Eli & Archie Manning's Smart Move

[Alydar]

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.

[Alydar]

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.

[Gadiantor]

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:

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.

[Aristotle]

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.

[Alydar]

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.

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?

[Aristotle]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

[Aristotle]

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!

[Aristotle]

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:

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

[Alydar]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Aristotle]

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.

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:

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.

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.