If that is what you call being blown away, then go ahead. Anyone who watches knows the small difference in those numbers are because of scheme. the only number that is grossly different is starts per game.
that is just not a good argument and no matter how many times people recite this, does not make it true.
But I've been dwelling on it... Nutshell: everything statistically-used to measure an individual QB’s performance. Beyond that, nothing. Are we comparing Manning and Schaub, or the Giants and Texans? I would very obviously choose the Giants over the Texans; they're a better *team*. You do yourself no favors by continually confusing team accomplishments with individual accomplishments. Good lord, where did you people attend school? What is similar about their regular season numbers? And oh by the way, likely president of a local Mensa chapter... if they're putting up similar regular season numbers (they're not but I just ran head-first into a wall in order to level the playing field...), and they're both wholly responsible for their team's wins/losses... why has Eli won considerably more games? Again, their numbers are the "same" but their win totals are not... jeez, that doesn't add up. It's almost as if they play with 52 other people who have a say in who wins and loses - but that can't possibly be it. [Runs head first into the wall again] That *IS* it!
I was referring to their career numbers. Schaub blows him away. Your randomly selected sample? He merely bests him in every single statistical category used to measure an individual QB, save one. Keep moving the target, CaseyH... You know, there's no shame in begrudgingly conceding that it's closer than you think. Doesn't mean Schaub's better; just means Schaub is better than you think. Nope, pretty equal on that - I think they're both averaging roughly 1 start/game. Keep hanging your hat all day on durability. No one has disputed its a tremendous advantage for Eli.
physical talent doesnt make one better nor does durability. And like i said, the lack of playoff means absolutely nothing in terms of his ability. Nothing. I'm not surprised people would prefer Eli but as mentioned before, but it isn't as clear cut as many think. Then again, the media has been telling you how good he's been so it must be true right?
That is schaubs career. 2007 to 2011. He was a backup in Atlanta before that. They were both drafted in 2004. I had to take a year off for the game played to be equal. What I posted is unfair to Eli. To make it fair I should compare the last 65 games they have played. I bet Eli wins in all of your stats. Schaub doesn't blow him away at all.
Uhm... that's exactly what you did. I mean....... really?? Is this *that* hard? You comapred the first 65 starts of Matt Schaub's career (2007-2011) to Eli's prime years (2008-2011). And Schaub bested him. What else ya got?...
Uh no, Eli has 7 starts I left out. Playoff starts. Those are kinda important. And why when they were drafted in the same year do you keep saying Eli's "prime " ? LOL you are a joke. And I didn't compare the first 65 starts of matt, he sucked in his first starts for ATL.
Eli Manning is able to move within the pocket and allude defenders. Matt Schaub isn't. All other skills are comparable, for the most part. Eli has accomplished more, and shined on the big stage. Matt Schaub has not. As of RIGHT NOW, Eli is better than Schaub.
CaseyH, no one is begruding the playoff starts (though, FYI - some of them are God-awful - include away). Eli's team has been universally better and we've all granted he has that advantage. [slaps forhead...] Because by 2008 (the year you picked to begin comparing their career #s), Eli had started 55 games, CaseyH; correction 61 games if, you know, you include playoffs and a Super Bowl victory, and such. Schaub? 13. So to compare (basically) ALL of Schaub's starts, including those always rocky first starts/seasons to four years of an experienced, at that point Super Bowl-winning Eli Manning, is a little unbalanced, don't you think? (I don't know why I'm asking you - you think it'd be more fair to compare their last 65 starts.... after posting their last 65 starts.) It was two starts, CaseyH, and he actually posted a 112 QBR in the second start - but, of course, QBR is meaningless - how many yards did he have??? How many TDs??? How many WINS????????? AMIRIGHT?
The point about Montana and Young is exactly what my argument is. As good as Steve Young was and as much as his numbers compare/better Montana's, he was not a better QB Joe Montana. You can ask most old timers on this board who they would want as QB, I bet most pick Montana. Not only because of the Super Bowl, but because he was a greater winner in the sense that he could win games late, stayed nonchalant under pressure, made clutch plays, and beat good teams in the playoffs. He was a better leader than Young. Again, Young was a greater athlete and a more prolific passer than Montana. Though, when it comes between elite players, like that, everything is about the playoffs and Super Bowl, regardless of who your skill players are, your offensive line, and defense. Like Lebron or Kobe, they were held to that standard in the highest regard. That's one thing to consider, even in the Schaub vs. Eli argument, the pressure to win is not nearly the same. Montana had to go through the same quality of teams, as Young did. People often say well Young had to play Packers, Cowboys, and one really good Atlanta team (yet had one of the most talented teams in the league). Montana had to deal with Cowboys (early in his career), Redskins, the 84 Dolphins, Bears, Giants, and the Rams, while you must also look at the skill players he had around his 2nd Super Bowl victory. Arguably, some of those teams might've been better than Atlanta and Green Bay. Schuab is a very accurate passer, but he is not scoring touchdowns when his team needs them, while Eli just does and he has more of them overall. Moreover, you cannot dismiss touchdowns, like that it is one of the most important stats for a QB. A QB could complete 80% of his passes, but if he isn't scoring, it's not really helping the team as much as someone who might only be completing 55% to 60%, but they are scoring 2 or 3 touchdowns. I won't budge an inch, because I've seen both players play. I simply think Eli elevates his teams to more wins than Schaub. I've seen Eli win alot of games as underdog against superior teams or better competition. Moreover, when did the Giants have a really good team, except in 2008. 9-7 and 10-6 are great squads, I guess, while they are this year's Giants scored less points than they allowed (point differential) . . .Giants were routinely given 25 points or more per game, 8 times, this season. Were in the bottom quarter of the league in pass defense, while they were mildly average against the run. Though, they did what they needed to do, and another important stat you are living out is the 4 quarter. Eli is a superior player in that quarter, most of the time and that makes a big difference in a game. I'm sorry, but I think a few QBs would've been able to make the playoffs with the Texans of the last few years. He's had 5 seasons, already and only one probable playoff appearance. Again, I can pull up the stats of handful of QBs who have better career in game stats than John Elway, yet they aren't in hall of fame. Because, they didn't win, or they were simply just good QBs. They never elevated their teams, substantially enough. Even though, it was a different era, I'd imagine Schaub's numbers would be better than Elway's (if he were playing now at younger age) numbers. I'd still take Elway have seen the type of teams Elway got to the playoffs with in mid 80s, especially when the coach was so conservative and determined to run the ball and sometimes cause the teams get behind earlier. Regardless, Elway could often pull through or find away to win with his arm and his feet . . . making the right plays at the right time. Moreover, I would even say Schaub is a better game manager than both Elway and Eli (I'll even throw in Favre), who all took alot of risk down the field and made some questionable decisions. Though, all 3 QBs could make big plays to win games, while at their best, they could be absolutely unstoppable. First, where did you come up with 3100 more passing yards? In Eli's last five seasons, he's thrown for 19,530 beating Schaub's 16,093 (since he has been injured). He's averaging more than 19 yards per game against Eli. Moreover, I even conceded that Schaub was better in those categories, while his numbers also stakes up against Peyton's number. Still, I would never compare Matt Schaub to Peyton Manning. He's a player in another dimension. Again, my biggest point about Schaub is that he's not a great playmaker or dominating passer. Yes, he has good stats, but that doesn't necessarily me him a better player Like I said earlier, on raw numbers, a player like Kevin Martin compares favorably to Reggie Miller (and looks better on paper in some spots), he's not a better player than Miller was. I'm getting the sense the more you try to jump into these stats, the less you might be watching the games. Again, I never said those numbers weren't important, but they actually mean less if QB cannot help his team win. I would understand it more if he were putting up Peyton Manning and Tom Brady production across the board, but he's not. Again, the big difference is touchdowns. Manning over his last 5 seasons averages 33 per season, while Brady is at 35.4 touchdowns per season over his last 5 full seasons. Schaub with Texans is only at 18.4, even only using his two best seasons of 29 and 24. It still doesn't match those other two. And you're not giving Schaub enough blame for not winning (Eli takes the brunt of it, when the Giants lose). Moreover, I do not think Eli receives too much credit, since Eli has the ball in his hands a majority of the time, especially when he is making plays to win the game and is getting his team into the playoffs. Furthermore, his skill players or defense are not carrying him in the way Baltimore does Flacco. In fact, the Giant are quinessential Jekyll and Hyde defense in the NFL. They have never been in the same class with the Steelers, Ravens. and some years even Dallas. Again, the pressure on Schaub is very mild compared to other QBs. When is 9-7 a very good football team, especially when that team was one on the brink of elimination in Week 14. Even when they won the Super Bowl, most people were talking about the Packers and Cowboys, because both teams were much more consistent and had less weaknesses. You know the opposite is true, why is it that the best teams typically have the best QBs, regardless of everything else. I've seen teams with a mediocre to average run game and defense, and so-so pass blocking reach the playoffs, because they have a stud at QB. What are quarterbacks criticized most for ...? Not winning games or getting their teams to playoffs, often before their actual performances, sometimes. Name a really good QB over last 30 years whose teams made the playoff infrequently. Once every four to six years. Maybe not routinely (and I never used the word routinely) , but I know for a fact that Michael Vick reached the playoffs twice with the Falcons (in his first 3 seasons as starter). That team was about as average all around as you could get. He did not have any weapons at wide receiver, especially no one close to Andre Johnson. There line was ok, while their defense was ok (nothing to write home about) to mediocre. Even with his questionable passing accuracy, he carried those teams. Here's my biggest thing on Schaub, I have seen QBs with worst talent around them, and they've reached playoffs or gone further. Do you think Donovan McNabb's skill players were better than Schaub's skill , around 00-03, 06-08. Kevin Walter could've been #1 receiver on those early 2000s Eagles' teams. James Thrash, Todd Pinkston, Torrance Small, Charles Johnson, and Freddie Mitchell. I guess you could always make Duce Staley and Brian Westbrook out to be pretty good running backs, but it should be worth mentioning that Westbrook was only a 2x pro bowler, and only rushed over 1,000 yards in his career twice. All after 2003, while McNabb in 2004 actually went through the playoffs without the help of Terrell Owens. Another player I want to mention ... Tom Brady, how in the world was he able to win 3 Super Bowls with relatively average skill players. From 01-06, his best skill players were Corey Dillion (one year), Troy Brown, David Givens, Daniel Graham, and Deion Branch. I make another mention of Elway from mid 80s to early 90s. He did not have any star receivers or running backs. Sammy Winder, Butch Johnson, Steve Watson, Clint Sampson, Vance Johnson, and Mark Jackson without a monster offensive line. He went 12-2 in his second season, 11-5 in his 3rd season, 11-5, and 10-4-1. So you can go ahead blame the Texans woes in 2009 or 2010 on Chris Brown and Kris Brown, and even the defense, but I won't exactly remember the Texans offense being dominated itself, along with QB. But in those seasons, those losses came against some bad teams or some games the Texans should've won. As Schaub played perfectly and clutch enough for the Texans to win other games.
right now sure, Schaub is hurt and Eli's been playing some of the best ball of his career. This time last year, Schaub would have been the decision because Eli was coming off a pretty bad year.
The only point I’ll make on Montana/Young is that it illustrates how important perception is. Montana did it first and more often. Fair or not, Young will always be in his shadow; his accomplishments ever-so slightly dismissed because of it. But Young is, in his own right, a great QB. And it's very likely, had Montana blown out a knee and Young stepped in, that the 49ers would not have missed a beat. When it comes to Eli/Schaub, I think perception is impacting this discussion as well. Eli’s teams have won more; he’s in the headlines right now – of course it seems silly to even think Schaub might be as good as a former Super Bowl MVP about to start his second Super Bowl. But that’s why we keep statistics, so we can make a fairer evaluation. And in that regard, Schaub is very much in the discussion. It amazes me how often people dismiss statistics. They pull the “eye test” BS as if they see more than everyone else watching the same network footage. It’s such a self-serving comment, one you’ll return to again and again throughout this response, BTW. The pressure to win is equal for both guys; I will not indulge such an argument. Sorry, but it’s silly nonsense. Oh boy… let’s start here: no one is dismissing TDs. You’ll note: I’ve repeatedly stated Eli’s advantage in this category. You need to talk to CaseyH – he’s the one arbitrarily dismissing statistics in this discussion. And I’m sorry, I really am – but I’m not going to visit the fantasy world you live in where TDs have different levels of importance. Every TD is important, whether they occur on the first play of the game or the last play of the game. Lastly, there’s much more to a successful QB than throwing TDs. Extending drives and converting first downs is important; not turning the ball over is important. If his RB ends up scoring the TD, it doesn’t invalidate the QB’s contribution. That’s why it’s disingenuous to cherry-pick stats and say, “See??? Eli’s better!!” You have to look at the whole rather than the parts. I think we’re done then. I’m not going to engage someone who thinks any individual elevates his team to more wins. That doesn’t even make sense to me. I’m also going to slap a giant eye roll on you for calling a team that’s won 10 or more games four of the past 7 years, including two NFC championships and a Super Bowl, “underdogs.” They may have been underdogs here or there – but I think we can safely conclude that since 2005, the Giants have consistently been a very good football team. In fact, you could make a decent argument they’ve underachieved. It represents too small a sample size and, further, it gives importance to something that is not overtly any more important than the 2Q. If Schaub is marching his team up and down the field and blowing opponents out (which the Texans did over a 4 game stretch this year), why is that less impressive than Eli struggling for 3Qs before hitting a late TD that wins a game? It’s silly nonsense. QBs should be judged by the entirety of their work. You do realize Elway is 4th all-time in yards and completions and 6th all-time in career TDs, right? Who are these handful of QBs with better numbers who are not in the HoF because they didn’t ride Terrell Davis to two late-career SB victories? So taking big risks downfield and making questionable decisions are the mark of a QB? Got it. And BTW, let’s dispel a total non-starter for me right here and now, this idea that Schaub is a “game manager.” Since 2007, he’s ranked 6th, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 3rd in YPA – the guy throws it downfield. And other than his first year, where he was on pace for 18 INTs, he’s since never thrown or been on pace for more than 15 INTs. So he not only throws the ball downfield, but does so very efficiently. That is the mark of a *very* good QB. As I explained: Eli has started 48 more games than Schaub. In order to make a better 1:1 comparison, I used Schaub’s current level of production and adjusted his pass attempts to equal Eli’s. The numbers are an estimate, designed to show that Schaub, while trailing in games played, is putting up a better pace. Uhm… Peyton’s numbers blow Schaub’s out of the water. You’re traveling down a dead end. I'm getting the sense the more you say these numbers are important but somehow don’t help a team win, the less you might be watching the games. It’s a total disconnect for me. “Sure, Schaub puts up elite #s. But his team doesn’t win so, obviously, those numbers are hollow and mean nothing.’ Wha? There are 52 other people on the team… Schaub has missed 16 games since 2007, plus parts of others. So of course his TD *totals* are going to be less. He did average 579 attempts his only two full, injury-free seasons. At that pace, he would have thrown 23, 29, 24, 30 TDs the past 4 seasons. That’s 26.5/season. He didn’t get there because he’s been hurt far too often – and that’s absolutely, positively a detriment. But this idea he’s throwing remarkably fewer TDs than other top QBs is patently untrue. If you have to pull Brady or Brees into the discussion to try and negate Schaub’s production, then you’ve proven my point. Your second point is ridiculous. As for your first, I think it’s pretty clear but if not: If Schaub had stayed healthy and played full seasons in ’07, ’08 and ’11, I feel fairly confident ’11 would not have been the Texans’ first playoff appearance, and I feel somewhat confident we might actually be on the precipice of letting Eli and Schaub decide this on the field at Super Bowl XLVI. As for the rest of your post: Duh. A good QB is vitally important. You’re free to have that argument with yourself. No one is going to dispute it. That’s it; I’m done. I’m sorry you don’t have a greater appreciation for Schaub and that your head is buried so deep within a pile of sand that you’re not going to concede that Schaub is closer to Eli than you think, not better – but closer.
My Top QBs list: 1. Aaron Rodgers 2. Drew Brees 3. Tom Brady 4. Peyton Manning *(still top 5 pending return from injury) 5. Michael Vick 6. Ben Roethlisberger 7. Eli Manning 8. Matthew Stafford 9. Matt Schaub 10. Phillip Rivers I would actually argue Phillip being a tad better than Schaub, this year was just a horrible season for him. Norv Turner has got to go and it has been evident for a while now. But I would definitely put Eli ahead of Schaub, he knows how to win and is as durable as they come.
Trent Dilfer has Flacco over Schaub............... I don't understand how an analyst can be so... just clueless
He's proven he can win a game in the playoffs. What have Schaub proven? He can rack up yards and efficiency stats? Not a fan of Tebow but he's done something Schaub hasn't done.
