Football

[Meddling Mike]

Allright, fine, let's take the empirical approach to this. The average number of points allowed per game by the Patriots defense was 17. Quite a coincidence, 274 Points allowed in the regular season and 49 allowed in 3 playoff games. (274 + 49 = 323  323/19=17) A good argument against the validity of this number would be to point out that some of these points were scored in junk time with the Patriots playing prevent defense, but I think this is more than cancelled out by the opportunities created by the defense that no other team was able to produce against the Patriots offense this year.

It's also worth noting that we already have a template for what should qualify as a good game against the Patriots offensively for Eli. In week 17 Eli managed to put up 35 points, in the Super Bowl he only managed to put up less than half of that.

Eli's Week 17 line:
22/32 4 TD 1 INT QB Rating 118.6
Eli's Super Bowl Line:
19/34 2 TD 1 INT QB Rating 87.3

Eli's day was average at best, he's capable of playing better football, but didn't.

idk why I keep arguing with you about this stuff, this is the same guy who was telling me that Carson Palmer > Brady/P. Manning at the beginning of this thread.

The problem with your empirical approach is that it relies upon data that is unreliable for the conclusion your trying to make.

The quarterback rating idea is almost worthless in a single game.   It's ok as a long-range statistic.  It would be like playing 3 games of Belcher v. Control Slaver and saying that the match up is 66-33. 

To the point however, it doesn't *prove* that one QB played better than another. It's fairly weak inductive evidence. 

For instance, Eli's interception hugely impacted his QB rating.  Yet, that "interception" was anything but.  It was an EXTREMELY unlucky bounce.   Eli had NO interceptions in three previous playoff games and then only one in the super bowl, one that you have to discount as it was a very, very unlucky bounce.

Fine Steve, if my own informed opinion, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and QB rating are unreliable data then what is reliable data that you would be satisfied with? There's no way that I could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, there's too many factors to consider. Maybe this time around he got scared by Rodney Harrison's "mean face" and it really threw off his game. It's a good argument based on available evidence.

If we want to address the fact that the interception came off a lucky bounce, maybe we should have taken into account that he threw a game ending interception and a pro-bowl corner just happened to develop a severe case of butterfingers with the Super Bowl on the line.

That's like saying Joe Montana didn't play a good game in Super Bowl XVI because he had played better during the regular season. You don't have to have a great statistical performance to 'play well'.

Fine Josh, give me some kind of evidence that Eli's performance on the day was above average. I've pointed out that 17 points is the exact definition of an average game against the Patriots defense. I've pointed out how Eli had a much better game against the exact same defense a few weeks prior since the Demon was attributing Eli's low point total to the strength of the Patriots defense.

My point is that an average NFL starting quarterback having an average day could've done exactly what Eli did. The Giants defense being able to consistently stop the Patriots offense was what won that game and they deserve all the credit as far as I'm concerned.

[Vegeta2711]

Fine Josh, give me some kind of evidence that Eli's performance on the day was above average. I've pointed out that 17 points is the exact definition of an average game against the Patriots defense. I've pointed out how Eli had a much better game against the exact same defense a few weeks prior since the Demon was attributing Eli's low point total to the strength of the Patriots defense.

I'll only point out the obvious in that this time when the Patriots played the Giants, they had two weeks of rest for an old front-line and LB cops and a chance to at least try to scheme out some plans based on the information the collected the last time and it's probable that had an effect on how the game played out points-wise.

Otherwise I doubt anything I say is going to convince you, so why bother? Like I said there's a ton of threads already on all the actual football message boards I visit and I'm sure if you spent 5 seconds on Google you could find a few good ones if you're really interested. 

[kirdape3]

He had an average game or an average-plus game (87.6 passer rating is a little better than league average).  That being said, he was absolutely monumental when he had to be.  He doesn't have to be stellar, but he was good enough.  Namath wasn't much better in Super Bowl III, and he's lauded as a hero even though Snell basically won them that game.

Brady on the other hand had an average-minus game at best, with much less support.  That was the difference.

[Smmenen]

Allright, fine, let's take the empirical approach to this. The average number of points allowed per game by the Patriots defense was 17. Quite a coincidence, 274 Points allowed in the regular season and 49 allowed in 3 playoff games. (274 + 49 = 323  323/19=17) A good argument against the validity of this number would be to point out that some of these points were scored in junk time with the Patriots playing prevent defense, but I think this is more than cancelled out by the opportunities created by the defense that no other team was able to produce against the Patriots offense this year.

It's also worth noting that we already have a template for what should qualify as a good game against the Patriots offensively for Eli. In week 17 Eli managed to put up 35 points, in the Super Bowl he only managed to put up less than half of that.

Eli's Week 17 line:
22/32 4 TD 1 INT QB Rating 118.6
Eli's Super Bowl Line:
19/34 2 TD 1 INT QB Rating 87.3

Eli's day was average at best, he's capable of playing better football, but didn't.

idk why I keep arguing with you about this stuff, this is the same guy who was telling me that Carson Palmer > Brady/P. Manning at the beginning of this thread.

The problem with your empirical approach is that it relies upon data that is unreliable for the conclusion your trying to make.

The quarterback rating idea is almost worthless in a single game.   It's ok as a long-range statistic.  It would be like playing 3 games of Belcher v. Control Slaver and saying that the match up is 66-33. 

To the point however, it doesn't *prove* that one QB played better than another. It's fairly weak inductive evidence. 

For instance, Eli's interception hugely impacted his QB rating.  Yet, that "interception" was anything but.  It was an EXTREMELY unlucky bounce.   Eli had NO interceptions in three previous playoff games and then only one in the super bowl, one that you have to discount as it was a very, very unlucky bounce.

Fine Steve, if my own informed opinion, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and QB rating are unreliable data then what is reliable data that you would be satisfied with?

Answering that request has nothing to do with my criticism.

Let me turn it back on you, if you are so quick to accept what you call "empirical data" - would you trust me if I said that I played GAT v. MUD two games and found that GAT won both, and therefore has a 100% matchup against MUD?  Or would you say that the underlying data doesn't even come close to proving the assertion?

There's no way that I could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, there's too many factors to consider.

Your setting up a false standard to implicitly suggest that my critique more limited than it was and simultaneously suggest that you established something less than beyond a shadow of a doubt but more than reliable support. 

The QB rating itself isn't credible support even under a preponderance test.  It has no reliability at all to prove the point that Eli's performance was merely average. 

The QB rating tells us SOMETHING, clearly, but what it tells us should be taken with a mountain of salt. 

[The Demon]

Ohhhh Smennnennnnnn.....

Any Superbowl predictions for us?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OL

How does it feel? 

I'd prefer to give little/no credit to Eli personally. When your defense is giving you one opportunity after another to score points mustering 17 is no great accomplishment.

How do you give no credit to Eli Manning?  He lead his team down the field for a game winning touchdown.  That insane break from the sack and pass to Tyree with three Patriot defensive players coming at him is just as impressive as anything that Brady has done in any of his superbowls.

He had one good drive the entire game. If his defense hadn't been able to keep the Patriots score to an unprecedented season low (The Patriots previous season low points total of 20 would have been adequate to win this game) and kept the Patriots off the field and give Eli tons of opportunities we'd all be talking about what a choke artist he is. He played 3 quarters of football without scoring a touchdown and threw an Interception in the red zone. Rex Grossman probably could've managed to pull this off.

Eli Manning was playing against a very good defense Meddling Mage.  You don't have to throw for 300 yards and 4 TDs to have a good passing game.  And that interception in the redzone was not his fault.  That INT was totally the Wide Receivers fault, not his. 

If his defense had played poorly would be talking about the blowout that happened, not the poor play of Eli Manning that did not happen.  Hell, he pulled a Tom Brady honestly.  Did absolutely nothing special for a good chunk of the game and lead his team to a victory late in the game.  Except this time he actually scored a touchdown, not go up the field for 55 yards and win off a TD. 

As far as only one good drive, it was mentioned earlier and it is worth mentioning again that his first drive was excellent.  The drive lasted about nine minutes.  They shortened the game against a great offense, exactly what was wrong with this?

The truth of the matter is that Eli played a fine game, the Patriots played poor, Tom Brady sucked almost the entire game, and that last sack on Tom Brady was amazing.

Allright, fine, let's take the empirical approach to this. The average number of points allowed per game by the Patriots defense was 17. Quite a coincidence, 274 Points allowed in the regular season and 49 allowed in 3 playoff games. (274 + 49 = 323  323/19=17) A good argument against the validity of this number would be to point out that some of these points were scored in junk time with the Patriots playing prevent defense, but I think this is more than cancelled out by the opportunities created by the defense that no other team was able to produce against the Patriots offense this year.

It's also worth noting that we already have a template for what should qualify as a good game against the Patriots offensively for Eli. In week 17 Eli managed to put up 35 points, in the Super Bowl he only managed to put up less than half of that.

Eli's Week 17 line:
22/32 4 TD 1 INT QB Rating 118.6
Eli's Super Bowl Line:
19/34 2 TD 1 INT QB Rating 87.3

Eli's day was average at best, he's capable of playing better football, but didn't.

idk why I keep arguing with you about this stuff, this is the same guy who was telling me that Carson Palmer > Brady/P. Manning at the beginning of this thread.

He lead his team down the field for the victory on one of the best if not THE best drive in superbowl history.  He grinded out the clock, made few mistakes, made few bad throws.  He had a hell of a game.  The Interception he threw was not his fault, and he threw a pass that could have been picked by Samuel.  He threw for 255 yards, that isn't bad considering that the Patriots defense is pretty damn stout. They where like sixth in pass defense this year where they not? Spin it all you want Meddling Mage, all you do is come off as a bitter fan.  For years and years Patriot fans would scream that stats do not matter at all and all you should judge a QB on is winning and how he performs in the clutch.  That last drive topped any single late game heroics that Tom Brady ever did.  Going by the mantra of Patriot Fans you should love the hell out of Eli Manning.

[Meddling Mike]

Allright, fine, let's take the empirical approach to this. The average number of points allowed per game by the Patriots defense was 17. Quite a coincidence, 274 Points allowed in the regular season and 49 allowed in 3 playoff games. (274 + 49 = 323  323/19=17) A good argument against the validity of this number would be to point out that some of these points were scored in junk time with the Patriots playing prevent defense, but I think this is more than cancelled out by the opportunities created by the defense that no other team was able to produce against the Patriots offense this year.

It's also worth noting that we already have a template for what should qualify as a good game against the Patriots offensively for Eli. In week 17 Eli managed to put up 35 points, in the Super Bowl he only managed to put up less than half of that.

Eli's Week 17 line:
22/32 4 TD 1 INT QB Rating 118.6
Eli's Super Bowl Line:
19/34 2 TD 1 INT QB Rating 87.3

Eli's day was average at best, he's capable of playing better football, but didn't.

idk why I keep arguing with you about this stuff, this is the same guy who was telling me that Carson Palmer > Brady/P. Manning at the beginning of this thread.

The problem with your empirical approach is that it relies upon data that is unreliable for the conclusion your trying to make.

The quarterback rating idea is almost worthless in a single game.   It's ok as a long-range statistic.  It would be like playing 3 games of Belcher v. Control Slaver and saying that the match up is 66-33. 

To the point however, it doesn't *prove* that one QB played better than another. It's fairly weak inductive evidence. 

For instance, Eli's interception hugely impacted his QB rating.  Yet, that "interception" was anything but.  It was an EXTREMELY unlucky bounce.   Eli had NO interceptions in three previous playoff games and then only one in the super bowl, one that you have to discount as it was a very, very unlucky bounce.

Fine Steve, if my own informed opinion, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and QB rating are unreliable data then what is reliable data that you would be satisfied with?

Answering that request has nothing to do with my criticism.

Let me turn it back on you, if you are so quick to accept what you call "empirical data" - would you trust me if I said that I played GAT v. MUD two games and found that GAT won both, and therefore has a 100% matchup against MUD?  Or would you say that the underlying data doesn't even come close to proving the assertion?

There's no way that I could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, there's too many factors to consider.

Your setting up a false standard to implicitly suggest that my critique more limited than it was and simultaneously suggest that you established something less than beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The QB rating itself doesn't even establish your point under a preponderance test.  It has no reliability at all to prove the point that Eli's performance was merely average. 

The QB rating tells us SOMETHING, clearly, but what it tells us should be taken with a mountain of salt. 

For starters, this two game analogy is hugely flawed. In a game of magic, there are three potential outcomes, a draw is pretty rare, but there's really no grey area or middle ground in that analogy, which is the basis of what I'm trying to establish here. A better analogy would be to single out a specific card or element in a deck, like a red splash in GAT. I took my red splash GAT to a 16 round tournament. All throughout the day the Red Splash was moderately good. I played a deck just before the cut to top 8 and the red splash nearly won me the game. Saw the same deck again in the finals of the Top 8, he got mana screwed and I won. Sure, I won with the Red Splash, but the outcome would've been the same with just about any of the other options for those slots.

The fact of the matter is that there's a pretty solid body of work by which to judge the strength of Eli's performance, both his own offensive production over the course of the year and the Patriots defense's points allowed  are relevant statistics and not drawn from a negligible sample size. Suggesting that it's on the same plane as two or three testing games isn't an accurate analogy.

You keep on making reference to the QB rating, fine, if you don't feel that statistic is itself specifically relevant there are plenty of people who are not a fan. Forget I even mentioned a QB rating. All the other statistics I cited are the standard criteria for judging the production and effectiveness of a quarterback.

The Giants offense on average produced 23 points per game over the course of the season/playoffs, above the 17 they scored against the Patriots.

The Patriots defense allowed 17 points per game over the course of the season/playoffs, the exact amount scored by the Giants this season.

I don't know what sort of ridiculous standards you require to consider football stats valid, but for me, those are solid numbers from a reasonable sample size to say that Eli had an average, unspectacular performance in the Super Bowl. His small amount of production just came at the right time and everybody's quick to forget that he couldn't do jack for 3 quarters.