East Coast Bias Bowl -- Running Super Bowl XLVI Thread

OK, so given the information you have now, are you willing to admit that you were wrong that the Giants gave up too much to get Manning?

(And I have no idea why you think I believe the Steelers should be scolded for anything.)

 

No, I wasn't wrong. Given the information I had available at the time, the Giants had given up the superior quarterback AND high draft picks for Manning. That is a mistake.

You are acting as if we know Manning would finally put together a complete season and win another championship back in October. We did not.

And regarding the thing with the Steelers, it's not my fault such a simple point sailed over your head.

 

Actually, just the opposite. The fans shouldn't take the losses so seriously.

 

The guy played the Super Bowl on an ankle that'd have the fans ripping him on crutches. So screw them and their Chip Hilton bullshit.

 

OK, you say you were not wrong with the information you had a month ago. Yet, you argue that Accorsi made the wrong decision eight years ago when he had far less information than you have. That doesn't make sense to me.

It is not useful to judge the value of a trade or the legacy of a general manager by "what information they had at the time." Hindsight is the only tool to do that properly and it is inarguable in hindsight that Accorsi made the correct move.

Accorsi, with the information he had available, made the decision that acquiring Manning was worth trading Rivers, a 2004 third-rounder, a 2005 first-rounder and a 2005 fifth-rounder.

A.J. Smith wanted Rivers, Osi Umenyiora, the 2004 third-rounder and the 2005 fifth-rounder. Accorsi said no and threw in the 2005 first-rounder, which the Chargers used to draft Merriman. How does giving up that pick look now?

The Chargers turned the '04 third-rounder in Nate Kaeding and they flipped the fifth-rounder to St. Louis in an inconsequential deal. Would either of those picks have won more Super Bowls for the Giants?

If the Giants couldn't get Manning, they were going to trade down with Cleveland, take Roethlisberger and use Cleveland's No. 37 pick possibly on Jake Grove, a center who was later drafted by the Raiders and washed out of the league after starting half the games of his six-year career. That would have been a wasted pick anyway.

So all of these precious picks that you believe would have made the Giants better than they are didn't turn out to be worth squat.

Accorsi made a decision that he believed would set up the organization for success for a decade and now, eight years in, it has been validated as the correct decision. Hell, four years ago it was validated because he achieved the goal of every general manager: To build a team that wins the Super Bowl.

 

Simms has carried it well-past his on-field career. God forbid any service person or public-transportation company advise him that there might be a single straw in his path. I've seen the show.

 

Wait. Now you want to argue that the draft picks have no value because they weren't used well? Are you serious? If you really think that is a legitimate point, we are just wasting our time because you are beyond help.

 

Speaking being beyond help, you want to argue that the draft picks could have been used to draft mythical players that would have won the Giants what, three Super Bowls? Four? Every one since 2004?

OK, let's do this. Let's look at the Pro Bowlers drafted in each round whom the Giants could have selected had they not traded the picks (I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that players were drafted in the correct round by general managers who know a helluva lot more about football than I do):

2004 Rd 3: Nate Kaeding K; Nick Hardwick C; Randy Starks DT; Chris Cooley TE; Matt Schaub QB. The only ones who are really worth a damn there are Kaeding, Cooley and Schaub and the Giants had Shockey and Manning at TE and QB. A kicker in the third round? Pffft.

2005 Rd 1: Shawne Merriman LB; Jamal Brown OT; Derrick Johnson LB; Aaron Rodgers QB; Roddy White WR; Heath Miller TE; Logan Mankins G. So Roddy White and Rodgers clearly would have been upgrades, but they wouldn't have chosen Rodgers because they would have presumably selected Roethlisberger the year before. Merriman flamed out and would have been a useless pick anyway. So that's one player -- White -- so far who who would have been a dramatic upgrade.

2005 Rd 5: Trent Cole DE. No big loss

So which of those guys that the Giants weren't able to take because they didn't have their draft picks do you think was going to win them three Super Bowls or more?

Easy question, OOP: Did Accorsi make the right move by acquiring a guy who has won two Super Bowl MVPs for his franchise?

 

Then what's the point? I remember reading how Larry Bird (Boston reference, sorry) would win a championship and then start working out the day after to win another one. Some guys have it, some guys don't.

 

Overly simplistic question, which fits how you have handled this argument since it started back in mid-season.

But hey, if you want to be overly simplistic, try this. Which is better? The quarterback with two Super Bowl championships and a third appearance and the draft picks or the quarterback with two championships? Which has more value?

They could have had Roethlisberger, who had clearly been the better quarterback over the course of his career, and the draft picks. Even if it was just Roddy White, that is value that they gave away with the trade.

Again, when you figure in the off-field issues, I would rather have Manning. But even with the information we have now, there is still an argument to be made that they would have been better off staying put and taking Roethlisberger.

But I will remind you again, we did not have the same information when we had this discussion two or three months ago. At that point, Manning had never put together a full season like this one. He had not established himself as an elite quarterback and he had just the one Super Bowl ring.

You are STILL trying to argue that draft picks really don't have much value. Try floating that one past those general managers who know a helluva lot more about football than either of us.

 

No, I never once said or argued "that draft picks really don't have much value." I'm arguing -- pretty conclusively, I might add -- that the picks the Giants gave up to get Manning didn't outweigh the value of acquiring a guy who won two Super Bowl MVPs. There's a pretty big difference there.

You keep saying that with the information you had at the time, you were not wrong in asserting that the Giants gave up too much to acquire Manning. That would be like saying that all the columnists who wrote that Peyton Manning can't win the big game before Feb. 2007 were right because how could they possibly know he would ever win a Super Bowl.

Hell, there was a time I thought Matt Cassel could be a big-time NFL QB and that Ricky Williams was going to be one of the best running backs in NFL history. I didn't have the information available then that I have now, but that doesn't make me any less incorrect.

The facts have changed, yet your opinion seems to be the same. So you really can't argue that you weren't wrong with the information you had at the time and then continue to make the same argument with new information available.

Oh, and to answer your simple question: If this were 2004, I might have agreed with you that Roethlisberger and three draft picks are more valuable than one player. In fact, I DID agree at the time, IIRC.

But this isn't 2004. We have more information now. We have the benefit of hindsight. We can evaluate what Manning has done, what Rivers and Roethlisberger have done and what those draft picks would have turned into (which wasn't much). With this new information, I don't see how you can still be arguing that the Giants gave up too much for Manning.

Now, would you like to answer my simple question? Knowing what you know right now, did Accorsi make the correct move to acquire Manning?