"We thought he was the best of the three then (Rivers, Manning and Ben Roethlisberger) and we think he's the best of three now," Accorsi wrote. "People who dwell on statistics in football, just cling to them because they can't evaluate QBs. The job is QB, not passer. Unitas and Namath didn't have good QB ratings. They threw a lot of interceptions because they took risks and had to carry their teams."
Exactly.
Which is why Roethlisberger and Rivers are better.
While I suppose I understand Accorsi's need to strike back, shouldn't he reign it in a little bit?
"What difference does it make what we gave up?" Accorsi continued. "You better be right about the QB, but if you are, you can't overpay for a great QB and we think he's going to be a great QB. What would you give up for Elway? What would you give for Montana or Unitas? Just like you can't overpay a great player. Can you overpay for Mays or DiMaggio? That's all fodder."
I'm not sure if he understands the meaning of the word "fodder," but he just compared Eli Manning to:
1. John Elway.
2. Joe Montana.
3. Johnny Unitas.
4. Willie Mays.
5. Joe DiMaggio.
2 comments:
I agree with you. Rivers lost to the Pats. Eli is probably going to lose to the Pats. How would that make him better. If Brady is a step slower this week would Shawn Merriman make a difference.
If you ask me, Roethlisberger isn't that great, and neither is Rivers.
But Accorsi and others should at least be consistent with their criteria.
Accorsi says QB rating doesn't matter and neither do interceptions. So why is Eli being praised for throwing for 160 yards vs. Dallas and letting his defense win the game? Well, because he had a high QB rating and he threw no interceptions.
Post a Comment