Manning Up

Now that Philip Rivers is beginning to display his considerable quarterbacking abilities with the red-hot San Diego Chargers, and with the New York Giants looking more mediocre by the week, the "Eli question" is being raised anew. Little Manning's most recent Monday-night meltdown in Jacksonville did little to silence the debate. Did the Giants make a mistake in choosing Manning instead of Rivers (or Roethlisberger)? Do we place unfair expectations on Manning solely because of his last name? Should we simply sit back and allow Eli to mature at a "reasonable" rate?

Well...maybe, no, and absolutely not.

Allow me to explain.

Did the Giants make a mistake in choosing Manning instead of Rivers (or Roethlisberger)?
Of all the common Eli-related questions, this one requires the most patience to answer. To be sure, Roethlisberger (version 2k5) and Rivers appear primed for top-tier success. Big Ben, despite his recent struggles, has already secured a Ring; Rivers, whose Chargers currently look like the best team in the National Football League, looks like he may one day join the Jordanesque ranks of uh-oh draft-day lore. Nonetheless, these three QBs still stand in the early stages of their careers, having only been in the league for some 2 1/2 years. Hence, I feel that we should reserve opinion on this particular question until 2010 or so. Only then will we be able to assess a substantial body of work.

Do we place unfair expectations on Manning solely because of his last name?
The answer to this question is simple: no. Numerous commentators, including "Around the Horn" contributor Jim Armstrong, have asserted that we'd view Eli much less harshly were his name John Doe. Along this view, we unreasonably "expect" Eli to carry on the genetic Manning legend.

Such logic is terribly flawed. If Eli Manning were John Doe or Mo Schmoe, we wouldn't be holding these debates; if Eli Manning were not Eli Manning, he wouldn't be the starting QB for the New York Giants. Other successful college quarterbacks of recent note--e.g., Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, and Rex Grossman--have entered the NFL and shown that their pro legacies may not live up to their NCAA prologues. Nonetheless, we do not cry in outrage. We do not call for their heads.

The obvious point to be made here is that Eli was a celebrated #1 overall draft pick--by far the most highly touted golden boy of his or any recent class. My follow-up point is this: Eli's position was influenced almost primarily by his last name. His college stats were spectacular, but so were Couch's, Harrington's, and Grossman's. The key motivation for our shock at Eli's poor play is simple: We expected him to be Peyton Lite. We expected him to climb onto the nation's biggest stage in the nation's biggest sport and immediately become a star. Now, the prospect of Eli spending his career as a slightly above-average NFL quarterback has left us befuddled.

Perhaps Eli will indeed turn out to be a top-5 QB at some point down the road, thus justifying the pre-draft circus that followed him. No one knows what the future may hold. As for our current concern--it's wholly justified. We don't place "unfair" expectations on Eli simply because his last name is Manning. Rather, Eli Manning is who he is--is where he is--largely because his last name is Manning. There is, as they (sort of) say, no separating the Manning from the myth; we set the bar, and there's no lowering it now. Eli's name got him to where he is. The time for "objective" expectations has long since passed.

Should we simply sit back and allow Eli to mature at a reasonable rate?
See previous question/answer.