Eli Manning. 2 Super Bowls, 3 interception titles

[oldecapecod11]

ARCHIVE

Eli Manning. 2 Super Bowls, 3 interception titles
Started by John Turney, Feb 07 2014 09:15 PM

19 replies to this topic

#1 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 07 February 2014 - 09:15 PM
Gotta love it, it's like the Bob Waterfield days!

#2 byron
PFRA Member
Posted 08 February 2014 - 01:10 AM
Don't be bringing Bob down to Eli's level! LoL! It's funny but there is some similarity. However, Waterfield was a better QB IMHO. That's not really a knock on Eli, who I think is a good QB and has really carried that Giants team for the past few seasons. Just my thoughts.

#3 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 08 February 2014 - 03:29 AM
And Eli can't punt...

#4 Bernard Brinker
Forum Visitors
Posted 08 February 2014 - 10:50 AM
My first thought: how many times did John Unitas lead the league in Interceptions. Twice I found out. Then I see Waterfield only lead the league twice in interceptions (his int % is sky high). Suspect I am being too literal.

#5 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 08 February 2014 - 12:25 PM
Favre led the league three times in INTs. But [sarcasm alert - trolls please stop reading now] he's another QB who couldn't win the big one... needed two return TDs to get his ring. Shame how his subsequent post-season failure destroyed his legacy....
#6 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 08 February 2014 - 03:54 PM
Bernard Brinker, on 08 Feb 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:
My first thought: how many times did John Unitas lead the league in Interceptions. Twice I found out. Then I see Waterfield only lead the league twice in interceptions (his int % is sky high). Suspect I am being too literal.
Quick glance of the original post I was also too literal as I thought; "2 championships and 3 interceptions titles, has to be Sammy Baugh" . . . Which didn't click in terms of that being the point, then I "got it".

#7 byron
PFRA Member
Posted 08 February 2014 - 09:21 PM
You know, this really goes hand-in-hand with the "John Thorn makes a solid point" post. The stats really don't tell the story in Pro Football. There's more to it than just "he has a ring" or "he led the league in interceptions". It's part of what makes the game, and game history, such a wonderful on-going story!

#8 RebelX24
Forum Visitors
Posted 08 February 2014 - 10:03 PM
Yep, there have been players in the past like Favre and Baugh who threw a lot of interceptions, but it didn't affect people's overall perceptions of them and their greatness. That being said, Eli is not in those guys' league, as he's never achieved statistical greatness like they did. I think somebody had mentioned Jim Plunkett while discussing Eli in another thread. Maybe that's being a little harsh toward Eli. Is somebody like Phil Simms a more accurate point of comparison?

#9 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 08 February 2014 - 10:46 PM
byron, on 08 Feb 2014 - 9:21 PM, said:
You know, this really goes hand-in-hand with the "John Thorn makes a solid point" post. The stats really don't tell the story in Pro Football. There's more to it than just "he has a ring" or "he led the league in interceptions". It's part of what makes the game, and game history, such a wonderful on-going story!
Well put, couldn't agree more.

#10 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 09 February 2014 - 12:07 AM
If I recall correctly, most of the above mentioned quarterbacks either won the Championship or led the league in interception in different seasons. It is a seasonal game and therefore not surprising that a high risk passer could conceivably have success one year and failure the next.

George Blanda, however, set the INT mark in a season (42 in a 14 game season) in which his Oilers lost the Championship Game of the AFL (after winning the previous two years).

#11 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:55 AM
RebelX24, on 08 Feb 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:
Yep, there have been players in the past like Favre and Baugh who threw a lot of interceptions, but it didn't affect people's overall perceptions of them and their greatness. That being said, Eli is not in those guys' league, as he's never achieved statistical greatness like they did. I think somebody had mentioned Jim Plunkett while discussing Eli in another thread. Maybe that's being a little harsh toward Eli. Is somebody like Phil Simms a more accurate point of comparison?
To be fair to Favre, the number of interceptions he threw was basically a function of the number of times he threw the ball. In 10 of his 19 seasons (I'm leaving out his first year, with Atlanta), his interception was lower than the league average. For his career, had had a 3.2% interception rate and the league's rate during that time was 3.15%, so he was pretty much average in that category.

#12 oldecapecod2
PFRA Member
Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:25 PM
rhickok1109
...a function of the number of times he threw the ball...

Precisely! it is simply the law of large numbers.
For those who like to compare Sports:
The guy that takes three called strikes is never going to hit a Home Run.
Or, as Wayne Gretzky once said: "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
And, as for statistics... Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal may be appealing but what they conceal is vital.

#13 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:57 PM
rhickok1109, on 09 Feb 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:
To be fair to Favre, the number of interceptions he threw was basically a function of the number of times he threw the ball. In 10 of his 19 seasons (I'm leaving out his first year, with Atlanta), his interception was lower than the league average. For his career, had had a 3.2% interception rate and the league's rate during that time was 3.15%, so he was pretty much average in that category.
I didn't even know Favre's legacy was ruined . . .or Peyton's for that matter. I need to keep up more. The only thing that hurt Favre was misuse of a camera phone. And Peyton's "naked butt and rectum"... but on the field, both's reputations are still in tack, IMO . . .but every one has his own opinion

#14 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 10 February 2014 - 01:00 AM
Favre's case is probably best described by the fact that he played for a really long time, he was one of the most competitive players ever, and only once was his team really dominant. So it's inevitable he'd have years where he threw a lot of picks, whether by number or percentage, just because he's trying to win.

I've never thought much of that "consecutive passes without an interception" record. When Kosar set it, it was a bit of a joke -- his team lost a lot of close games during that streak. If he'd been more willing to cough up the ball maybe they'd have won a couple of those. When Brady broke it in 2010, it was the other extreme -- they won every game but one, lots of blowouts and games that weren't as close as they looked at the end, so there was less of a need to take chances.

#15 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 10 February 2014 - 09:20 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 10 Feb 2014 - 01:00 AM, said:
Favre's case is probably best described by the fact that he played for a really long time, he was one of the most competitive players ever, and only once was his team really dominant. So it's inevitable he'd have years where he threw a lot of picks, whether by number or percentage, just because he's trying to win.

I've never thought much of that "consecutive passes without an interception" record. When Kosar set it, it was a bit of a joke -- his team lost a lot of close games during that streak. If he'd been more willing to cough up the ball maybe they'd have won a couple of those. When Brady broke it in 2010, it was the other extreme -- they won every game but one, lots of blowouts and games that weren't as close as they looked at the end, so there was less of a need to take chances.
I'm reminded of Lombardi's only complaint about Starr--that he didn't throw enough interceptions because he was too cautions. Lombardi said something to this effect: "Sometimes, when the receiver and the defensive back are running down the field together, you've got to take a shot and sometimes you're going to be intercepted."

#16 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:52 PM
Looking at year by year interception leaders from the late 40's to the late 60's, it appears Starr and Len Dawson were the only modern HOF QB'S who did NOT lead the league in INT's. Baugh, Luckman, Waterfield, Layne, Graham, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Unitas, Jurgensen, Blanda, Namath.

Of course, it should be noted that there were fewer teams. In 1953, half the teams had a HOF QB (5 out of 12 teams) so there were higher odds that the leader would be from those 5.
Extending that to the 1970's, Bradshaw led the league his rookie year and Tarkenton led the league in his final year.

#17 oldecapecod2
PFRA Member
Posted 10 February 2014 - 02:01 PM
conace21
...Extending that to the 1970's...

Bradshaw's rookie year was with a 5-9 team that had been 1-13 the previous season.
He did not have much of a corps of RBs: Terry Cole, Frenchy Fuqua, Dick Hoak and Preston Pearson so they had to throw to try to win.
The receivers were not the types that could "go get the ball" - the best maybe of a bad bunch being Ron Shanklin.
They had no All-Pros and only three guys went to the Pro Bowl.
It was the first year with the merged AFL and the Steelers were 1-4 v. NFL teams and 4-5 v. former AFL clubs.

Tarkenton's situation was not much better. The Vikes were barely .500 at 8-7-1 and Tarkenton started all 16 games at age 38 - no spring chicken.
The only RB of note was Chuck Foreman who averaged a little over 50 YDs per game.
He had Sammy White and Ahmad Rashad to throw to against defenses that did not have to worry too much about the run.

So, in all fairness to both, it was throw or nothing. Referring to the rhickok post above, the numbers game means more throws equals more pics.

Again, here's a case where there is a lot that the bikini of statistics does not reveal.

#18 Bryan
Veteran
Forum Visitors
Posted 10 February 2014 - 03:29 PM
conace21, on 10 Feb 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:
Of course, it should be noted that there were fewer teams. In 1953, half the teams had a HOF QB (5 out of 12 teams) so there were higher odds that the leader would be from those 5.

Not really related, but I remember Hamp Pool saying it was much tougher to defend the pass in the 1950's, not really because of the lack of sophistication in defensive strategies, but because nearly every team in the NFL had a good QB. He said that it became easier to defend the pass in the late 60's and early 70's because by then only a few teams had elite QBs. Don't know how valid that idea was/is, but I found it interesting.

#19 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 10 February 2014 - 09:13 PM
Bryan, on 10 Feb 2014 - 3:29 PM, said:
Not really related, but I remember Hamp Pool saying it was much tougher to defend the pass in the 1950's, not really because of the lack of sophistication in defensive strategies, but because nearly every team in the NFL had a good QB. He said that it became easier to defend the pass in the late 60's and early 70's because by then only a few teams had elite QBs. Don't know how valid that idea was/is, but I found it interesting.
Without actually checking (and why would I EVER do that? Got a reputation to protect...) it seems to be a valid point. By 1966 the number of teams had doubled, and in the 60's the CFL was able to compete with the NFL in terms of salaries and luring key players north of the border. (One of the benefits of a then-stronger dollar, and still-stronger beer....) Not sure if the CFL snagged any quality QB's, though.

#20 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 11 February 2014 - 02:48 AM
Jeremy Crowhurst, on 10 Feb 2014 - 9:13 PM, said:
Without actually checking (and why would I EVER do that? Got a reputation to protect...) it seems to be a valid point. By 1966 the number of teams had doubled, and in the 60's the CFL was able to compete with the NFL in terms of salaries and luring key players north of the border. (One of the benefits of a then-stronger dollar, and still-stronger beer....) Not sure if the CFL snagged any quality QB's, though.
CFL not a factor with QBs, unless Kyle Rote was HoF worthy....

I wonder if there was any other change to the way teams acquired talent after 1953 that might explain why defenses improved more than passing offenses? Perhaps some other talent pool that was tapped into, where they weren't looking for QBs...?