Eli According To Felz.

Do you ever get the feeling that this blog is not really about baseball at all, but it's just an opportunity to rag on Mike Lupica?

Ever get that feeling?

How about that. That is very interesting.

Anyway, Lupica was right about Theo Epstein and that ruined my day, so I think I deserve some Satisfaction.

No, I don't follow football too closely. But I know just about everything Lupica says in this article is made up or flat-out incorrect:

"Ben Roethlisberger is the headliner for the Super Bowl, a star the game desperately needed. Roethlisberger now has played two AFC Championship Games his first two years in the pros, won one. And that's it, that's all, he's not just a better quarterback than Eli Manning for the time being, he is a better quarterback for all times, whether his team wins Super Bowl XL or not. Or we are told, coast to coast."

Ben Roethlisberger probably will be a better quarterback than Eli Manning for all time. But I think most observers are talking about the present and not the future. As for the present, Roethlisberger obviously wins, hands down.

"I must have missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs began. Or when the Steelers were in danger of not making the playoffs at all."

In all seriousness, I think Lupica missed this general assessment of things before the playoffs. Sarcasm isn't effective when you don't know what you're talking about.

The general assessment of Roethlisberger before the playoffs was that he was a much better quarterback than Manning and that Roethlisberger's playoff experience would come in handy. It's true that the general assessment typically put New England or Indianapolis into the Super Bowl -- how many teams can win three consecutive playoff games on the road? -- but only Lupica used the words "Giants" and "Super Bowl" in the same sentence.

When the general assessment turns out to be absolutely correct, Lupica can't claim that the general assessment never existed in the first place.

Just admit it, man. You were wrong. Acknowledge and move on.


Prepare yourself, dear reader. What you are about to read may be the most jaw-droppingly insane football analysis you will ever read in your life.

Ben Roethlisberger leads the Steelers to three straight road playoff victories. He beats Denver in Denver with a QB rating of, like, 150.

Before the half, Roethlisberger evaded a heavy blitz, ran to his left, and somehow lofted a pinpoint pass to Hines Ward in the back of the endzone. Amazing. Eli Manning could not dream about making that play.

For good measure, Roethlsberger also ran for a touchdown.

Mike Lupica, sports columnist, a man who basically ignores the Yankees regular season and only judges their success in the postseason, compares Roethlisberger's accomplishment to a backyard football game:

"But you knew the whole world would start piling on Eli the minute Roethlisberger, facing no rush, with wide open receivers all day, a dream setup for a quarterback whether he is playing in Denver or in a touch football game in the backyard, had lit up the Broncos."

How many people watched the AFC Championship Game? Tens of millions, I'm quite sure. Out of all these people, only Mike Lupica thought Roethlisberger was facing no rush and throwing to wide open receivers all day. Only Mike Lupica was unimpressed.


"Maybe Roethlisberger is going to turn out to be another Tom Brady, or Troy Aikman, or Joe Montana. And maybe he isn't."

Hard to argue with that logic. It has to be one of the two.

But what do you think is going to happen in the future, Mike Lupica? It's difficult to look into the future, but that's the gist of this article:

"Do I know if Roethlisberger is going to play in another Super Bowl after this one? I sure don't."

Neither do I, you rapscallion.

I do know that he's already in the Super Bowl and he's already way more accomplished than Eli Manning.

Yes, Mike Lupica. The Giants would be better with Ben Roethlisberger instead of Eli Manning. I don't know how anyone could seriously make the argument to the contrary. We don't need to talk about what might happen or what might have happened. We only need to talk about what has happened.


"Ken Griffey Jr. was going to be the one to hit 800 home runs once." No, he wasn't.

"Doc Gooden was going to win 300 games after he was 24-4 his second season in the big leagues." No, not really.

"And Kobe was going to win more titles than Michael." With or without Shaq?

I mean, get real, would you?

Griffey probably would have hit 800 homeruns, except he got hurt. Gooden may have won 300 games, except he got injured and got into drugs. Kobe still might win more titles than Michael.

But nobody in their right mind would predict a player to hit 800 homeruns, win 300 games, or win seven NBA titles. Most people understand these accomplishments are difficult indeed and the potential pitfalls are infinite.

But does everybody who praises Roethlisberger and predicts a bright future for him have to include the disclaimer about injuries?


"You know he is going to stand by the kid. Accorsi made as large an investment in Eli Manning as any general manager has ever made in a rookie quarterback, Accorsi's own personal legacy with the Giants is riding on him. But he is right to stand up for him, and not to run with the crowd. Once the same crowd wanted to run Phil Simms out of this town."

Well, duh. Here we go again. Lupica building up his side by creating a preposterous argument for the opposition.

Nobody is saying the Giants should give up on Eli Manning. Most people think Manning has a bright future (but most people also thought Ken Griffey Jr. was going to hit 800 homeruns! Which is relevant in no way whatsoever!).

But the present also counts for something. Ben Roethlisberger has a bright present and a bright future. He's a better NFL quarterback than Eli Manning.

Lupica's endless defense of Eli Manning borders on the pathological. Even Archie doesn't think Eli is that good.