The Great Debate: Romo Vs Manning

[DallasFanSince86]

I think what shocked me more than Giants making it to and winning the SB is that I went from lifelong Giants hater to single-season playoff fan in the blink of an eye...

It's the first time in my life that I hated an AFC team enough to root for one my most hated NFC East rivals.

My wife (who is no football fan I might add) was even shocked. When Eli ran that final drive I was going nuts! And she exclaimed, "wait a minute, I thought you hated the Giants?"

And I said, "I do honey, I really do... but I hate the Patriots even more".

So, even though my support of the Giants lasted a mere game, it did bring me to respect Eli a lot just to see Brady and company get their hopes and dreams shattered.

I felt the same way about that Superbowl.

 

[Disturbed]

I think what shocked me more than Giants making it to and winning the SB is that I went from lifelong Giants hater to single-season playoff fan in the blink of an eye...

It's the first time in my life that I hated an AFC team enough to root for one my most hated NFC East rivals.

My wife (who is no football fan I might add) was even shocked. When Eli ran that final drive I was going nuts! And she exclaimed, "wait a minute, I thought you hated the Giants?"

And I said, "I do honey, I really do... but I hate the Patriots even more".

So, even though my support of the Giants lasted a mere game, it did bring me to respect Eli a lot just to see Brady and company get their hopes and dreams shattered.

Eli won more than a game that day, he gained respect. The Giants were huge underdogs...and I like so many cheered for the little guy to win. I'll never root against the Cowboys, but I won't hate the Giants as much in the future because of the win over the Cheatriots.

I don't mind the Giants coming in second in the division every year behind us....In fact, I would love for the egals and skins to be the worst in the league every year.

 

[Tovya]

I don't hate Eli after that game either, but the fact is, Eli's play wasn't something to marvel at in the play-offs.

The reality though is, it is only Super Bowl wins that ultimately matter, and no taste can come close to it. Romo can have individual achievements, but if he doesn't win the Super Bowl, Manning and other average QBs like Dilfer will have what he can never taste and it will probably leave a bad taste in his mouth for a long time.

Oh I agree (as I stated a bunch of times in this thread)... I don't think Eli is the second coming by any means, and he'll never be what his brother is (or come close in my opinion)...

But as I stated earlier, look at Marino...

So do you think if Eli blew out his knee tomorrow and retired that he will be rated a better QB than Marino? Of course not.

Superbowl rings only highlight brilliant careers. Superbowl wins only give slight glows to sub-par ones.

Terry Bradshaw for instance... he was a pretty good QB in my opinion... but what made him great is that he came through when it mattered most (the playoffs).. hence the reason for his 4 shiny rings. Sure it was the Steelers unstoppable defense that was the real star, but he held his weight on the team in the clutch.

 

[Tovya]

Eli won more than a game that day, he gained respect. The Giants were huge underdogs...and I like so many cheered for the little guy to win. I'll never root against the Cowboys, but I won't hate the Giants as much in the future because of the win over the Cheatriots.

I don't mind the Giants coming in second in the division every year behind us....In fact, I would love for the egals and skins to be the worst in the league every year.

I somewhat agree... I'll at least hate the Giants less than in the past (especially when Parcels was the czar of the Giants... man I REALLY hated them then

But for me (as with most Cowboys fans) I'll always despise the 'Skins the most. I was raised to hate them, and I am no doubt brainwashed into branding them as public enemy no. 1 for the rest of my living-breathing life.

 

[AbeBeta]

38 percent of his passes is a significant difference statistically. In the game against Green Bay, Manning threw 5 less passes than the total passes he threw against Tampa and Dallas. Further, his Y/A average in Green Bay was consistent with what he threw when he played against the Patriots and Tampa Bay, and he slightly outperformed in Dallas only because of the busted 40 yard play. If you take away that busted play, plus the additional yardage they got on that BS call against Ware, your talking the same exact Y/A average in the 3 other games. He drops from plus 9 to plus 6, which also shows how much numbers can be skewed.

Don't say statistically significant unless you are using a formal significance test - that term is off limits.

If you take out that 40 yards -- hell, I'll even take away a TD, his passer rating for the playoff....... drum roll please. Still 97.3. That's still outstanding, even given your "take this and that play away" logic. The Ware play didn't affect his YPA in any way.

Your math is a little weird here -- take away that 40 yards and he's still got a 7.2 YPA. That incidentally, is about where Tom Brady is career-wise.

Do you really think that there weren't any plays in Johnson's performance that weren't blown?

This consistency bucks your argument that one should take into account wind-chill in Green Bay, because Manning was throwing short-passes with the weather having little impact on his throws. It was the same game-plan they employed throughout the play-offs. Manning was asked to control the ball and play mistake free, and hope the other team makes a mistake.

-23 impacts your play period. Offenses struggle in that weather. Where is the "consistency" -- even using your metric, in that game he had a 6.4 YPA --

You can make the short pass argument all you want -- but you do know that passer rating is a function of yards per attempt right? Short passes factor into PR and his was outstanding.

Of course you can argue the numbers are skewed, especially when your arguing that when the ball is actually in the hands of Eli and he is forced to make a play, he performs like the rest of these QBs you quoted. For example, there was not a single game where Brad Johnson threw less than 30 times in the play-offs when they went to the SUper Bowl in 2002/2003, and he threw the same Y/A as Manning did in all his games. His yardage numbers were right where Manning was, and the only difference between the two was really the pass ratings because of two games where Eli, in one game, threw only 18 passes.

What is your obsession with YPA? PR is a far better metric because it takes much more into consideration.

You seem to fail to grasp the way PR is being computed here -- this is for his overall stats in the playoffs, each game doesn't have equal weight -- games with more pass attempts get more weight.

Also, as I showed earlier in the thread the only 18 pass attempts reflected that NY didn't have the ball much rather than a particularly conservative game plan.

It is the passer ratings that skews Mannings actual performance, not the other numbers... When Manning threw as many times as Brad Johnson he had similar passer ratings.

Right.....

Johnson threw 98 times over 3 games (32.6 a game) Manning threw 119 passes in four games (29.8 a game). The most relevant way to look at playoff performance is their overall performance - they threw about the same number of passes a game. Manning threw more than Johnson in the playoff -- and as I showed above, even taking out the blown play he did better -- much better.

 

[EthanThorn]

Hello all, new member here. I'm a Giants fan, and i have been lurking here for quite a while (always nice to see what one's opponents think of you). I'll be posting in the same vein as Tom Giants Fan, that is to say respectfully, and i look forward to some great conversations and inevitable debates.

Anyway, on to the matter at hand, Eli vs. Romo. Being a Giants fan, i will admit that i'm a little biased, but i firmly believe that the article in question was pretty much right on the money in its assessment. That's not to say that i think Romo is a bad qb, i think he's one of the leagues top qb's (prob top 5 most def top 10)but there are just certain factors about him that would make me question choosing him over Eli in a meaningful game. For example I like my football players to be football players, not celebrities. While none of us really know how his relationship with J. Simpson and his trip to Cabo affected his performance (would he have won had he not gone?), it's simply one more issue that inevitably detracts on some level from his preperation.

Most importantly though, Romo seems to let his emotions get the best of him, which really affects his performance. For example, in the Buffalo game, with each interception, he seemed to get more and more demoralized. And in our playoff game, if you look at the video (and i have), you will see Romo start to get down on himself and look visibly panicked with 5+ min to go and all three timeouts remaining. I simply can't fathom that. I mean he was aware that he had managed to put up 70+ points against us in the regular season, yet with plenty of time to go and all of his timouts left he starts making questionable decisions (like getting sacked instead of throwing the ball away) and his play suffers.

Eli, as much as he sucks sometimes, really manages to come through in the clutch. Like at Denver 3 years ago when he threw the winning touchdown with seconds left. Or at Philly 2 years ago where we were down by 20+ points and he got sacked 8 times, yet managed to pull out a win for us in overtime. Or in the last 50 seconds of the first half in the playoff game against you guys, where he tied up the score and giving the Giants a new breathe of life. And of course in the Super Bowl, where on the last drive he looked as calm as he always looks. And many people forget that this is a guy who has lead his team to the playoffs his first three years starting, won the division his first year starting and the Super Bowl in his 3rd year. Clearly he's doing something right.

Will Romo put up better stats than Eli? Yes, especially when one considers that Romo plays in a dome and Eli at the windy Meadowlands. But come crunchtime, i will go with the safe bet and pick Eli as my Qb over Romo. That's not to say that i don't think Romo can't win a playoff game (its ridiculous to believe that), its just that i would rather go with the guy who i know that right now would give me the best opportunity to win.

In the end, i believe that both Romo and Eli are deservedly in the top tier of qbs (right beneath Brady and the other Manning), and they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. However, some of you are simply dismissing Eli's accomplishments way too easily.

 

[UVAwahoos]

Quick -- name a winning QB who didn't get lucky on a play or two.....

I can name winning QBs who followed up those lucky plays with consistent performances to keep them winning. Yeah, if Tom Brady gets bailed out with the Tyree catch, nobody is gonna say anything because he brings it year in and year out. Eli...not so much.

If you asked all of the offensive coordinators in the league if they would rather build a team from scratch around Romo or Eli, I'm humbly guessing at least 30 would choose Romo even with Eli's Super Bowl ring in mind. Sure, Eli is great and the gamble of building around him paid off last season, but Romo is only really beginning his career and he's already considered better than Eli by many. That should also answer the "debate".

 

[khiladi]

Don't say statistically significant unless you are using a formal significance test - that term is off limits.

If you take out that 40 yards -- hell, I'll even take away a TD, his passer rating for the playoff....... drum roll please. Still 97.3. That's still outstanding, even given your "take this and that play away" logic. The Ware play didn't affect his YPA in any way.

No, it is statistically significant.

1.

Your statement has no bearing on your claim regarding weather in Green Bay impacted the numbers of Eli Manning. Manning was averaging similar Y/A in Green Bay he did in the other games with the exception of Dallas. And the only reason he was different in Dallas was because of one busted play. Against the Patriots, the last drive single handedly jumped his numbers up significantly, which has bearing on the fact is one is trying to argue that Manning can play like that consistently.

2.

I know the Ware play didn't effect his 'play' other than the fact he probably would have been pummelled and shakened. I just pointed out the Ware play that was BS, which kept the drive going when it shouldn't have. Eli Manning had a lot of lucky breaks that effected his numbers. On that drive, he intentionally grounded a ball as well, and the refs didn't call it. That whole drive was nonsense. 8 times out of 10, Manning would not get that benefit.

3.

Further, his numbers were high in that game because he only threw 18 times. He completed a whopping 12 passes. How hard is that to digest? The more the ball is in Eli Manning's hands, the more it becomes evident how average he is. This is evident in the last two games, when he played Green Bay and the Patriots and threw around 40 times. His numebrs were no different than the Brad Johnson's of the world's averages in reality.

EVen you quoted the following:

Johnson had a passer rating of 79.9 in the playoffs the year he won the SB. (About 33 attempts per game)

Dilfer had a PR of 83.7 - he only threw 18 passes a game.

Manning, as i pointed out earlier in the thread had a 95.8 PR. Throwing about 30 passes a game.

Even though you tried to make it soundmore impressive with the high-lighted portion. When he threw over 30 passes in a game, his numbers were 72.3 and 87.3, which is around Brad Johnson's PR, who actually threw 30 passes a game for 3 games. He threw 33, 31 and 34 times. Eli Manning threw 40 times in the game he had 72.3. In thag game, he also had two breaks in one single drive, and one of them easily could have resulted in an easy return for a TD during the Super Bowl. The other one was probably one of the single greatest catchest in Super Bowl history.

Your math is a little weird here -- take away that 40 yards and he's still got a 7.2 YPA. That incidentally, is about where Tom Brady is career-wise.

1.

The math isn't wierd, it is just basic rto convey the point. The point is the YPA drops significantly for Manning because of one single play, showing that he was managing the game and wasn't being forced to make any plays. I won't even get started on Jacques Reeves. The Giants toned down the offense for him.
2.

And that 7.2 is career-wise, while it is not the same for Manning. Nobody is disputing that Mannin played better a couple of games, but to confuse this with spectacular sdoesn't cut it. Your arguing that his play was great based upon a 90 percent passer rating, when his numbers were clearly skewed by how little he threw and the type of game he played. Further, wHile Brady may have the same YPA, he throws a lot more in the play-offs and doesn't throw 18 times a game, nor does he throw 50 percent when he throws 30 or 40 times a game, which Manning did in the last two games of the play-offs.

Do you really think that there weren't any plays in Johnson's performance that weren't blown?

What don't you get about this argument? You are arguing that Manning performed better than Johnson based upon a 90 P/R and the metrics clearly show that Johnson threw a hell of a lot more and statistically had similar numebrs. The 90 pass rating of Eli Manning was skewed by two games where he threw very little. When Manning threw over 30 times a game, he was right where Brad Johnson and the other QBs were at.

-23 impacts your play period. Offenses struggle in that weather. Where is the "consistency" -- even using your metric, in that game he had a 6.4 YPA --

Ding, ding ding... The fact is, that YPA in Green Bay is right where Manning was at in the other games in the play-offs, which shows that there was no impact from the weather. His numbers in Green Bay were consistent with how he normally performs. You throw short passes, the weather impacts the passing very little. It is onyl felt when you throw long and the air is heavy.

You can make the short pass argument all you want -- but you do know that passer rating is a function of yards per attempt right? Short passes factor into PR and his was outstanding.

So what? When he threw over 30 times a game, when he was forced to make plays, what happened to his passer rating?

What is your obsession with YPA? PR is a far better metric because it takes much more into consideration.

PR doesn't taek into account the type of offense they ran and why Manning had the numbers he did. It is called dumming-down the offense...

You seem to fail to grasp the way PR is being computed here -- this is for his overall stats in the playoffs, each game doesn't have equal weight -- games with more pass attempts get more weight.

And Troy Aikman thinks the PR system sucks and doesn't indicate a players performance that well. The more weight that is given to the games with pass attempts surely doesn't equalize with the over-bloated ratings Manning got as a result of the two games when the ball wasn't in his hands.

Also, as I showed earlier in the thread the only 18 pass attempts reflected that NY didn't have the ball much rather than a particularly conservative game plan.

And what makes you think that Manning would have performed better the more times he threw the ball, especially considering his numbers drop significantly when he throw more? Further, they had only two decent drives that whole game.

Johnson threw 98 times over 3 games (32.6 a game) Manning threw 119 passes in four games (29.8 a game). The most relevant way to look at playoff performance is their overall performance - they threw about the same number of passes a game. Manning threw more than Johnson in the playoff -- and as I showed above, even taking out the blown play he did better -- much better.

It is nice that you are averaging it per game, but that shows very little when one is speaking about trends. You very well know that what we are talking about is when the ball is in Eli Manning's hands... The two games where his P/R was incredibly high was when he threw the ball very little.. When he threw the ball alot, meaning the game was in his hands, his Passer rating dropped significantly. Brad Johnson threw over 30 passes in EACH OF THE FOUR GAMES, which shows a consistent trend unlike Manning's numbers.

 

[khiladi]

I can name winning QBs who followed up those lucky plays with consistent performances to keep them winning. Yeah, if Tom Brady gets bailed out with the Tyree catch, nobody is gonna say anything because he brings it year in and year out. Eli...not so much.

Not only the Tyree catch, but Samuels missed an easy Int on that play that would have been a clear TD.

Further, your argument hits the nail on the head... He can't tell the difference between consistency and plain lucky. Tom Brady performs year in and out. Eli Manning, on the other hand, when he throws over 30 times a game, consistency becomes more of an issue even evidenced in these play-offs. Manning's P/R dropped over the course of the play-offs from 130 to 72 while his number of pass attempts increased...

If one is trying to argue that Manning is a great QB and everybody better watch out next season, he needs a better case than a few games in the play-offs where he threw a whopping 18 times one game and had only two real drives, one where Henry busted a sure TD from Amani Toomer of all people. Even onf that drive Ware was called for an off-sides that was BS coupled by a clear intentionally grounding by Eli Manning in the pocket that wasn't called....

 

[BehindEnemyLinez]

Romo...next question!

 

[Eddie]

I would take Romo because he's a Cowboy and I'm a Cowboy fan.

There are probably 8 million people in NY who would disagree with me though.

 

[AbeBeta]

No, it is statistically significant.

Statistically signficant refers to the result from a null hypothesis significance test. Don't use that term, it makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

1.

Your statement has no bearing on your claim regarding weather in Green Bay impacted the numbers of Eli Manning. Manning was averaging similar Y/A in Green Bay he did in the other games with the exception of Dallas. And the only reason he was different in Dallas was because of one busted play. Against the Patriots, the last drive single handedly jumped his numbers up significantly, which has bearing on the fact is one is trying to argue that Manning can play like that consistently.

And as I noted, even taking your YPA approach, he's still got a very solid performance. That one Dallas play, as I showed, did little to impact the more holistic statistic, his Passer Rating

2.

I know the Ware play didn't effect his 'play' other than the fact he probably would have been pummelled and shakened. I just pointed out the Ware play that was BS, which kept the drive going when it shouldn't have. Eli Manning had a lot of lucky breaks that effected his numbers. On that drive, he intentionally grounded a ball as well, and the refs didn't call it. That whole drive was nonsense. 8 times out of 10, Manning would not get that benefit.

Wow, fantasy land analysis

3.

Further, his numbers were high in that game because he only threw 18 times. How hard is that to digest? The more the ball is in Eli Manning's hands, the more it becomes evident how average he is. This is evident in the last two games, when he played Green Bay and the Patriots and threw around 40 times. His numebrs were no different than Rex Grossman and the Brad Johnson's of the world average. He also had two balls in one single drive that could have resulted in an easy return for a TD. The other one was probably one of the single greatest catchest in Super Bowl history.

[/QUOTE]

How is it hard to digest that a game with 18 attempts has far less impact statistically on his PR than does a game with 40 attempts? The ball was in Eli's hands for roughly the same proportion of plays (near 50-50) in all the games except the SB where the Giants ran 37 pass plays to 26 runs (and three of those runs were by Manning).

Again, you can pick out play by play for ANY QB and reduce their performance considerably.

Even though you tried to make it soundmore impressive with the high-lighted portion. When he threw over 30 passes in a game, his numbers were 72.3 and 87.3, which is around Brad Johnson's PR, who actually threw 30 passes a game for 3 games. He threw 33, 31 and 34 times. Eli Manning threw 40 times in the game he had 72.3.

And that game was in -23 weather. In that game, one of the best QBs in NFL history had a 70.7 PR.

1.

How is the math a little wierd? The point is the YPA drops significant for Manning, showing that he was managing the game and wasn't being forced to make any plays. I won't even get started on Jacques Reeves. The Giants toned down the offense for him.

Well, for one 7.2 doesn't equal 6. Start there.

2.

And that 7.2 is career-wise, while it is not the same for Manning. Nobody is disputing that Mannin played better a couple of games, but to confuse this with spectacular sdoesn't cut it. Your arguing that his play was great based upon a 90 percent passer rating, when his numbers were clearly skewed by how little he threw and the type of game he played. Further, wHile Brady may have the same YPA, he throws a lot more in the play-offs and doesn't throw 18 times a game, nor does he throw 50 percent when he throws 30 or 40 times a game, which Manning did in the last two games of the play-offs.

Just giving you some context -- and get the hell off the 18 throws. Manning threw 18 times for a reason -- not because he was having his throws limited but because the Giants didn't have the ball.

By your logic, anytime a QB does throw much, then he should have a higher PR?

What don't you get about this argument? You are arguing that Manning performed better than Johnson based upon a 90 P/R and the metrics clearly show that Johnson threw a hell of a lot more and statistically had similar numebrs. The 90 pass rating of Eli Manning was skewed by two games where he threw very little. When Manning threw over 30 times a game, he was right where Brad Johnson and the other QBs were at.

I "get" your argument - I just see it as idiotic. Let's seem, Manning has a PR in the high 90s for the playoffs. Ooh, it goes down it you cherry pick play after play and take those plays away. Of course. You aren't cherry picking Johnson's plays so, your argument it not valid.

Again -- your idea of "skew" shows a lack of statistical understanding - the overall statistics are far more influenced by games where he threw the ball more

Ding, ding ding... The fact is, that YPA in Green Bay is right where Manning was at in the other games in the play-offs, which shows that there was no impact from the weather. His numbers in Green Bay were consistent with how he normally performs. You throw short passes, the weather impacts the passing very little. It is onyl felt when you throw long and the air is heavy.

You can take out ANY QBs top play in one of their better games and their average will drop -- all you have show is that the average is impacted by big plays.

Congratulations, you just passed your first intro stats exam. Too bad you are failing the others.

So what? When he threw over 30 times a game, when he was forced to make plays, what happened to his passer rating?

This is, perhaps the dumbest statement you have made.

When Manning was FORCED to make plays. Hows about looking at situations when the opponent KNEW he was throwing. End of the first half in Dallas. Final drive in the Superbowl.

19 plays -- 18 designed as passes (sacked on one scrambled on the other). One designed as a run.

9-16 133 Yards 2 TDs. All in about 3 minutes total. That's 8.3 YPA for a 123.2 Passer Rating.

Clearly your "forced to make plays" argument just went in the crapper.

PR doesn't taek into account the type of offense they ran and why Manning had the numbers he did. It is called dumming-down the offense...

PR is influenced by YPA, TD, Ints, etc. All that is influenced by the offense.

And Troy Aikman thinks the PR system sucks and doesn't indicate a players performance that well. The more weight that is given to the games with pass attempts surely doesn't equalize with the over-bloated ratings Manning got as a result of the two games when the ball wasn't in his hands.

And the two situations where the game was in his hands, he rocked it. Troy wouldn't argue that.

And what makes you think that Manning would have performed better the more times he threw the ball, especially considering his numbers drop significantly when he throw more? Further, they had only two decent drives that whole game.

His numbers dropped when he played in -23 degree weather

You can point to "decent drives" against Dallas but the fact is that the Giants hardly had the freaking ball -- they ran barely over 40 plays. Again, I'm not going to engage in "what if" analyses -- Players are judged on their actual, not imagined performances

It is nice that you are averaging it per game, but that shows very little when one is speaking about trends. You very well know that what we are talking about is when the ball is in Eli Manning's hands... The two games where his P/R was incredibly high was when he threw the ball very little.. When he threw the ball alot, meaning the game was in his hands, his Passer rating dropped significantly. Brad Johnson threw over 30 passes in EACH OF THE FOUR GAMES, which shows a consistent trend unlike Manning's numbers.

No, I am summing over the games and computing based on the total.

You want to talk "trends" then look at play when it mattered. That's the only meaningful "trend" here.

 

[khiladi]

Statistically signficant refers to the result from a null hypothesis significance test. Don't use that term, it makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

Or it could just mean that the numbers are just not coincidental, you know. It could just mean the statistics point to something with meaning. I'll use the word when I want... The fact is the point is there.

And as I noted, even taking your YPA approach, he's still got a very solid performance. That one Dallas play, as I showed, did little to impact the more holistic statistic, his Passer Rating

'Holistic' statistic? That's laughable. You seem to keep missing the point. So what? He threw the ball 18 times. He completed 12 passes out of 18. How many games does a QB throw on average 18 times a game and complete only 12 passes? How many times does Amani Toomer ever break a tackle on a play and run for 52 yards on a lame tackle attempt by Anothony Henry... What is that for Manning? 111 yards passing?

On that first drive they scored on, Manning threw one short pass left for a TD. His other pass should have been called as intentional grounding. 4 of the 6 plays was a run. On their second drive, which was 5 minutes, 3 of the 9 plays were pass, and 2 of them short. The incomplete was a deep pass to Burress. Again, the game was to play mistake free with Manning. His thrid drive, 7 plays, 3 of them pass plays. 1 incomplete and 1 sack for 10 yards. The one he completes was a short pass. Again, the game-plan was to play mistake free. On the drive they scored, out of the 7 plays, 3 of the 4 passes were on Jacques Reeves. 2 of them were short, one of them got extra yardag on a face-mask, the other was a short pass to Boss on reeves and Boss took it 19 yards.

What is obvious that, while the Cowboys did control the TOP, part of that had to do with the fact that the Giants couldn't accomplish anything on offense other than short passes, with the exception of the last drive in the first half. They weren't racking up any first downs.

The guy didn't do anything singificant, other than make some basic throws and all of them on Jacques Reeves... And your claiming greatness for Eli? A couple dink-offs here and there, and he is suppose to be great?

Wow, fantasy land analysis

Really? And your statement is based upon a trend of Eli Manning throughout the season? Who is living in a fantasy land?

So his average 73.9 P/R in 2007 should be blurred by two games in the play-offs, and one of them , where he threw 18 times giving him a 134 passer rating? And I am living in fantasy land? A guy that has 23 TDs and a whopping 20 INT in the season? And I am living in fantasy land?

So suddenly, Eli Manning becomes great because of a 12 for 18 game performance, and he threw for what, a whopping 160 yards, with 40 of them coming on a busted play? And I am living in fantasy land?

How is it hard to digest that a game with 18 attempts has far less impact statistically on his PR than does a game with 40 attempts? The ball was in Eli's hands for roughly the same proportion of plays (near 50-50) in all the games except the SB where the Giants ran 37 pass plays to 26 runs (and three of those runs were by Manning).

And yet, your the one averaging out the 4 games in the play-offs equally Mr. Statistical Genius? So what this means is that his 70 passer and 80 passer rating should be weighted more than his 134 passer rating, but your not doing it Mr. Null Hypothesis. And further, what does the pass run play have to do with the issue? We are talking about when Eli Manning has to throw the ball, his passer rating dorps significantly. One can still maintain an equal pass to run ratio, but one can simply run shorter passing routes. They could have a lower TOP because they aren't getting first downs to keep moving the chains, which was pretty much what was happening.

You try and argue that Eli not getting a chance to throw that much had to do with the Cowboys solely taking the TOP on the offense, but you neglect the fact that for the Cowboys to get the ball, the Giants have to not make first downs.

Again, you can pick out play by play for ANY QB and reduce their performance considerably

.

When you throw 18 times, the numbers are impacted way more. Just as he can be reduced considerably, his numbers can be increased considerably because of a busted play, here and there. And I'm arguing the latter, with considerable more evidence.

And that game was in -23 weather. In that game, one of the best QBs in NFL history had a 70.7 PR.

And your point in relation to Eli Manning and his trend of similar numbers throughout the play-offs no matter the weather?

Well, for one 7.2 doesn't equal 6. Start there.

I'm sure you get the point.

Just giving you some context -- and get the hell off the 18 throws. Manning threw 18 times for a reason -- not because he was having his throws limited but because the Giants didn't have the ball.

By your logic, anytime a QB does throw much, then he should have a higher PR?

Why should I get off the 18 throws? Even you argue that the P/R is adjusted by the number of throws, and you want me to get off the 18 throws when we are establishing trends of Eli Manning? What makes you think he would have performed better, when he only completed 12 passes? When he threw over 30 times a game, his passer rating dropped.

I "get" your argument - I just see it as idiotic. Let's seem, Manning has a PR in the high 90s for the playoffs. Ooh, it goes down it you cherry pick play after play and take those plays away. Of course. You aren't cherry picking Johnson's plays so, your argument it not valid.

Johnson threw over 30 times EVERY SINGLE GAME. And oyur talking about consistency? Even you acknowledge that P/R rating takes into account the number of times a player passes, and yet, your averaging equivalent with the game he only threw 18 times.

Again -- your idea of "skew" shows a lack of statistical understanding - the overall statistics are far more influenced by games where he threw the ball more

And yet genius, your taking the P/R of the games where he threw less asd equivalent to when he threw more...

You can take out ANY QBs top play in one of their better games and their average will drop -- all you have show is that the average is impacted by big plays.

Congratulations, you just passed your first intro stats exam. Too bad you are failing the others.

And ironically, we have you trying to liken Manning to Brady and Favre, who have been playing at a high-level for years, unlike Manning who had two games that were not even that impressive... All you have is a P/R of a game where 52 yards came on a busted play, a non-call by the refs, and a BS call by the refs on Ware... Coupled by a drive where the Giants only had 30 yards to go because of excellent field position by special teams...


This is, perhaps the dumbest statement you have made.

When Manning was FORCED to make plays. Hows about looking at situations when the opponent KNEW he was throwing. End of the first half in Dallas. Final drive in the Superbowl.

19 plays -- 18 designed as passes (sacked on one scrambled on the other). One designed as a run.

9-16 133 Yards 2 TDs. All in about 3 minutes total. That's 8.3 YPA for a 123.2 Passer Rating.

Clearly your "forced to make plays" argument just went in the crapper.

And that is why we let go of, yes, you guessed it Jacques Reeves... Congratulations for your argument.... You showed Manning could throw on Jacques reeves and also get another 15 yards on a face-mask by his crappy play....

And the two situations where the game was in his hands, he rocked it. Troy wouldn't argue that.

How did he specifically rock it?

You can point to "decent drives" against Dallas but the fact is that the Giants hardly had the freaking ball -- they ran barely over 40 plays. Again, I'm not going to engage in "what if" analyses -- Players are judged on their actual, not imagined performances

Which means that they couldn't sustain any drives as well. They onyl moved the ball in 3 situations... One of them, the Amaani Toomer situation... The other, the last few seconds with Jacques Reeves, and the other, with great field position. The only real drive one can consider is the last drive, but that was total busted coverage on Jacques Reeves.

No, I am summing over the games and computing based on the total.

You want to talk "trends" then look at play when it mattered. That's the only meaningful "trend" here.

Wow... You proved that the Giants one the Super Bowl.. When are you going to prove that ELi Manning is a great player and had an all-world performance in the play-offs...

 

[AbeBeta]

Or it could just mean a particular result that was not just coincidental, you know, Mr. Null Hypothesis... It could just mean the statistics point to something with meaning....

No, the term significant has a precise statistical meaning. Don't use it otherwise.

'Holistic' statistic? That's laughable. You seem to keep missing the point. So what? He threw the ball 18 times. He completed 12 passes out of 18. How many games does a QB throw on average 18 times a game and complete only 12 passes?

That's a 67% completion rate - the average completion rate in the NFL last year was 61%. So I'd guess that very FEW QB approach 12 completions on 18 passes.

Again, he threw 18 times because the Giants hardly had the ball.

Really? And your statement is based upon a trend of Eli Manning throughout the season? Who is living in a fantasy land?

So his average 73.9 P/R in 2007 should be blurred by two games in the play-offs, and one of them , where he threw 18 times giving him a 134 passer rating? And I am living in fantasy land? A guy that has 23 TDs and a whopping 20 INT in the season? And I am living in fantasy land?

So suddenly, Eli Manning becomes great because of a 12 for 18 game performance, and he threw for what, a whopping 160 yards, with 40 of them coming on a busted play? And I am living in fantasy land?

No, Manning's high 90s PR in the playoffs suggests an outstanding performance. Again, if you are so concerned about an 18 pass game then should understand that it didn't influence his numbers tremendously. You take that game out and he still has an 89.2 PR for the playoffs -- of course if you take a good game out for ANY QB their PR will fall.

And yet, your the one averaging out the 4 games in the play-offs equally Mr. Statistical Genius? So what this means is that his 70 passer and 80 passer rating should be weighted more than his 134 passer rating, but your not doing it Mr. Null Hypothesis....

How many times do I need to say this -- to get the PR I took the TOTAL attempts, total completions, total yards, total td, and total ints and calculated PR. I did not take each PR, add them and divide by 4.

Try reading there sister.

And further, what does the pass run play have to do with the issue? We are talking about when Eli Manning has to throw the ball, his passer rating dorps significantly. One can still maintain an equal pass to run ratio, but one can simply passing routes.

You say "when he passes more" but passing more is a function of the % of passes of the total plays in the game. Your argument was when he is forced to throw -- and that was clearly wrong.

When you throw 18 times, the numbers are impacted way more Mr. Null Hypothesis. Thus, the numebrs get skewed more. Remember, we are talking about trend...

Only if you take each game and average by game. Which I didn;t

Why should I get off the 18 throws? Even you argue that the P/R is adjusted by the number of throws, and you want me to get off the 18 throws when we are establishing trends of Eli Manning? What makes you think he would have performed better, when he only completed 12 passes? When he threw over 30 times a game, his passer rating dropped.

a point totally destroyed by the analysis that shows what happened when he "had to throw"

Johnson threw over 30 times EVERY SINGLE GAME. And oyur talking about consistency? Even you acknowledge that P/R rating takes into account the number of times a player passes, and yet, your averaging equivalent with the game he only threw 18 times.

Johnson's team HAD THE BALL enough for him to throw over 30 times a game. Had Manning thrown over 30 times in Dallas it would have reflected a completely unbalanced offensive strategy wherein the Giants threw nearly 75% of the time.

And yet genius, your taking the P/R of the games where he threw less asd equivalent to when he threw more...

Again, if you read the post you will see that isn't the case -- calculate it yourself if you don't understand the concept

And ironically, we have you trying to liken Manning to Brady and Favre, who have been playing at a high-level for years, unlike Manning who had two games that were not even that impressive... All you have is a P/R of a game where 52 yards came on a busted play, a non-call by the refs, and a BS call by the refs on Ware... Coupled by a drive where the Giants only had 30 yards to go because of excellent field position by special teams...

This is, perhaps the dumbest statement you have made.

Comparing is different from likening.

Again, you go and pick out all the bad calls and busted Ds that got Johnson his stats and we'll talk - otherwise you need to understand that blown Ds and lucky plays happen for ALL QBs.

You cherry pick all those plays out of any QBs stats and his numbers will fall -- just like if you take all the drops and late game hail mary ints out of a players stats, they will rise.

And that is why we let go of, yes, you guessed it Jacques Reeves... Congratulations for your argument.... You showed Manning could throw on Jacques reeves and also get another 15 yards on a face-mask by his crappy play....

Wow, brilliant, no other team had CBs who get burned. You've got to be able to take advantage of those matchups. Manning did. Point blank.

How did he rock it?

A drive to win a Superbowl?

Which means that they couldn't sustain any drives as well. They onyl moved the ball in 3 situations... One of them, the Amaani Toomer situation... The other, the last few seconds with Jacques Reeves, and the other, with great field position...

No, it reflected more that two Dallas drives took up 18 minutes. The Giants scored on 3 of the 8 possessions.

The only real drive one can consider is the last drive, but that was total busted coverage on Jacques Reeves...

Cherry picking again I see

Wow... You proved that the Giants one the Super Bowl.. When are oyu going to prove that ELi Manning is a great player and had an all-world performance in the play-offs...

I've presented the PR stats, shown again that you misinterpreted the calculations, and totally destroyed your "having to pass argument" -- unless you've got something substantial to add then I'll be out for a while taking my victory lap

 

[khiladi]

No, the term significant has a precise statistical meaning. Don't use it otherwise.

That is where your confusion lies my friend. The null hypothesis test is a means to measure whether something has statistical singificance or not. To claim something is statistcially significant is just that... The statistics show a trend that have meaning.

That's a 67% completion rate - the average completion rate in the NFL last year was 61%. So I'd guess that very FEW QB approach 12 completions on 18 passes.

Wow... The NFL average completion rate for the WHOLE YEAR was 61 percent. Guess what Eli Manning's completion rate was? 56 percent. That is BELOW AVERAGE. What does that tell you when you argue that Manning's performance will continue into next year? What was his completiong percentage the last two games of the play-offs? Oh yeah, that's right. 52 percent and 56 percent, right at his season average. Seems like he came down to earth, however far he went up in the first place is a matter of dispute.

Again, he threw 18 times because the Giants hardly had the ball.

Do the Giants have a reponsbility of getting first downs to control the clock? As I quoted before:

On that first drive they scored on, Manning threw one short pass left for a TD. His other pass should have been called as intentional grounding. 4 of the 6 plays was a run. On their second drive, which was 5 minutes, 3 of the 9 plays were pass, and 2 of them short. The incomplete was a deep pass to Burress. Again, the game was to play mistake free with Manning. His thrid drive, 7 plays, 3 of them pass plays. 1 incomplete and 1 sack for 10 yards. The one he completes was a short pass. Again, the game-plan was to play mistake free. On the drive they scored, out of the 7 plays, 3 of the 4 passes were on Jacques Reeves. 2 of them were short, one of them got extra yardag on a face-mask, the other was a short pass to Boss on reeves and Boss took it 19 yards.

Tell me, were the Giants not to blame in their TOP? What type of passes was Manning throwing? Where was the chunkage of yardage being gained by teh Giants?

No, Manning's high 90s PR in the playoffs suggests an outstanding performance. Again, if you are so concerned about an 18 pass game then should understand that it didn't influence his numbers tremendously. You take that game out and he still has an 89.2 PR for the playoffs -- of course if you take a good game out for ANY QB their PR will fall.

And I am suggesting that there was nothing otustanding about it. Further, you extended the argument by arguing that he would continue the trend next season. The fact is, 2 of the 4 games, he performed about average his regular season performance.
And your arguing he would continue the trend of his play-off performance which wasn't spectacular?

You say "when he passes more" but passing more is a function of the % of passes of the total plays in the game. Your argument was when he is forced to throw -- and that was clearly wrong.

No, my argument is that when he throws the ball more he performs average. The Giants clearly don't want Manning throwing the ball much, and further, they shortened the field for him. Further, the completion percrntage of his passes has nothing to do with the pass-run ratio.

a point totally destroyed by the analysis that shows what happened when he "had to throw"

Talk about hyperbole...

Johnson's team HAD THE BALL enough for him to throw over 30 times a game. Had Manning thrown over 30 times in Dallas it would have reflected a completely unbalanced offensive strategy wherein the Giants threw nearly 75% of the time.

And part of that having the ball has nothing to do with the offense getting first downs? Maybe Brad Johnson had 30 times to throw the ball because he was making first downs and moving the chains.

Comparing is different from likening.

Again, you go and pick out all the bad calls and busted Ds that got Johnson his stats and we'll talk - otherwise you need to understand that blown Ds and lucky plays happen for ALL QBs.

And Johnson threw the ball way more than Eli Manning. So the numbers in all probability would not be skewed as much. Johnson never had a game where he threw 18 times in the play-offs.

You cherry pick all those plays out of any QBs stats and his numbers will fall -- just like if you take all the drops and late game hail mary ints out of a players stats, they will rise.

There isn't any cherry-picking. Those were the significant plays in the whole game against teh Cowboys.

Wow, brilliant, no other team had CBs who get burned. You've got to be able to take advantage of those matchups. Manning did. Point blank.

And that proves Eli Manning was great or that Jacques Reeves just flat out sucks?

A drive to win a Superbowl?

A drive where Asante Samuels missed a sure itnerception in his hands that would have went back for a TD. A drive where Tyree made an amazing catch that was a throw into clear coverahe? A drive wher Plaxico Burress flat out burned his corner leaving him wide-open? I'd put that more on the other players than Eli, though I'll give him credit for avoiding the sack when he threw it to Tyree. And where was his completion percentage at in this game relative to the whole year?

No, it reflected more that two Dallas drives took up 18 minutes. The Giants scored on 3 of the 8 possessions.

And what did the Giants do on the other 5 drives? In all the other drives, what were the plays and how much yardage did they rack up?
And how did the Giants score in the first drive? They had one play that was over a couple of yards, a busted play on the AMaani Toomer TD. And you think Toomer would make that play more than 1 time out of 10. The rest were small gains by Bradshaw on the run. The 3 drive, they only had 34 yards because of field position on special teams.

I've presented the PR stats, shown again that you misinterpreted the calculations, and totally destroyed your "having to pass argument" -- unless you've got something substantial to add then I'll be out for a while taking my victory lap

That is akin to something Wimp-Lo from Kung Pao would say..

The fact is, Eli Manning played above average, but he surely wasn't spectacular or outstanding.... And there surely isn't any reason to think this trend would contiue, or that he is in any way, shape or form equivalent to Romo as a QB, which is the original subject of this thread...

 

[AbeBeta]

That is where your confusion lies my friend. The null hypothesis test is a means to measure whether something has statistical singificance or not. To claim something is statistcially significant is just that... The statistics show a trend that have meaning.

No, to show something is statistically signficant has nothing to do with whether it has meaning or not -- it has to do with whether a sampled result is likely to come from a certain population (the one specified in the null hypothesis). Anyone who equates statistical significance with "meaning" doesn't know what they are talking about.

Wow... The NFL average completion rate for the WHOLE YEAR was 61 percent. Guess what Eli Manning's completion rate was? 56 percent. That is BELOW AVERAGE. What does that tell you when you argue that Manning's performance will continue into next year? What was his completiong percentage the last two games of the play-offs? Oh yeah, that's right. 52 percent and 56 percent, right at his season average. Seems like he came down to earth, however far he went up in the first place is a matter of dispute.

Never argued that his regular season performance was good. Again - you can say "came down to earth" or you can recognize that he had a high 90s PR for the playoffs. The choice is yours.

Do the Giants have a reponsbility of getting first downs to control the clock? As I quoted before:

Tell me, were the Giants not to blame in their TOP? What type of passes was Manning throwing? Where was the chunkage of yardage being gained by teh Giants?

The Giants main issue in that game was that Dallas controlled the ball for 18 minutes on two drives. That's on the D. Not the O. When Manning got the ball back with less than a minute left in between those drives he kicked our *****.

How exactly would he have controlled the clock better in that situation?

And I am suggesting that there was nothing otustanding about it. Further, you extended the argument by arguing that he would continue the trend next season. The fact is, 2 of the 4 games, he performed about average his regular season performance.
And your arguing he would continue the trend of his play-off performance which wasn't spectacular?

First, his playoff performance was spectacular -- all you've shown is that you take out big plays and he gets worse. You can say that about ANY player.

Second, my argument was that folks who want to beat the Manning sucks drum may be in for a surprise as his performances last year IN THE PLAYOFFS AND SUPERBOWL showed that he may have turned the corner

No, my argument is that when he throws the ball more he performs average. The Giants clearly don't want Manning throwing the ball much, and further, they shortened the field for him. Further, the completion percrntage of his passes has nothing to do with the pass-run ratio.

The pass run ratio has to do with what sort of balance the offense has. You keep harping on the 18 passes but it means nothing. The Cowboys held the ball. You know you don't get pass attempts when your defense is on the field, right?

And part of that having the ball has nothing to do with the offense getting first downs? Maybe Brad Johnson had 30 times to throw the ball because he was making first downs and moving the chains.

And Johnson threw the ball way more than Eli Manning. So the numbers in all probability would not be skewed as much. Johnson never had a game where he threw 18 times in the play-offs.

And Johnson never had a game where the opponent held the ball for 18 minutes on two drives either. Again % of plays, not raw number is the relevant value here. Had the Giants stopped those drives, Manning would have had more attempts.

There isn't any cherry-picking. Those were the significant plays in the whole game against teh Cowboys.

You take out important plays and you are cherry picking

A drive where Asante Samuels missed a sure itnerception in his hands that would have went back for a TD. A drive where Tyree made an amazing catch that was a throw into clear coverahe? A drive wher Plaxico Burress flat out burned his corner leaving him wide-open? I'd put that more on the other players than Eli, though I'll give him credit for avoiding the sack when he threw it to Tyree. And where was his completion percentage at in this game relative to the whole year?

And what did the Giants do on the other 5 drives? In all the other drives, what were the plays and how much yardage did they rack up?
And how did the Giants score in the first drive? They had one play that was over a couple of yards, a busted play on the AMaani Toomer TD. And you think Toomer would make that play more than 1 time out of 10. The rest were small gains by Bradshaw on the run. The 3 drive, they only had 34 yards because of field position on special teams.

Since you continue to cherry pick Manning but refuse to evaluate Johnson's performance in that manner (because you know if you took out his "got lucky" plays, he'd look even worse) I have no option but to close with this. You are going to need it:

Crust
1/3 cup whole milk
1 tablespoon distilled white vinegar
2 cups all purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup chilled solid vegetable shortening, cut into 1/2-inch cubes

Filling
2/3 cup plus 1/4 cup sugar
3 tablespoons cornstarch
2 tablespoons orange juice
1 tablespoon grated orange peel
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon almond extract
1/8 teaspoon salt
5 cups pitted fresh cherries (about 2 1/2 pounds) or frozen pitted sweet dark cherries, thawed, drained (about 26 ounces frozen)

1 egg, beaten to blend with 2 teaspoons water (for glaze)

For crust:
Whisk milk and vinegar in small bowl to blend. Whisk flour and salt in medium bowl to blend; add shortening and rub in with fingertips until mixture resembles coarse meal. Stir in milk mixture; briefly knead in bowl just until dough comes together. Gather dough into ball. Divide into 2 pieces, 1 slightly larger than the other. Flatten each piece into disk. Wrap disks separately in plastic and refrigerate 30 minutes.

Meanwhile, prepare filling:
Mix 2/3 cup sugar and next 6 ingredients in large bowl to combine. Add cherries and toss to blend. Let stand 30 minutes.

 

[Clove]

Romo is better, but Eli is a Super Bowl winner. I'd rather suck and win the Super Bowl, than to be great and win nothing.