthless knucklehead.

<HR>

So, in the two main bowls where SEC and Big 10 go head-to-head, the SEC has a 14-8 advantage. The majority of those games, the SEC went in as the underdog as well.

I never meant to imply that one conference is better than another. What I meant to get across that is, in my opinion the difficulty of competition within the Big Ten is tougher than the others. The reason for the continued 4th or 5th best, once again my opinion, is because the teams beat on each other every year with good hard nosed defenses. I believe it was Dorsey that said after the game against his game vs Ohio State "i've never been hit so hard so many times in my life" and that was only in one game. Let alone what happened to McGahee.

Either way, i wasn't looking for a 'who's got the best conference' debate because a person can look at several different aspects of the conferences. But it is yet another good arguement for the play-off idea vs bowls. It would pretty much settle it every year and noone would have to hear "yeah well if my team played them they woulda won, it was only that one fluke loss here or there that kept us from winning it all'

Anyways, Best of luck vs Wisconsin. :)

Ohio State Booster Paid Association vs Oklahoma State tonight. Must go get prepared to see the Bucks get spanked this year ;)
With any luck Zwick may be able to pass tonight, ya know since Smith's salary ran out and will be sitting the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagsohaks
I never meant to imply that one conference is better than another. What I meant to get across that is, in my opinion the difficulty of competition within the Big Ten is tougher than the others.

---

Please re-read the above post. I added some more information.

Every piece of factual data shows that the level of competition in the Big 10 is *NOT* better. The facts actually show that it is worse. All over the sports media for the past few years you constantly read about the "Big 10 being down."

Look at Wisconsin. Two teams they played during the entire year are ranked now.

Look at Georgia. FOUR teams they played during the entire year are ranked now.

Do you honestly want to argue that Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee all playing each other every single year just to get out of their HALF of the conference is not evidence of great teams "beating each other up" ?

How about LSU, Auburn, Alabama playing each other every year in the other half?

Then bear in mind those six teams generally play 2 or 3 of the other top teams from the other half.

Georgia played Florida, Tennessee, LSU, and Auburn this year and would have played Auburn again if they'd beaten Tennessee. That's not playing tough teams that beat each other up?

As far as teams beating each other up, how about you guys in the Big 10 NUT UP and play a conference championship game?

Every SEC and Big 12 conference champion has to play ONE MORE GAME against one of the top teams in their conference to even get crowned champion.

Um i just wanted to reply about the Mannings...

I think if given time Eli will get better like his brother. I think he just needs a little more experience. :)

*sneaks back out*

I also wish the Big Ten played an extra game. I can't agree with you more on that topic.

The outcome of last nights game is pretty much what I've been trying to explain. A Big 12 team that is used to running through open holey defenses gaining massive amounts of yards got there butts handed to them by a real defense. Oklahoma State averaged 249 rushing yards PER game , against Ohio State a Big Ten team ,they got a total of 286 yards passing and rushing.

Their QB was 15-37 for 137 and their main rusher who was 'averaging' 149 yards per game himself and is considered a top rusher in college was held to ...24 yards? Its like men against boys out there when it comes to the hard hitting , in your face , smash mouth styles of defenses that seperate the conferences. And you can't say that it was only Oklahoma State , they were beating Oklahoma this year by 35 pts at half time only to blow it by allowing 49 pts, I believe it was, in the second half. They barely got beat by Texas by one point , those being respectively #4 and #2 over all? And Ohio State completely embarrasses them? To me that sheds light onto the level of competition inside their league. Though we'll have to see how Michigan does against Texas.

But the statement of my opinion holds true so far. Big Ten plays tougher and harder defenses than the open it up, trick play , soft defense teams that would rather play a shoot out than good old fashion hard nose football.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bagsohaks

But the statement of my opinion holds true so far. Big Ten plays tougher and harder defenses than the open it up, trick play , soft defense teams that would rather play a shoot out than good old fashion hard nose football.

---

Except for the facts over the last 15 years.

Honestly, how can you even think it makes sense to use one game as proof instead of aggregate information over 15 years?

Please re-read the information regarding SEC vs. Big Ten over the last 15 years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gadiantor
So it's your theory that the Chargers were going to deal with whatever team drafted Rivers, and were just waiting until draft day to see who picked him? I'm pretty sure the deal was made before draft day, and the Chargers knew who they'd be dealing with. Any number of teams could have traded down to get Rivers, and then dealt with the Chargers. I'd be willing to bet the Chargers spoke with three or four teams about potential deals, and had more than one offer on the table.

---

Back from winter vacation. I have not gone away quite yet!

Oh dear me Gad... did you even think before you posted this? This is almost as ridiculous as Vin's quibble that Manning would have eventually signed with the Chargers.

Deal made before draft day? Seriously Gad, if it was made before draft they then why the hell would the Chargers go through the whole soap opera of drafting Eli, having him take pictures and hold the jersey like it was a vial of anthrax? Oh gee, maybe Chargers GM A.J. Smith is some angst ridden-sadist who was out for revenge? Weak weak weak Gad.

Now to the second part of your argument. The Chargers would not have traded out of the top 10. They desparately wanted one of the Big Three QB's out there because their Pro Bowl QB Drew Brees stank it up the year before. They could not risk trading too low and ending up missing on all three QB's. And none of the other teams in the top 10 were interested in trading for Manning either. Chargers spoke to three or four teams? Maybe, but certainly no offer on the table. It was obvious that it was only the Giants and Chargers talking to each other on draft day regarding Manning.

Oh yeah, and your whole trade down to get Rivers and then trade for Manning theory is just empty air. The situation would be too complex to deal with. No team would ever attempt such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
Deal made before draft day? Seriously Gad, if it was made before draft they then why the hell would the Chargers go through the whole soap opera of drafting Eli, having him take pictures and hold the jersey like it was a vial of anthrax? Oh gee, maybe Chargers GM A.J. Smith is some angst ridden-sadist who was out for revenge? Weak weak weak Gad.

---

So let me get all this straight.
1-The Chargers had absolutely no chance of signing Manning.
2-The only other player they wanted was Rivers
3-They had no trade lined up prior to the draft

So tell me, why didn't they just pick Rivers? Why go through "the whole soap opera" when Manning told them a week before the draft that he wouldn't play for them. Do you honestly think the Chargers are that stupid? Lets draft a guy we know will never play for us and just hope and pray that the team that takes Rivers will trade with us.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vin
So let me get all this straight.
1-The Chargers had absolutely no chance of signing Manning.
2-The only other player they wanted was Rivers
3-They had no trade lined up prior to the draft

So tell me, why didn't they just pick Rivers? Why go through "the whole soap opera" when Manning told them a week before the draft that he wouldn't play for them. Do you honestly think the Chargers are that stupid? Lets draft a guy we know will never play for us and just hope and pray that the team that takes Rivers will trade with us.

---

Exactly. The Chargers would have just drafted Rivers if they didn't have a very good plan already in place to make a trade. The final details might not have been worked out, but they definitely had an offer on the table before draft day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vin
So let me get all this straight.
1-The Chargers had absolutely no chance of signing Manning.
2-The only other player they wanted was Rivers
3-They had no trade lined up prior to the draft

So tell me, why didn't they just pick Rivers? Why go through "the whole soap opera" when Manning told them a week before the draft that he wouldn't play for them. Do you honestly think the Chargers are that stupid? Lets draft a guy we know will never play for us and just hope and pray that the team that takes Rivers will trade with us.

---

1- Yes, you are catching on, Chargers had ZERO chance of signing Manning.
2- Either Rivers or Roethlisberger. They wanted a QB, that much was obvious to all.
3 - Yes, if they had a trade agreement before the draft don't you think they would have consumated it before the draft, like the Chargers did when then passed on Vick? This is a question Gad and you can't answer. What would be the point of drafting Eli and then waiting an hour later to announce the deal?

Why not just pick Rivers with no.1 overall pick. Ehmm... hello!! Did you not see the parameters of the deal? The Chargers get an extra first, third, and fifth round draft choice just for switching two QB's??? Chargers knew they would get some extra compensation if they drafted Manning then traded him down, but that extra first rounder was just downright silly. It was well known that the Giants coveted Manning. There were numerous articles on it, especially on GM Ernie Accorsi wanting to use Manning to exorcise his demons from the botched job he did on drafting John Elway. So yes, you're right, the Chargers are not stupid. They did their homework and played it smart.

So Vin, if you and Gad seriously still believe that the deal was agreed upon before draft day then explain to me why they did not announce it prior to the draft, like every single other team does? I don't think you can really. It was an obvious draft day trade.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alydar
So Vin, if you and Gad seriously still believe that the deal was agreed upon before draft day then explain to me why they did not announce it prior to the draft, like every single other team does? I don't think you can really. It was an obvious draft day trade.

---

There were offers on the table before draft day. That means that there were initial discussions with more than one team with general terms of the trade laid out. The reason everything happened on draft day was because the deal had to be finalized. You obviously can't finalize the deal before the Giants pick Rivers.

You really seem to have an oversimplistic view of how NFL teams make trades. There are discussions that go on between teams that the media never hears about as they explore their options. No team would go into a huge trade without having groundwork laid, and exploring multiple options.

Your answer to Vin on why they didn't draft Rivers with the first pick really drives the point home. They knew they'd be able to make a deal like that because they had discussed it with teams before the draft. If they didn't know they were going to get that kind of a deal they would have picked Rivers. You're right, the Chargers did their homework, which included talking to other teams. I know it is hard to imagine, but NFL teams actually discuss possible deals with each other before they come to terms.

The Giants had to have had competition on this deal. There is no way they would have given up so much if there was no competition. The Chargers had no chance of signing Manning, which would have given the Giants some leverage if there wasn't anyone else in the picture.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gadiantor

The Giants had to have had competition on this deal. There is no way they would have given up so much if there was no competition. The Chargers had no chance of signing Manning, which would have given the Giants some leverage if there wasn't anyone else in the picture.

---

Precisely.

And why don't other GMs/teams publicly state that they were in the running also?

Because if Eli Manning turns out to be anywhere near as good as Peyton, those GMs would be fired, tarred, and feathered for not giving up the moon to get him.

Mmhmm. The guy needs to get experience like his brother and then he'll be fine. He just needs some time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gadiantor
There were offers on the table before draft day. That means that there were initial discussions with more than one team with general terms of the trade laid out. The reason everything happened on draft day was because the deal had to be finalized. You obviously can't finalize the deal before the Giants pick Rivers.

---

There were offers on table before draft day? And you know this how exactly? Do you have a well placed secret source within either one of the organizations that told you so? You are purely speculating here.

Now I'm sure there were discussions prior to draft day with a quite a few teams here and there. But the only serious suitors were the Giants. If there were others in the race then networks would have gotten a hold of it from leaks perpetuated by the teams.

To further drive home the point that the Giants were the only serious suitors, here are some articles.
From Nick Canepa, San Diego Union-Tribune

Quote:

---

The NFL draft is less than three weeks away. Admit it. You want to know what the Chargers are going to do with the first overall pick. I want to know. Chat roomers are spreading rumors. The dot- coms are dotting their coms with speculation.

The Giants, with the fourth overall selection, are desperate for Ole Miss quarterback Eli Manning, don't you know. They want to move up and swap with San Diego.

If the Giants really want the Chargers' No. 1, [Smith] should wait. Four drafts ago, when the Bolts last had the first overall selection, they traded it to Atlanta, which took Michael Vick. The Falcons were salivating over Vick. Late Chargers GM John Butler should have held out for more, such as another No. 1.

---

NOTE: This article was before Mannings request that he not be drafted by SD. That makes the last paragraph a moot point.
From Magee, Canepa, Stein, SD Union Trib, Apr 24, 2004

Quote:

---

The ideal situation would be for the Chargers to trade down twice, acquiring extra draft choices in the process, and then grab [Philip Rivers]. Hypothetically, the Chargers could exchange choices with the Giants, who have the No. 4 selection, and pick up a second- round choice. If Gallery remains on the board at No. 4 -- no certainty -- the Chargers then could exchange places with the Browns at No. 7 and add another second-rounder. In that seventh slot, Rivers should still be there. The problem is that [Eli Manning]'s declaration weakens the Chargers' position in working out a deal with the Giants. Selecting Manning despite his objections is the worst scenario. The way things have been going for the Chargers, they likely would wind up upside down in a ditch, their wheels still spinning.

---

That really weakens your argument Gad that the deal was agreed upon before draft day, it says plain and clear that selecting Manning against his wishes is the worst case scenario. If they agreed upon the trade then they would have had it immediately announced. It also weakens the argument the Giants had to give up an extra first.

Quote:

---

You really seem to have an oversimplistic view of how NFL teams make trades. There are discussions that go on between teams that the media never hears about as they explore their options. No team would go into a huge trade without having groundwork laid, and exploring multiple options.

---

Of course teams discuss potential deals and whatnot. But look at the time frame they had. I believe it was not more than 72 hours before the draft that the Mannings laid their bombshell. You don't have that much time to work things out.

Quote:

---

Your answer to Vin on why they didn't draft Rivers with the first pick really drives the point home. They knew they'd be able to make a deal like that because they had discussed it with teams before the draft. If they didn't know they were going to get that kind of a deal they would have picked Rivers. You're right, the Chargers did their homework, which included talking to other teams. I know it is hard to imagine, but NFL teams actually discuss possible deals with each other before they come to terms.

The Giants had to have had competition on this deal. There is no way they would have given up so much if there was no competition. The Chargers had no chance of signing Manning, which would have given the Giants some leverage if there wasn't anyone else in the picture.

---

The Chargers did not pick no.1 overall because they knew they would get compensation if they traded down. If they knew they could not get an extra first, but some other additional picks for swapping the two QB's, they still would have traded down. Even if they could only pry away an extra 4th or 5th rounder, they'd still would have picked Manning. It's an extra pick after all for trading two QB's is it not?

Yes, I'm sure the Chargers talked to other teams, but those discussions I don't believe led anywhere. The Giants were the only suitors for many reasons: 1) They were in an excellent position to draft one of the other top 3 QB's; 2) None of the other teams in the top 10 were interested in a QB, so strike them off as potential teams to trade with; 3) Anyone else outside of the top 10 who wanted Manning would have had to deal with the fact that none of the top 3 QB's, one of whom the Chargers desparately wanted to end up with, would not be available to them. This basically knocks them out of the running (unless they offered a package of something like 3 no.1 choices).

Oh and one more thing which basically renders your argument that this was a draft day deal moot. When the Giants got on the clock with the no.4 pick, Phillip Rivers was still on the table. If there was a prior trade agreement, then why oh why did they not send in the trade agreement to the commish as soon as the Giants were on the clock and then have the Chargers pick Rivers? Why was the deal not announced until a few picks later? Oh yes, of course, they were still negotiating terms of the trade with each other. They had not reached and agreement yet!

Enough said.

If I were to continue I'd just end up saying the same exact things I've already said at least a couple of times already. Regardless of how you think the deal unfolded one thing is clear, the Mannings definitely knew how to play the system to get what they wanted. I look forward to seeing if Eli works out for the Giants.