A quarterback has never won a football game.
Bear with me for a second as I make a few statements that you and I both know are facts.
- It takes dozens of successful plays to win a game
- It takes 11 men to execute one football play
- It takes countless hours of practice to learn how to execute said play
- It takes countless hours or film study to create the play
Got it? Good.
Nowhere on the list says, “The quarterback makes the play successful”.
So understand that I cringe when I read that Phil Simms wants to put Eli Manning in the Pro Football Hall of Fame because HE has won two Super Bowls among other things.
Eli Manning and 21 other chumps are two-time champs
But he’s not the only one giving too much credit to the signal caller; everyone does. And I mean EVERYONE. ESPN, NFL Network, NBC, Fox, CBS, HBO, Showtime, Google, Wikipedia, your friend’s blog, my blog, the pizza delivery guy, the drunk at the bar who still wears a Jeremy Shockey New York Giants jersey, etc.
I don’t care who threw the ball to Mario Manningham, I really don’t. Because at least five guys had to block pass rushers, three other receivers had to run routes in order to divert coverage, and finally Manningham had to make the catch.
But all we hear is, “What a great play by Eli!”
No lazy sports fan, it was a great play by the offense. Eli is a part of the offense; he doesn’t get all the credit like you think.
Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyiora, Justin Tuck, Antonio Pierce, Chris Canty, and a plethora of other defensive players don’t get mentioned in the same breath as Eli. But correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the defense do just as much to shut down the Patriots in two Super Bowls as the Giants’ offense did?
That defense held the best offense of our generation to 14 and 17 points respectively in two Super Bowls. But nobody wants to put Osi, Aaron Ross, or Pierre-Paul in the Hall of Fame. We’re stuck talking about the quarterback.
On the other side of the division is Tony Romo. You can’t bring up his name in a positive light without someone reminding you that, “HE can’t win in the fourth quarter.”
Excuse me for a second; he? You mean there aren’t 21 other players playing in that fifteen minute timeframe? It’s just him on the field to win or lose the game? That’s what you’re telling me right?
Romo does the blocking, the route running and the catching. He also does the pass rush, covers receivers and makes the tackles.
Absurd.
Last year the Cowboys went 8-8, but fans across the nation will tell you that Romo went 8-8. Nevermind his 3:1 touchdown-to-interception ratio, that didn’t mean anything. I’m sure it was his fault that the defense was 24th in yards-per-play allowed. It was also his problem that the D was 22nd in third-down conversions.
You get the picture right?
Sure Romo makes his mistakes and Eli has made great plays. But we as football fans need to open our eyes, watch the games, and credit teams. Not quarterbacks, but teams. If you want to credit one person, let it be the head coach.
You know the guy who orchestrates practices and designs the gameplan. He should be the only one with a win-loss column attached to his resume.
Tim Tebow wasn’t winning games by himself; Sam Bradford wasn’t losing games by himself, etc. A quarterback has never won or loss a game by themselves. So I beg of you all, stop it with this nonsense. Let’s recognize football for what it is; the ultimate team sport. It’s not tennis or track, its football. And because of its team structure, we love it so much.
Rob Brown
Rob was born and raised in the overpopulated and traffic-filled DC area. His writing experience includes following a league you probably never heard of, contributing on sites that don't exist anymore, and creating a site that only two people probably read (thanks mom!). Other than that, he enjoys spending time catching up on TV shows that are about to get cancelled and playing games that he should've outgrown years ago.You can follow Rob on Google+, Facebook, Twitter and his website http://CowboysVsRedskins.com.
Likewise, it gets me that pitchers in baseball have win/loss records. They can’t control how much run support they get.
As for Eli, he has played well in the past few years, but he hasn’t played at an exceptional level for a long enough period of time to really be a Hall of Fame player. He does own two rings, but as you pointed out, the defense did more than he did. And some contend that the Giants shouldn’t have won that first Super Bowl against the Patriots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I09r45c-0H8
I agree.
I would like to bring up one more point that “analysts”,”experts”, even “Hall-Of-Famers” forget to discuss enough if at all and that is comparison of competition and that it also takes the other team not performing or stacking up well against the other team/teams.
It takes the other o-linemen not blocking, other d-linemen not tackling, other running backs flat out losing grip of the ball or QB throwing the ball poorly resulting in an INT, etc. to help create success of a play. I know you covered that to a point in the article but follow me here, this all leads to what needs to happen more and that is comparison of competition and it is most important to measure when comparing teams/players from the past and their success with teams/players of the present and theirs.
How can any team or performance of any game, season, or era be compared to any other team of another? Players change, teams change, philosophies change, even rules change yet people want to get caught up in the “who was a better team” or “who was the best Superbowl winner/league champion” “who was the better quarterback” and I think trying to make those comparisons whether they be comparing within the same season or era or different seasons or eras is a grossly futile and ignorant attempt.
I understand it is extremely hard for a team to go undefeated however, does that not mean that a team from another era might not have had more talent and been able to do it if they were playing against the same competition? Likewise does it not mean that a team that has a great record would not have had a worse one if they had played against the competitive field of teams from another season/era that may have been better as a whole? Could an undefeated team have lost to one of the other teams they didn’t have to play that season?
As this article brings light to…the fact that it takes a lot of people and a lot of variables coming together to create success for one and defeat for another so too does it mean that the field of competition needs to be weighed when comparing anyone.
No disrespect to Dan Marino or Drew Brees but would Dan be able to throw for 5000 yards against today’s defensive players and schemes? Would Drew be able to throw for 5000 yards back in the 80′s when defensive backs could have much more contact and the majority of receivers were not as well rounded athletes as a whole? If you could switch just those two QB’s with each other and they would play with each others’ respective teammates in their respective eras would they have the same results as they did respectively? Would they exceed or fail more? Likewise if we switched say Aaron Rodgers with Tom Brady would each have similar individual success for themselves or in relation to one another’s success with that team?
We can and will never know the answers but, logic tells you the outcomes would not be the same, there are just too many variables. This is why so many players cant’ repeat their individual success when they move to other teams and this is especially true of QB’s since their success and performance is linked to that of their organizations and teammates more so than any other player as they are the ones whom have the ball in their hands the majority of the time over any other players on the field and that is why they are placed with the accolades as well a the failures of their teams. Rightfully or not.
All in all, it takes a perfect storm of success from a group of individuals to make a perfect storm of success for the team in any given situation, game, or season. Those whom figure that out will be champions…but it doesn’t mean they would have beaten another team, player’s individual performance or champion on another date and time. That is a strength though of this sport and what helps set it apart from any other.
I will finish with this disclaimer however…this is not to say that their aren’t handfuls of players throughout history that are the exceptions and are flat out amazing football athletes and players that would transcend any era, team, or season. To me those people are the true Hall-Of-Famers, we could probably count them on two hands maximum and perhaps not one would be a QB…rightfully or not.
Defensive backs are more athletic today, but the rules are slanted towards the passing game. That is why Dan Marino was the only guy to ever throw for 5,000 yards, and then suddenly it happens with three guys in the same season now.
As you said, you can’t compare different eras easily, but you can compare within an era, and Marino was killing everyone else when it came to yardage in his era. I think he is the best QB of all time without a ring. Is Eli Manning that much better just because he has two rings?
Sigh. This is faulty logic. While its true that QBs get too much credit and too much blame, and while it’s true that Eli Manning or any other elite QB does not win by himself, why then didn’t the Giants win before Eli got there? By this logic, the Giants, or any team should be able to win more often without their star quarterback. The Packers should have won without Rodgers. Saints without Brees. Why is Eli Manning always being singled out to explain away his extraordinary performances in championship games? It’s getting tiresome and completely unconvincing.
You say you don’t care who threw Manningham the ball. Well, I can assure you, teams damn well care because the Oline can block, everyone can do their assignments, and the final trigger man can screw it all up FOR EVERYONE. THAT is why the Giants love Eli Manning and thank God he is theirs. C’mon man. Enough with this nonsense against Eli Manning.
The Giants won two super bowls before Eli Manning ever came around.
I agree with Rob that a QB shouldn’t get full credit for wins and losses, but if they did, then Eli Manning is 69-50 as a starter, which isn’t exactly Hall of Fame numbers. Here is his Quarterback Rating for his first 5 seasons:
55.4
75.9
77.0
73.9
86.4
Again, far from Hall of Fame material. However, the Giants started winning more when the defensive line started dominating games.
You’re right that anyone can screw things up, but conversely it takes several contributions to win. Saying that Eli alone is the reason they’re winning just doesn’t add up. It is more likely that his teammates are carrying him, when he is an slightly-above-average QB (though he did play pretty well in the playoffs this past year). And even if we just want to focus on playoff success, he has made 5 trips to the playoffs. 3 times he lost in the first round. 2 times the Giants won the Super Bowl, and both of those years, the defense was dominant.
I’m positive you missed my whole entire point.
This isn’t an anti-Eli rant, or a Pro-Romo one for that matter. Eli is a part of a team. So while yes, the Giants weren’t winning rings by the handful before he got there, he is an important part of the team. But in no way should he have a W-L column by his name. In no way should he be given all the credit while nobody mentions the defense in the two SB wins. That’s the point.