Yeah, fine, that's the purpose of the draft (and yes, I do understand what a draft is) - but it's not necessarily something Eli has to sit and take. Elway didn't, so are you going to call him a whiny bitch too? (And, no, Elway's "baseball option" was bogus, unlike Bo Jackson's, as the commentators noted at the top of show.)
Okay?? It's a draft. The purpose of the draft is that the worst teams get the best draft picks. You can't control who drafts you because then what is the point of the draft.
Won't happen, because there isn't that much of a slippery slope. You needed a rather fortuitous confluence of circumstances here for this to have happened in the first place. The Chargers weren't sure who to take. They liked another quarterback almost as much. Manning (correctly or not) was the consensus number one pick. Finally, the team that really wanted Manning (and the team Manning really wanted), was close enough to make a trade do-able. If the Patriots had really, really wanted Manning, there's no way this happens. A 21 and a 32 plus a number one next year still wouldn't have gotten it done.
There is a slippery slope and what if next year, the top pick holds out until the Super Bowl champs draft him. The top pick isn't some divine right from God, you can't control everything you want.
Manning didn't control everything - but he did control as much as he could, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Exactly how is that different? Please explain - because right now, all you're doing is name-calling without any explanation. Which is your right, but you can't have a rational discussion with that as a starting point.
It is a LOT different. His brother did that after his junior year and that was alright, he could go back college. Eli Manning and his daddy chose to be bitches.
The Colts may have been coming off of a 3-13 record, but as Kiper and Mortenson and Berman pointed out, the management staff they had in place (coach, GM, team president) were people that Archie knew and trusted, and who had good reputations in the league. The Chargers, on the other hand, have a relatively untested group in the front office, a coach who is somewhat of a lame duck (unlike Mora at that time, who was secure), and little more than LaDainian Tomlinson to point at as team positives. Add to that the uncertainty about the stadium and the Chargers staying in San Diego, and you have a much different situation than with Indianapolis back in 1998.
You know the Colts were pretty bad when they drafted his son, but he had no complaints there. You know what that says to me? That Archie has no faith in his son and doesn't believe he's good enough to play and turn around a team like his son. That all said, Eli not only was a bitch, but he hurt his future team's future because they traded away a better QB and a shitload of picks to the Chargers and the Chargers got a QB they wanted all along.
Archie might have faith in his son, but he probably doesn't want to watch Eli suffer as he did (which means that Archie, rightly or wrongly, is equating today's Chargers with the Saints of the 1970s). Rivers being a "better QB" is an open question (and will continue to be for five years), so that's a wash. And you are right - the majority of analysts are saying that the Giants paid too much for Manning. But that doesn't automatically hurt the Giants' future - for comparison, take a look at Atlanta (who gave up quite a bit for Michael Vick) and the Chargers. Which one of those teams has a brighter future, right now?
Edited by Colonial Philistine, Apr 24, 2004 @ 11:02 PM.