Is Rule #10 (trading a lot of picks for one player) seemingly obliterated by the success of Eli Manning in leading the Giants to Super Bowl XLII? How is it possible to say that Manning has a free pass for life while also being adamantly against Accorsi's trade to get him? The answer is easy- I have said both and have no qualms saying it again:
THE TRADE FOR MANNING WAS INCORRECT!
ELI MANNING HAS A FREE PASS FOR LIFE!
This blog was started at the end of Nov 2006, 2+ years after the draft day in 2004 when Manning was taken in exchange for #1 in 2004, the #5 in 2004, the #1 in 2005 and the #3 in 2005. All for moving up three spots. I argued it in email in 2004 and will argue it again here- ACCORSI EGREGIOUSLY OVERPAID.
1) For starters I will say flatly that Ben Roethlisberger (whom Accorsi admits he would have taken with the #4 pick had the trade not been made) wins the Giants not 1 but quite possibly TWO titles already.
2) Secondly, like it or not, Eli Manning said he was not willing to play for the Chargers. Tough S***. Use that to your advantage and get a distressed sale.
3) It does not matter whether Eli goes to the Hall of Fame, wins us one or ten titles, the trade subjects your team to far more IMBALANCE by taking a team sport which is already focused on the success of a QB and putting it on the shoulders of ONE player EVEN MORE! Remember Jay Alford, that unknown #3 pick from 2007? The one who sacked Brady and was in on more than a few key plays in the Super Bowl run? That is a #3 round pick that is part of your team, one which could have easily been there for the Giants that we will never know about because we no longer had the EXTRA #1, EXTRA #3 and EXTRA #5.
4) DO THE MATH! Go to your draft tables and you will see the Giants overpaid for moving up by roughly the value of a high #3 pick. Almost a second rounder! Not chopped liver.
So the point is that yes, Manning played lights out in his last 5 games, helped us tremendously to win a title, but that does NOT validate the trade. The trade was a poor one from the moment it was made. I do not care if all we got was old Eli through his first 3.5 seasons or the new one with the title. If someone gives you a coin and tells you heads you win 2 and tails you lose 3, it does not matter that it landed on heads and you 'won.' It was still a bad bet. Accorsi can argue all he wants about what he knew and did not know about Manning, but he overpaid AND had alternatives at #4.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Exceptions to the Rules..?.. Part 3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I personally feel if the Giants landed Ben Roethlisberger, they would have zero Super Bowl victories since he started.
I feel the reason why the Steelers won the Super Bowl a little more than two years ago was because of the performance of the other aspects of the team. For example, the Steelers offensive line was great that year. Ben didn't even really play that great in the game.
You could argue that with the extra picks the Giants would have had if they did not trade for Manning, they would have been a much better team and that it wouldn't matter if they had Ben instead of Eli. However, with so many moving parts that a football team is, such an argument is pure conjecture.
Accorsi said Manning was, by far, the best Q-back in the draft that year and that was the best deal he ever made (that was said in the book "The GM", published before this year's run).
i thought the giants overpaid myself at the time. they only moved up 3 spots, and like you said, Manning's comments should have lowered the price. i was ok giving up a #3 and #5, but not next year's #1--another #4 or lower would have been ok--but the chargers knew how desperate accorsi was and squeezed the most out of him. eli is not elway either; elway could carry a team.
i also doubt ben would have won 2 superbowls with the giants. he would have been lucky to win one. although imagining merriman on the giants defense is pretty thrilling.
The ironic thing (in my opinion) is that had Eli signed up with the Charges and if he is as good as Accorsi hoped for "a franchise quarterback/rare commodity", the the Chargers, it could be argued, would have won 2-3 Super Bowls since Eli joined the league. This could have happened, especially with Eli's penchant for 4th quarter comebacks. The Chargers have had very strong teams over the past few years. It is surprising/interesting that the Chargers have not yet won a Super Bowl.
Merriman on the Giants would have tarnished the Giants image a little bit with his steroid use. The same way Barry Bonds tarnished the SF Giants, Giambi tarnished the Yankees, and Belicheck (for spygate) the Patriots. Obviously these individuals tarnish themselves more than the team, but the team is still slightly affected.
Let's not get selective amnesia here. ELi Manning was the weakest link on the offense in 2005, 2006, and for 15 games in 2007. When he played well the offense was in great shape. When he played poorly (which was all too often, and seemingly present inside of each game for quarters at a time) the offense suffered. Roethlisberger was a good enough pick, and I am not going to speculate that the Giants would have or would not have drafted Merriman. And I do not care if the Giants won FOUR Super Bowls in Manning's first four years or if they lost in Buffalo (and thus never experienced the playoff success)... it was a bad trade. I will be consistent on that because if you have that trade to make every season you will bury your team. (Of course you are not going to have the equivalent of the 4th pick in the draft each year to use.) I do not have a computer with access to all the stats, but the point is that the value and the results are generated from trading down, not up.
Heck, if Gates, Rivers and Tomlinson are healthy (in the AFC Championship) they could easily be the SB XLII champions and we could be discussing how that trade set THEM up for the title.
I'll turn bass into a 'value' guy before long.
Andy F. is exactly right. This sentiment is echoed in Phil Simms' book where Simms dispels certain myths of pro football. One of those myths (on p. 75): "This quarterback might not have the physical abilities to successfully make the jump from college to the NFL, but you have to draft him because he has all the intangibles....He's a winner"
Here, Simms is not talking about any QB in particular, but he is just making an important point that you should not draft merely on intangibles. Along the same lines, you can say you need to draft based on tangible qualities and value. These are important principles to follow when assembling a pro football team.
However, it seems that Accorsi somehow know that Eli perhaps was going to be a franchise quarterback, one who only comes along once every blue moon. A quarterback par excellence.
If that is what Accorsi, in his heart, truly believed he had in Eli, then one can argue that the deal can be justified even without Eli playing a single down in the NFL. Perhaps this is why Accorsi was willing to discard the usual "value charts" in this one instance.
Just found this post while looking for last year's July 4th post.
Does Eli's performance in the playoffs of Jan 2009 vs PHL (lack of skill in the wind) reflect on him and the pick?
Does Roethlisberger's SECOND ring in the playoffs of 2009 reflect on him and the pick?
The answer is NO and YES. No, in that we do not need any more data now or in the future. YES, in that it simply should remind us that our original supposition of VALUE still applies, and that some of the data of 2009's playoffs merely is going to be part of the future which should contain your ZEAL for ANY particular player in 2004. Unless God themself is whispering in your ear, stop thinking it's ELWAY or bust and start thinking it is almost always a shade of gray and do the rational thing. All 3 QBs can go to the HOF, or all 3 can be busts- no matter.
Post a Comment