Eli Manning vs. Ben Roethlisberger: Another perspective
by Ed Valentine on Jul 12, 2009 7:00 AM EDT
in New York Giants News
Email
PrintIt's summer, and there isn't any real football news to talk about. That means it must be time to recycle old arguments. That leads me to Giants' quarterback Eli Manning and Steelers' quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.
In all honesty, I'm not going to argue about which guy is better. I have done it before, and I don't want to rehash my thoughts. Personally, I think they are both terrific. I'm thrilled with having Manning at the helm of the Giants. Steeler fans should be thrilled about having Big Ben taking snaps for their team. Both have shown they can win the big prize, and that should be good enough for everybody.
It's cool with me, though, if other people want to argue about it. That's precisely what ESPN football bloggers Matt Mosley and James Walker did the other day. Thanks, guys. Another summer day where I don't have to knock myself out figuring out what to write about.
Representing the AFC North, here is part of Walker's argument for Big Ben.
Roethlisberger has a higher completion percentage (62.4 to Manning's 55.9), more touchdowns (101 to 98), fewer interceptions (69 to 74), more victories (51 to 42) and a much better career passer rating (89.4 to 76.1) than Manning.
Did I mention Roethlisberger has twice as many championships? ...
Dealing in facts, Roethlisberger won 15 games as a rookie, including playoffs, and won his first Super Bowl in his second season. By the way, the Steelers already gave Roethlisberger a $100-plus million contract, because they knew early that Roethlisberger was the real deal. I find it interesting that the Giants haven't displayed the same level of confidence up to this point in their franchise quarterback.
Speaking of the Giants, let's discuss the Plaxico Burress factor. Burress leaves the Steelers and Roethlisberger becomes an even better player, winning a pair of Super Bowls including one immediately after Burress bolts Pittsburgh in 2005. Burress exits New York and the sky falls on Manning and he's never the same quarterback.
It's the same top-flight receiver. It's two quarterbacks put in a similar scenario. Yet Roethlisberger thrives and Manning crumbles. The "Plax factor" cannot be ignored in this debate. In fact, Manning would've never won his lone Super Bowl title without Burress. Roethlisberger is doing just fine without him.
And forget the argument that Manning does more with less. It's a farce. Manning has the best offensive line in football and two 1,000-yard rushers last season in Brandon Jacobs and former Giant Derrick Ward. Elite protection and an elite running game; what more can a quarterback want?
Meanwhile Roethlisberger has one of the NFL's worst offensive lines and no 1,000-yard rusher in 2008, yet found a way to win Super Bowl XLIII. If you gave Roethlisberger the best offensive line in football and two 1,000-yard rushers, there is no telling the damage the Steelers could do with Roethlisberger under center. ...
Manning is just 4-3 in the playoffs. If you take away his Super Bowl run following the 2007 season, Manning is 0-3 in the postseason. So who would you want under center in a must-win game: Roethlisberger or Manning?
Battling back for the NFC East, here is much of Mosley's retort.
Honestly I felt like James had me on the ropes right up until the time he said, "if you take away [Manning's] Super Bowl run following the 2007 season, Manning is 0-3 in the postseason." Is that one of the most misguided closing arguments in the history of blogging debates or am I being too harsh? For the sake of this argument, I'm hoping James will allow Manning to retain the crowning achievement of his career. What Manning did in the 2007 playoffs -- especially in the Super Bowl -- redefined him as a quarterback in this league. ...
Truth be told, James has a lot more ammunition in terms of numbers, including the two Super Bowl rings that Big Ben's wearing. But seriously, shouldn't you only get a pinky ring when you have a 22.6 passer rating in your first Super Bowl and depend heavily on some very questionable calls to beat the Seahawks? No? ...
Roethlisberger pads his stats against the dregs of the AFC North. With a couple of exceptions, the Bengals and Browns have been brutal during Roethlisberger's time in the league. And it's not like their best competition, the Ravens, have been a juggernaut. Since 2004, the Ravens have had seasons of 9-7, 6-10 and 5-11.
Give Manning a crack at those same teams every season, and his numbers would be dramatically different. He came along when the Eagles were a dominant team and the Cowboys and Redskins are much stronger than anything the Bengals and Browns were putting on the field. Yes, I know the Bengals (and even the Browns) had a good season apiece, so don't try to get me on a technicality.
And one more thing: The whole Burress argument was completely unfair. He wasn't the truly elite receiver in Pittsburgh that he became with the Giants. So of course Big Ben's not going to miss him as much as Manning did. And Roethlisberger had an entire offseason to adjust to life without Burress. It happended to Manning overnight.
The only other thing I can think of right now is that Manning handled both the Steelers and Ravens in '08.
Your thoughts?
76 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with that assessment big time
Ben is the most over rated QB out there. He’s pretty average up until the two minute drill where he all the sudden becomes great. His defenses were usually better than what the Giants had too.
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
Good stuff
Ben has proven to be slightly above average statistically until the game is on the line but truly great when it counts most. His statistics are rarely upper echelon in terms of yards, completion pct., TDs, etc, but when it comes to wins, there are few who are better. If wins and superior clutch play make you “the most overrated”, then I’m sure Ben will be happy to accept that title. Hilarious.
Wait until 2009 is over.
If Ben wins a third title, where would he stand then? I like both guys but winning is the ultimate determinant factor.
Agreed, but
the Giants are loaded and are just as much a contender as the Steelers are. So where will the argument be if the Giants win the SB? It goes both ways you know.
by potroast on Jul 12, 2009 10:14 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Agree with the Giants retort of course
I always love it that people simply cite the Plax absence as the reason for Eli’s downfall, rather than also make note of how good the guy was in the previous games.
INCLUDING THE GAME AGAINST PITTSBURGH! Plax was out for most of the game cuz he had a brain injury. Yes, the rest of the team set up Eli for that TD drive, but it was in FACT Eli who marched them down for that TD drive to tie the game.
And the Giants and Eagles, and yea the MF Cowboys and the Redskins, are 4 of the top 10 teams in the league. Maybe not the skins year in and out, but probably this season and last the Skins were as good as any top 10 team, just that they have to face the other teams in teh BEAST!
The Bengals are a joke, the Browns are a joke. The Ravens vs. Steelers is the toughest 2 games they have to offer, but that’s it.
Ben is an excellent QB. Even if the last SB WAS against the Cardinals (….I’ll leave that alone.), he marched them right down the field for as incredible a comeback as you’ll see.
Eli is not comparable to Roethlisberger
Even Mosley, who takes Eli’s side just for the fun of the charade, says that “all the data suggest[] that I was completely nuts” to think Eli is better than Roethlisberger.
What he’s referring to, I take it, is that the only place where Eli has ever beaten Roethlisberger is in raw volume, like yards, completions and so forth. This is simply because the Giants pass more than the Steelers, and those kind of numbers don’t tell you very much about winning or a player’s value. But that’s a discussion for another day.
Some are saying that Eli would compare more favorably if the two teams were not in the divisions they are, but this is simply untrue, because the divisions are not the whole story on the teams’ schedules. The Steelers had the toughest schedule in the NFL last year and regularly have schedules among the toughest in the NFL. The AFC North games are included in those calculations, so obviously the inferiority of the Ohio teams is more than made up for in nondivision games.
(Even if teams played only their divisionmates, this argument for Eli is still illogical and incomplete. It doesn’t speak directly to opponent defense, which is what is mostly relevant, but only to overall opponent quality. It doesn’t account for the positive statistical effects a QB gets from playing good opponents and falling behind so that he has to pass more. It compares the two divisions in the vaguest possible terms, concluding that the NFC East is just better—but what of the fact that the Ravens and Steelers are each usually better than any of the NFC East teams? Does that counterbalance the Ohio teams’ low quality? You would need to do some real number-crunching. Which is to say, the division-quality argument appears to be just a way to gloss over things and make Giants fans feel better.)
The only reason anybody even debates this is because of who Eli is—Peyton’s brother, playing in New York, and drafted the same year as Roethlisberger (and much higher than Roethlisberger). If Eli were the exact same player and lacked those attributes, nobody would ever think of comparing him to Roethlisberger, because every meaningful objective measure favors Roethlisberger considerably.
I don't know about that
The Giants division goes 4 deep. The Ravens and Steelsers are the only 2 teams that contend in the division. That’s 4 less tough games per season for them, 25% less according to the mathes. That’s not a whole lot of number crunching I guess, but that’s a fact.
Find a QB that wouldn’t have a better record playing 25% of their games against the crap of the NFL, guaranteed each season.
The Steelers and Ravens are NOT better than every NFC East team. The Giants beat both anyway, and the Eagles beat your Steelers too.
ANd the only reason they are compared is because of how good their teams are an cuz they were drafted the same year.
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 12, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Solid argument
The NFC East has been one of the most competitive divisions in football for quite some time. However, since Ben and Eli joined the league the superior conference has been the AFC. The AFC has won 4 of the 5 titles. Therefore, one has to assume that the overall strength of the AFC is a bit higher than the overall strength of the NFC.
If we were only to take into consideration the 6 divisional games played each season then your argument would hold some merit, but there are 10 other games each season that have to be taken into consideration. The NFC East gets to feast on the rest of a mediocre conference while PIT must routinely face a much tougher and deeper AFC schedule, routinely facing NE, IND, JAX, SD, DEN, etc..
I do know for a fact how Ben has fared vs. the NFC during his career. Here is the breakdown:
NFCN – 4-0 – 100%
NFCW – 5-1 – 83%
NFCE – 6-2 – 75%
NFCS – 3-1 – 75%
His overall record is 18-4 vs. the NFC – or a whopping 82% winning percentage. Meanwhile his record vs. the AFC is “only” 46-22 or 68%. The only NFC team he has yet to beat is Atlanta. Based on actual numbers, it actually appears Ben and the Steelers would win even more regularly if they were to play in the NFC. That doesn’t really give any statistical relevance to your theory that Ben would fare worse in the NFC than he does in the AFC.
Although it’s possible there may be some slight advantage in terms of strength of schedule, it’s not nearly as lopsided as you are trying to make it out to be. I don’t have time right now to compare schedules, but I’ll guarantee you there isn’t anywhere near the discrepancy you are claiming there to be and his historical performance against the NFC clearly refutes that assertion altogether.
according to your theory his record vs. the NFC is 18-4 that’s 22 games or 82%
and his record vs. the AFC is 46-22 that’s 68 games or 68%
what if he would have played 66 games vs the NFC ,his record
would have been 54-12 a much higher% vs the AFC.
??
Not quite sure what your point is??
If Ben had played the same number of games vs. the NFC as he has against the AFC (68), then based on the fact he is currently winning at an 82% clip against the NFC his record would presumably be somewhere in the neighborhood of 56-12 which is far better than his record of 46-22 when playing against the AFC.
The point of my argument is that Ben wins more often against the NFC and thus if he were playing in the NFC East, his past results should lead one to conclude that he would fare even better and win more often if Pittsburgh were playing an NFC East schedule as opposed to an AFC North schedule.
It’s not a theory. His past performance against the NFC provides direct evidence that Ben wins more often against the NFC then he does against the AFC. This fact directly debunks the unsubstantiated theory that Ben’s numbers would be worse if he played in the NFC East as asserted previously in this thread.
Thats wrong
the reason he has a worse record against the AFC is because teams that he plays more are better prepared for the game than teams that play less often against the steelers and cant stop them as effectively. This is the same reason why it is hard to beat a team in your division twice in 1 season.
by ChuckyofNorris on Jul 13, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
That is your opinion
There may be some truth to it, but we’ll never know for sure because I don’t see the divisions being realigned any time soon. I tend to think the reason he has a worse record against the AFC is that the Conference is much stronger from top to bottom right now than the NFC is.
Regardless what you think, each team has to play a 16 game schedule. PIT is in the AFC North and NYG is in the NFC East and speculating how each would do if their roles were reversed is pointless.
by King Coebra on Jul 13, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, steelers rush less and pass more than the giants
last year the steelers had 502 rushes and the giants 460.
the steelers had 505 passes and the giants 490.
yeah the passes are close but u said the giants pass more. i have watched every giants game since eli has started missing only 2. the giants do not pass as much as they should. in fact they are toward the bottom in passing attempts each year, yet manning’s numbers are very similar to bens.
by donnybaseball23 on Jul 12, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
*steelers rush more*
sorry about that
by donnybaseball23 on Jul 12, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Good Story
but which is better, Eli or Peyton? I’m guessing Peyton by a long run
No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded. - Yogi Berra
best division in football
every year the media puts the cowboys or the eagles as the favorites in the east. And every that division puts 2 or even 3 teams in the playoffs. eli has made the playoffs 4 times winning the division twice. big ben is good but he didnt win a super bowl against the 3 best teams in the NFL, (cowboys packers and the pats) sure he did also win one as a six seed but with the Bus and willie parker. the giants were proclaimed done when tiki retired cause “eli wasnt a good enough quterback” well he won the superbowl the next season after losing his bigest offense production.
and if ur gonna look at his line and running game being better than little bens?
Tom brady and peyton are no doubt better then eli and ben. but they both play behind the two best lines in football. brady throws to moss, welker, and many great receivers in the past. peyton throws the marvin, reggie, and dallas clark. so i guess walker would say ben is better than brady and peyton even though we all know that is not true.
And one more thing, like mosley said, plax wasnt good till he got to new york and was receiving passes from eli. just thinking eli might be the reason plax is so good, not the other way.
by donnybaseball23 on Jul 12, 2009 2:29 PM EDT reply actions
Fair is fair
If you are going to give Eli credit for beating the 3 “best” teams in the NFL the year he won his only title then you also have to give Ben just as much credit for beating the #1 (IND), #2 (DEN) and #3 (CIN) seeded teams in the AFC and the #1 (SEA) seeded team in the NFC during his FIRST SB run. Bragging one up while downplaying the other is a bit shortsightede wouldn’t you say?
As for last season, how does the fact that the “best” teams last year didn’t get it done in the POs take anything away from PIT’s SB win? NYG, CAR, TEN all lost at home in the POs. PHI got routed in the NFC championship game. NE missed the POs. Clearly they weren’t the “best” when it mattered the most. The “best” team’s last year from each conference played each other in the SB and PIT came out on top over a Cardinal team that abused the rest of the NFC in the POs.
All PIT did was win 9 of it’s final 10 games last year against one of, if not, the toughest schedule in the league. Clearly they are not worthy champions.
How did Big Ben play in that superbowl?
I recall Eli getting a Superbowl MVP award?
How’d Rothelsberger do?
Good point
I guess you’re claiming that Eli has outperformed Ben in the Super Bowl. Let’s take a closer look at what happened during the three seasons that PIT and NYG have won the big game.
In Eli’s second season at the age of 24 he QBed the Giants to a 0-23 home loss in the first round of the playoffs. His stat line:
10-18 for 113 yards, 0 TDs, 3 ints and a QB rating of 35.0.
During Ben’s second season at the age of 23 he QBed the Steelers to an NFL championship. His stat lines for the 4 games are as follows:
vs. CIN: 14-19 for 208, 3 TDs, 0 ints and a qb rating of 148.7
vs. IND: 14-24 for 197, 2 TDs, 1 int and a QB rating of 95.3
vs. DEN: 21-29 for 275, 2 TDs, 0 ints and a QB rating of 124.9
vs. SEA: 9-21 for 123, 1 rushing TD, 2 ints and a QB rating of 22.6
During Eli’s fifth season he QBed the Giants to a 11-23 home loss to PHI with the following numbers:
15-29 for 169, 0 TDs, 2 ints, and a 40.7 QB rating
During Ben’s fifth season at the age of 26 he QBed the Steelers to their second SB victory in 4 seasons. His numbers:
vs. SD: 17-26 for 181, 1 TD, 0 ints, and a QB rating of 98.4
vs. BAL: 16-33 for 255, 1 TD 0 ints and a QB rating of 84.8
vs. ARZ: 21-30 for 256, 1 TD, 1 int and a QB rating of 93.2
During Eli’s fourth season at the age of 27 he QBed the Giants to their only playoff victories under Manning’s leadership. His numbers were solid:
20-27 for 185, 2 TDs, 0 ints and a QB rating of 117.1 vs. TB
12-18 for 163, 2 TDs, 0 ints and a QB rating of 132.4 vs. DAL
21-40 for 251, 0 TDs, 0 ints and a QB rating of 72.0 vs. GB
19-34 for 255, 2 TDs, 1 int and a QB rating of 87.3 vs. NE
Meanwhile at the age of 25, Ben turned in his only one and done playoff performance of his career losing to JAX:
29-42 for 337, 2 TDs, 3 ints and a QB rating of 79.2.
Here are the career playoff numbers for both QBs:
Ben is 8-2, with 2 rings and 3 AFC championship game appearances. He has completed 172-278 for 61.9% and 2239 yards.He has 15 TDs and 12 INTs. He also has 125 yards rushing and at least one TD. His QB rating is 87.2
Eli is 4-3 with 1 ring and 1 NFC championship game appearance. He has completed 113-193 for 58.5% and 1297 yards. He has 8 TDs and 7 INTs. He has 14 yards rushing with 0 TDs to my knowledge. His QB rating is 77.6.
How can you point to only one game when trying to compare QBs? Ben has won more often and with superior numbers in both the regular and postseason thorughout his career and he has done so at a younger age than Eli has. I’m not seeing any evidence that suggests Eli has outperformed Ben. Numbers can sometimes lie but when the advantage goes to Roethlisberger in nearly every single measurable category they don’t seem to be in this instance.
by King Coebra on Jul 13, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
the cards were NOT the NFC’s best team last year, the fact they made it that far was amazing but they also had a very weak defense last year. and eli threw all over the cards when they played last year, 127 QBrat 240yds and 3 td, and that was with out jacobs for the last 50 min of that game. and throughout bens career he has played against bad D’s like Browns and Bengals twice a year, just saying the Cowboys Eagles and Redskins have better D’s then the AFC North
Schumer said: "Now the Giants aren’t just New York’s team, they’re America’s team."
"You forget about it whether it was 15-2 or 3-2. It's still a loss. It doesn't matter what the score was if we win tomorrow."... Derek Jeter.
by donnybaseball23 on Jul 14, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually
At the end of the year when it counted the most, the Cardinals were the best team in the NFC. It’s not even debatable as they were the NFC Champions. They easily handled every NFC foe they faced including humiliating an Eagles team that easily handled Eli and the Giants. However, they just weren’t quite good enough to beat Ben and the Steelers.
Eli’s career record vs. the AFC North is 3-4. His record vs. the AFC is barely above .500. He has never beaten Cleveland. Maybe Cleveland and Cincinnati would fare better each season if they didn’t have to face PIT and the NYG? Ever think about that?
I also already compared strength of schedules during the past five years and PITs has been consistently more difficult than the Giants. None of your arguments are based on fact. Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit the obvious? Ben has performed much better than Eli to this point in their careers. There really isn’t much to debate as nearly all of the evidence points to that conclusion.
I do appreciate your enthusiasm and the way you support your team though. Good luck this season.
huh?
this is the 2nd time you’ve stated the Cardinals “routed” or “humiliated” the Eagles. Did you even watch the NFC Championship game last year? The Eagles had a lead in the 4th Quarter, and a chance to tie the game from the 47 yard line on the last play of the game. If you’re calling that a rout, are you also bragging that the Steelers blew out the Cards in the Super Bowl?
OK
I can admit when I make a mistake. Thank you for pointing out my error. I clearly misspoke a bit. I was remembering primarily the first half of the game when ARZ completely dominated. I did miss a large portion of the second half, and it is true that PHI did come back and took a brief lead before falling by 7. I was remembering the destruction of the Carolina in the previous round and the first half domination against the Eagles.
Regardless of the margin of victory, Arizona did win the NFC and did represent the conference in the SB which makes them NFC champions and the best the conference had to offer last season. The Giants peaked too early in the season and were one and done in the POs. If they were the best in the conference then they wouldn’t have laid an egg in their playoff game. Same with the Panthers as they were crushed at home in the POs by the Cards.
My point was the best team won the NFC championship. They did enough to make the playoffs and saved some of their best performances for the postseason. If you or others want to claim they were not the best team in the NFC last season, then you would have to apply the same logic to the season that the Giants won the SB.
The prevailing logic from the above poster appears to be that since Arizona wasn’t the top seeded team in the NFC last season then they weren’t the NFC’s best even though they proved that they were on the field during the postseason. Evidently the only consideration when determing the “best” NFC team is regular season success (the Giants must have been the best because they were the #1 seed).
Unless of course it’s your own lower seeded team that overachieves in the playoffs. Then clearly during that season, they are the best (see NYG – circa 2007). I would hope even you would agree that clearly that is twisted logic.
Again you folks are missing the key points. Let me reiterate one last time.
1. Ben has had considerably more and consistent postseason success.
2. Ben has superior postseason numbers.
3. Ben has superior regular season numbers.
4. Ben has considerably more 4th quarter and OT comeback wins.
5. PITs strength of schedule over the past five years has been better than the Giants.
6. Ben has won 82% of his games vs. the NFC during his career.
7. Ben has won 75% of his games vs. the NFC East during his career.
8. Ben is more than a year younger than Eli.
The only thing’s I have found in Eli’s advantage are that he has won a SB MVP and that he has been sacked less than Ben. Am I missing anything?
by King Coebra on Jul 15, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Big Ben & Eli Manning
As with comparisons with Peyton and Brady, comparing Ben with Eli is apples and oranges. It’s like comparing Jerome Bettis with Walter Peyton…one was a bus and the other a greyhound. The bottom line is they’re all talented professionals who know where their skills lie, and their offensive coordinators (usually) have the sense to feature their skills. Is Ben better at scrambling around and making things happen as a game winds down? Definitely. Is Eli a better drop back field general? I’d say yes for the first 58 minutes. After that it’s a toss up. Does any of this matter? Yes…especially when we’re bored and waiting for camp to open. Let the games begin. Pleeeasse!!!
dint say eli is only good in the 1st 58 minutes
eli has a 93.8 QBrat and 63% comp in the 4th quarter last year.
i am on yahoo getting these stats, they have a stat “late and close” last year his QBrat was 132.6 with 67% comp and 0 int when close and late
so dont say eli is a toss up in a big situaton
by donnybaseball23 on Jul 12, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Should be comparing Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers
THey were traded for each other. Big ben is a good QB and has always been blessed with very good teams. But what I really want to know is if you guys think Manning is better than Rivers
Yes
Right now, I think Big Ben is better than Eli (unless Eli proves otherwise this year).
However, I think Eli is definitely better than Rivers.
Eli...
is a class act, a champion, and a Super Bowl MVP. In other words, he’s everything that Rivers is not. I’d take Eli any day.
"We're Rock Stars... We're Lakers."
-- Lamar Odom
"We had the skull-and-crossbones on our helmets, the black jerseys, and the whole bit... and we lived it."
-- George "The HitMan" Atkinson
"WE STOMPED YOU OUT!"
-- Michael Strahan
by 5_Giant_Raider_Clipper_Laker_13 on Jul 12, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
walker's argument
what a foolish statement…“Manning is just 4-3 in the playoffs. If you take away his Super Bowl run following the 2007 season, Manning is 0-3 in the postseason.”
That’s a pretty ridiculous thing to say. So If he didn’t go and win 3 playoff games on the road, then beat the almighty Patriots in the Super Bowl, he’d be 0 and 3. Let’s just act like that didn’t happen….fool
You're missing the point
Giant teams QBed and led by Manning have made the POs 4 times (4-3 record). 3 of the 4 times (75%) his team has been one and done in the postseason. His team has consistently underachieved in the POs. The Giants have made it as far as the Conference Championship game only 1 out of 5 times. 20% of the time Eli’s team has played for a championship.
Ben has also been to to POs 4 times (8-2 record). Only once (25%) have the Steelers been one and done, and in that game he actually rallied his team from a huge deficit to take a late lead vs. JAX two season ago. Ben has already won two rings and appeared in three AFC Championship games in five seasons in the league. 60% of the time Ben’s teams have played for some type of a championship. 60% of the time with Ben as the QB PIT has won 15 or more games in a season (I’m including the postseason wins because they are FAR more important than regular season wins)
Many bring up the point that Ben had a subpar SB performance against the Seahawks and shouldn’t get any credit for that win, yet they conveniently forget how incredibly effective his play was in the three games leading up to SB when he lit up CIN, IND and DEN in successive weeks on the road.
Admittedly Ben isn’t going to win anyone any fantasy league championships but who cares. The bottom line in this league is winning. Ben has done that consistently both in the regular season and in the playoffs. There’s only one other QB in the league that can make that claim.
you're missing the point
I didn’t even bother reading your statistical rant. All I’m saying is you can’t just disregard 3 road playoff wins and then beating the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl. It’s just a weak argument. You could just as easily say, “If the Cardinals could have figured out how to stop one receiver with 3 defenders in the corner of the end zone, Big Ben would only have one Super Bowl win.” Get my point?
Who disregarded it?
I didn’t downplay the significance of their SB victory. He’s won a championship which is better than a large majority of the other QB’s in this league. I don’t feel the writer of the article did either. His primary point, if you read between the lines, is that Manning has had one successful postseason run during his five years in the league. I think postseason success is a very valid argument when comparing the two. Don’t you? Isn’t an 8-2 record, 2 rings, 3 AFC championship game appearances and only one season of one and done in the playoffs superior to a 4-3 record, 1 ring, 1 NFC championship game appearance and three seasons of one and done in the playoffs?
My statistical “rant” as you put it clearly shows that Ben has put up even better numbers against the NFC than he has against the AFC. The results contradict the baseless claim that he wouldn’t perform as well if he had to play in the NFC East. Of course you don’t want to read it. It doesn’t support the ludicrous claims being bandied about in this thread. I wouldn’t want to read it either if I was trying to hold onto a mythical theory that Manning has somehow outperformed Roethlisberger to this point in their careers. It’s a ridiculous assertion based on personal opinion with no actual physical evidence to back up the claim.
by King Coebra on Jul 13, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't understand.. why big ben is so hyped
If Kimo Von Oelhoffen hadn’t gone low on Carson Palmer, The Steelers would have lost and Big Ben would be Neil O’Donnell.
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
I wouldn't say that Ben is over hyped at all.
You hear a lot less about him than Eli, who most people agree is the slightly inferior quarterback. In fact, I would say that he is under hyped, probably because it is easy for people to ignore non- east coast teams and recycle the stupid arguments used against him. The Steelers had the worst offensive line in Super Bowl history, an awful running game, and a banged up #1 WR who caught no passes after the Steelers’ first drive, yet they STILL won, even after their defense that apparently has been carrying them for the past five years gave up two crucial fourth quarter touchdowns. The Steelers had great defenses and running games in the 90’s and early 00’s, but won zero Super Bowls. Why didn’t the defense just carry the team to victories then, too? I guess the Steelers defensive dominance only began in 2004. Strange…
Oh, and I can’t believe you would even think about comparing Ben to Neil O’Donnell. Please. The Bengals offense couldn’t have played much better than it did in the first half of that game, even with Kitna in rather than Palmer. The Steelers would have won that game with or without the Palmer injury, as the Bengals as a whole choked in the second half. If Kitna, a seasoned veteran who played great in the first half, collapsed under pressure in the second half, why wouldn’t a raw third- year player like Palmer done the same in his first playoff game?
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 12, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
O'Donnell
performed just as well as Big Ben in the playoffs and played an all time great team in the super bowl. Alan Faneca was more important in the super bowl than Big Ben.
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
by Hoyadestroya85 on Jul 12, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Ummmm, what?
I can’t believe you actually said that O’ Donnell performed better in the playoffs than Ben. In the 1994 AFCCG against a clearly inferior San Diego team that the Steelers backups scored 34 points on only weeks earlier, O’D led his team to a paltry total of 1 points. He also failed to lead the Steelers to a game winning TD on four plays inside the SD ten late in the game. Ben, meanwhile, led his team on an 88 yard, game winning TD drive despite all of the negative factors that I mentioned above working against him. One year later, in 1995, O’D and the Steelers had one of the most potent passing offenses in the NFL. But in the AFCCG vs the wild card Colts, he only managed 13 points before a reciever bailed him out with an amazing catch to put the Steelers at the Indy 1. We all know what happened in the SB against a declining Cowboys team that was coached by Barry Switzer. The truth is, O’D regressed in the playoffs while Ben gets better. In fact, Ben’s playoff passer rating is 87.3, higher than any QB in the “live ball era” except for Warner, Montana, Brady, and Aikman. Eli’s is 77.6, tenth among active NFL QB’s with more than 5 playoff starts.
And about SB XL, Faneca was for most of the game just 20% of an offensive line that was doing a mediocre job in both pass and run blocking. He had one good block and Parker did the rest. Meanwhile, 8 of Bens 9 completions came on third down, including a pass on third and 27 that set up the Steelers’ first TD, which HE scored. Ben was more valuable than Faneca, in my opinion. You also forget that the Steelers scored more points against the Seahawks great defense than the Giants scored against the Pats average defense. Your arguments just don’t hold any water.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 12, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s very unfair to judge qb’s like you guys are doing , because in most cases it depends on their team,football is a team game.I bet you if either :BIG BEN,ELI, BRADY were they would not have won any superbowl.How many superbowls do you think DAN MARINO would have won playing for those same three teams with those same players?
...
“he Steelers had the worst offensive line in Super Bowl history, an awful running game, and a banged up #1 WR who caught no passes after the Steelers’ first drive, yet they STILL won”
Against one of the porous defenses last year, he’s able to march down the field. Not a big surprise.
When Fitz broke for that td, I was screaming, “no, you idiot, you’re going to lose because you’re giving the Steeler’s the last possession!!!!!!!!!!”
I’ll agree Big Ben’s good, but his game winning drive against the Cards doesn’t compare to Eli’s game winning drive against one of the greatest defensive coaches of all time.
You're right, those drives don't compare
Ben’s drive was much better. He didn’t need a miracle pass to an unknown reciever to convert a third and long, a running back to convert a 4th and 1, and a blown coverage to throw an easy TD pass to a wide open reciever. Ben’s drive was also against a defense that was playing much better than the Pats defense in the SB, superior coaching notwithstanding.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 13, 2009 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Tyree
May have been unknown to you, but no to the faithful. Ben’s pass was pretty, but two inches to either side and he’s getting lambasted for his decision making for throwing it into such a small window.
Yeah, I know
That’s exactly what makes it so impressive!!!
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 14, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
i like both
both are pretty good. but what matters is winning and ben has done it more consistently than eli. its too early to tell who is the better QB, but right now, ben has eli beat by a little. eli’s transformation into a good QB happened with the superbowl run, but ben’s been doin it since he first stepped onto the field. that has to be recognized
Eli is better
His only problem is he cant throw at Giants stadium. When we move stadiums Eli will improve and Peyton will be asking Eli for advice. Roethlisberger is a good QB but to use the argument of more wins is stupid. QBs dont win games, teams do. A team of champions will always lose to a champion team.
by ChuckyofNorris on Jul 12, 2009 11:06 PM EDT reply actions
You're right
The only QB stat that really matters is the one that makes Eli look better than Ben. Not quite sure what that one is, though… ;-)
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 13, 2009 12:06 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
lets see
fewer sacks taken, less losing seasons when starting on opening day, More Super Bowl MVP awards, More wins against the Patriots in 2007.
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
by Hoyadestroya85 on Jul 13, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Hmmmm
Ben has definitely taken more sacks, but that’s definitely not because he has one of the worst o-lines in the league and a lackluster running game while the giants are among the best in the league in those 2 areas. If you’re going to use the supporting cast argument then so will I.
Ben has had zero losing seasons when starting on opening day, I’m not exactly sure how you have less than zero. Most Steelers fans felt that Ben should have been MVP, and his Super Bowl performance was at least as impressive as Eli’s. And Ben had more wins against the Pats in 2004 and 2007, although I’m not sure that qualifies as a statistic.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 13, 2009 12:58 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
about eli Manning
i cant stand this guy he thinks he his so bad but i think he nothin but a titty baby……………..
Dallas fans are nothing but class.
A Cowboy fan coming to a division rival’s forum just to add a useless negative comment? Shocking!
Way to be mature and give the Cowboys fan base a good name.
"Anderson Silva makes his way to the cage to respond to Franklin's challenge in Portuguese. The Midwest crowd, sensing he's probably not a corn farmer, boos."
by TearsofaClown on Jul 13, 2009 7:22 AM EDT up reply actions
that is probably the opposite of the truth
Eli is one of the most humble, gracious athletes I’ve ever seen.
President of the Ramses Barden Fan Club
by Hoyadestroya85 on Jul 13, 2009 12:44 AM EDT reply actions
I think he is, too
I have nothing against Eli, he seems like a great person who has helped his team to a lot success in the league. All I’m saying is that almost all of the numbers and intangibles favor Ben at this point. This could certainly change within the next few years, but for now it is hard to say that Eli is clearly the better QB.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 13, 2009 1:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Also...
In the NY vs Pittsburgh game last season everyone was talking about the Manning-Roethlisberger showdown, and who won that game? NY. Eli is the better QB if you are counting wins not true ability, because at the showdown between them, Eli came out on top.
Yes, and Ben won their first meeting in 2004
But single games involve so much more than quarterback play, you know that. Eli had a better game than Ben did, but so did his offensive line, running backs, and recievers. The Steelers were actually leading that game before their long snapper got injured and the replacement gave the Giants a game- tying safety. So far Ben has a 3-2 record against other 2004 quarterbacks, while Manning is 1-1 and Rivers is 1-2 (Not counting 2005 NYG-SD game that Rivers didn’t start).
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 13, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Pro football weekly
Has a clash predicted between Giants and Eagles (represented photographically by Eli and Donovan), but seriously, how realistic is that? I can see the Giants going somewhere, but I think the eagles are pretty much done for 2009.
May the wind be always at your back, and may your placekicker have icewater in his veins.
Some of these pri-Elis are crazy
Look at those two arguments. BenRoth is just clearly better in almost every category a QB can put up and with what most Giants’ fans would agree is a less complementary team. I don’t even like him as a QB and I don’t think he’s a world class passer but he’s the man and he gets sh*t done, and to this point in their careers Rothburger has a better resume.
You play to win the game!
by Simms-McConkey on Jul 13, 2009 10:32 AM EDT reply actions
NFC East is a better division?
Steelers beat Cowboys and Redskins in 2008. Ravens also beat Cowboys. It’s probably debatable as to whether or not Giants and Philly are better than AFC North teams, but Steelers and Ravens have consisently beat NFC East opponents over the past couple of years (I was there when Ben beat Dallas at Texas Stadium his rookie year). Please put the “difficulty of division opponents” arguments to rest.
Giants beat the Steelers and Ravens (beat the shit out of the Ravens actually)
and the Eagles best the Steelers (and got the shit kicked out of them by the Ravens).
Its not necessarily that the Gints, Eagles, Steelers and Ravens are any better than each other.
Its the fact that there is not a weak team in teh NFC East. Yes the Skins have been the worst, but they are as good as any other NFC or AFC team in that above average tier, on a yearly basis.
The Cowgirls are also up there too, regardless of feelings toward them.
The AFC North is 2 deep. The NFC East is 4 deep. Simple mathes say that the Beast is better.
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 13, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
And yet...
The AFC North has produced 3 NFL champions in the past 9 years to the NFC East’s 1.
Nobody here has claimed the AFC North is stronger top to bottom than the NFC East. Clearly it isn’t. However, a season isn’t made up of just the 6 games played each season vs. the division. There are ten other games each season that truly determine how strong a schedule may or may not be.
3 NFL champions
Ravens 2001
Steelers 2009 and one other I dont know
You are supporting his theory of AFC North being two deep, how close have the browns or the bengals come??
by ChuckyofNorris on Jul 13, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Strength of Schedule
Just to satisfy my own curiosity with regards to the strength of schedule issue being posed by several in this thread I did some quick checking. I cannot attest to the accuracy of these records but in doing a quick web search I found the following numbers. These numbers are based on the Strength of Schedule prior to each season based on the records of the teams opponents from the previous year.
YEAR PIT NYG
2008 0.598 0.520
2007 0.512 0.496
2006 0.531 0.543
2005 0.509 0.488
2004 0.468 0.468
AVG 0.524 0.503
Based on these numbers the average Steelers S.O.S during the past 5 years was .524 and the Giants was only .503. Based on the data, the Giants have played a more difficult schedule only once in the past 5 years. Ben and the Steelers have apparently had a considerably more difficult road to the POs each year than the Giants over the past five years. Interesting.
by King Coebra on Jul 14, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
that the North produced champions
has nothing to do with it. Actually since they are the 2 teams I was talking about, it proves nothing.
The Giants, Skins, Cowboys and Eagles beat up on each other every year. The bottom 2 teams in this division could be division leaders in others should they play 6 games in other divisions.
The strength of schedule outside the division doesn’t mean much. The Steelers and Ravens are pretty much guaranteed 4 games against bottom of the league teams.
The rest of your schedule could be the hardest or easiest, but those 4 games against those piles of crap in your division could make you go from 8-8 to 12-4.
The teams in the Beast RARELY go undefeated against all of the teams. T
by FreeBradshaw on Jul 13, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Really now
I already stated the NFC East was better than the AFC North. But how can you disregard the rest of the schedule by stating that the strength of schedule outside the division doesn’t mean much. Last time I checked, each team plays 6 games in their own division and 6 games vs the rest of the conference. That means that the SOS means just as much for both sets of 6 games.
I’ve also posted Ben’s record vs. the NFC and he wins at a higher rate vs. the NFC than he does against the AFC. That evidence directly disputes the claim that they would fare worse if the Steelers were in the NFC. He’s 6-2 vs. the NFC East for a 75% winning percentage. I guess those results are meaningless?
I am not going to look up strength of schedules over the past five years. I don’t have the time for it. However, if I did, I would venture to guess that the Steelers SOS would be only slightly easier than the teams of the NFC East and not nearly as one sided as you claim. I believe their SOS last year was right at or near the top of the league when all was said and done and yet they managed to win the ring that year. I know going into the season it was the #1 rated schedule.
Finally, I don’t really understand what you are getting at? Are you claiming that the only reason PIT makes the POs is because CIN and CLE are lousy? IF so, then how come when they do make the POs they tend to make some noise? The argument doesn’t make any sense.
by King Coebra on Jul 13, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
McCrack,
You beg the question a bit there. At issue is whether or not it’s easier to compile favorable statistics against the Bengals and Browns, (and to some extent the Ravens) than it has been against the DAL, PHI, WAS teams. Not whether Pitt, the best of the AFC, can beat them. The only real way out of this particular question is to compare their stats vs. common opponents.
Not arguing the base premise though, that BR has had a better career to this point
You play to win the game!
by Simms-McConkey on Jul 13, 2009 12:18 PM EDT reply actions
and forgetting career stats,
performance against playoff caliber teams in either conference and superbowl has to be seen as equal difficulty. While the Giants managed to beat Goliath, for the most part winning a superbowl is equally difficult in any given year. It’s just an upset when you pull it off.
You play to win the game!
by Simms-McConkey on Jul 13, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't forget 4th Quarter/Overtime Comebacks
I think Eli has a chance to become an all-time great, and I like him a lot as a player.
That said, one huge missing piece of this conversation is Roethlisberger’s record in the clutch.
Consider the following…
- Both QBs have started 71 games in their careers, including the postseason.
- Eli has an impressive 11 4th Quarter/Overtime Comebacks in his 71 starts as an NFL QB (i.e., he has rallied his team from a 4th quarter/OT deficit or tie to win the game 11 times). That means he engineered a 4th Quarter/Overtime Comeback in 15.5% of his starts.
- Even more impressive, Eli’s 11 comebacks equates to 2.2 comebacks per season, which puts him in Marino/Montana/Elway territory (see below for more detail).
- Ben has 19 victories such wins in his 71 starts (15 of those were comebacks from a deficit). That means he has engineered a 4th Quarter/Overtime Comeback in an incredible 26.8% of his starts.
- Roethlisberger’s 19 over his 5 years as a starter equates to 3.8 per season.
Assuming his career isn’t derailed early due to injury (big assumption, I know), Roethlisberger is on pace to end up with more 4th quarter comebacks than anyone in NFL history not named Tom Brady.
- Brett Favre is the all-time leader with 40 over his 17 years as a starter (~2.4 comebacks per season).
- Dan Marino had 37 in his 17 seasons (~2.2 per season).
- John Elway had 34 in his 16 seasons (~2.1 per season) – note that Elway is often incorrectly credited with significantly more 4th quarter comebacks than this, but the record shows that several of his comebacks were 2nd and 3rd quarter comebacks – 34 is the true number.
- Joe Montana had 31 in his 15 seasons (~2.1 per season).
- Peyton Manning already has 31 in his first 11 seasons (~2.8 per season).
- Brady has an astonishing 28 in only 7 seasons as a starter (~4.0 per season).
If they each end up playing 16 seasons (about average for these types of franchise QBs), at their current pace:
- Brady would end up with 64, which is just insane
- Ben would end up with 61 comebacks
- Manning would end up with 45 comebacks
- Eli would end up with 35 comebacks
While playing 16 seasons is a big assumption, as is the assumption that the current pace is sustainable, one must also consider the fact that Ben is only 26 years old. If he were to play 16 seasons, that means he’d be retiring at 37 years old. To put that into perspective, Elway, Marino, and Montana all played until they were 38. Favre is 39 and will likely play until he’s 40 or 41. Also, Brady (at 31) is five years older than Ben, yet he’s only started two more seasons than Ben – so it’s entirely feasible for Ben to surpass him. Brady would need to play until age 40 to get his full 16 seasons in; whereas, Ben will hit that point at age 37.
So, while it’s hardly a given that Ben will even finish in the top 5 in terms of all-time 4th quarter comebacks, it’s not difficult to imagine a scenario where he’s jockeying with Peyton Manning, Brady, and Favre for a place in the history books.
Finally, I’ve also done some analysis to come up with comebacks as a percentage of overall games started, which may actually be a better metric.
Here’s what that tells me:
- 26.8% of the games Ben started resulted in 4th quarter comebacks
- 25.2% of the games Brady started fit that description
- 18.9% of Montana’s
- 17.8% of Peyton Manning’s
- 15.8% of Favre’s
- 15.5% of Eli Manning’s
- 15.4% of Marino’s
- 14.7% of Elway’s
The one statistical anomaly in all of this is that Jake Plummer, not a great QB historically-speaking, had a strange propensity for leading 4th quarter comebacks. Him aside, all the QBs dominating the list are HOF’ers or future HOF’ers.
i think
Obviously Ben has better numbers, but it’s that fourth quarter magic that I think make us Giants fans drink the Kool-Aid
Ben has that, too
In fact, the facts that sweetpete posted show that Ben has considerably more of it.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 14, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Minus the rings they are about equal
Ben is very solid, almost untouchable when the game is on the line and it’s go-time. Eli will usually give you a pretty balanced game throughout. All a matter of preference.
Fans stuck in the 80's are lame. Respect the past, live in the now.
Of course
I think Eli will have a great career with the Giants and maybe even lead them to another Super Bowl victory. I think Eli and Ben are both very well placed for the moment as far as teams go. BTW, what are the estimates for Eli’s new contract? I heard something about 120 mil, but wanted to confirm.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
by LV Steelers Fan on Jul 13, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn't that
pretty much what I said when this whole thing started? I figured this would get some reaction, though. Both teams should be happy with their guy, and that should be enough.
by Ed Valentine on Jul 15, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
This was a solid thread and occupied some free time during this dead period in the offseason. I learned quite a bit about both QBs that I didn’t know before. I appreciate the lively debate and differing opinions, though, clearly don’t agree with most of them. Hopefully I didn’t step on anybody’s toes too much. I much prefer the Giants to the Cowboys and Eagles. Good luck this season.
Final Statistical Comparison
Since I’ve taken the time to compile the stats, I might as well share them. Majority of them have been compiled from www.profootballreference.com.
Statistical Advantages for Ben Roethlisberger:
Lombardi Trophies: Ben 2, Eli 1
Super Bowl Appearances: Ben 2, Eli 1
Conference Championship Game Appearances: Ben 3, Eli 1
Division Titles: Ben 3, Eli 2
Regular Season Team Record: Ben 51-20, Eli 42-29
Postseason Team Record: Ben 8-2, Eli 4-3
Regular Season Passing Completion Percentage: Ben 1189-1905 for 62.4%, Eli 1276-2284 for 55.9%
Postseason Passing Completion Percentage: Ben 172-278 for 61.9%, Eli 113-193 for 58.5%
Regular Season Passing Yardage: Ben 14974, Eli 14623
Postseason Passing Yardage: Ben 2239, Eli 1297
Regular Season Passing TDs: Ben 101, Eli 98
Postseason Passing TDs: Ben 15, Eli 8
Regular Season TD Percentage: Ben 5.3%, Eli 4.3%
Regular Season Interceptions: Ben 69, Eli 74
Regular Season Yards per Attempt: Ben 7.9, Eli 6.4
Postseason Yards per Attempt: Ben, 8.1, Eli 6.7
Regular Season Yards per Catch: Ben 12.6, Eli 11.5
Regular Season Yards per Game: Ben 208, Eli 200.3
Regular Season QB Rating: Ben 89.4, Eli 76.1
Postseason QB Rating: Ben 87.2, Eli 77.6
Postseason Rushing: Ben 125 yds at 3.4 y/a and 1 TD, Eli 14 yds for 1.3 y/a and 0 TD (Not 100% on this one)
Average Strength of Schedule: Ben 52.4%, Eli 50.3%
Record vs. Opposing Conference: Ben 18-4 for 82%, Eli 11-9 for 55%
Statistical Advantages for Eli Manning
Regular Season Games Played: Eli 73 – Ben 72
Regular Season Interception Percentage: Eli 3.2%, Ben 3.6%
Regular Season Sacked/Yards lost: Ben 192 for 1253, Eli 120 for 844
Postseason Intereceptions: Eli 7, Ben 12
Stats Even
Regular Season Games Started: Ben 71, Eli 71
Playoff Appearances: Ben 4, Eli 4
by King Coebra on Jul 15, 2009 1:24 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
A couple more I forgot
Regular Season Rushing: Ben 616 yds at 3.3 y/a and 10 TDs, Eli 215 yds at 2.0 y/a and 3 TDs
Regular Season Fumbles/Fumbles Lost: Ben 32/15, Eli 39/14
I found that last stat very surprising since Ben has been sacked much more frequently, I figured he’d have coughed it up alto more but he’s only lost one more fumble and put it on the ground 7 less times.
OK, I’m done now.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Big Blue View
Related FanShots on Big Blue View
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Get Your Giants' Gear
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Ahmad Bradshaw says Cowboys won’t win with Tony Romo at QB
- Cruz: Manningham’s Super catch wasn’t drawn up that way
- Whitney Houston performed the greatest national anthem in sports history (video)
- Justin Tuck visits New York City cop who survived gunshot wound to head
- The Giants won the ‘Brain Bowl,’ too
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
