If You Make a Comparision, Be Sensible About It.

So I came across this article on Fox Sports the other day by Ian O'Connor about who he would choose from the 2004 draft QB class: Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger. That I said "Fox Sports" should tell you right off the bat that something is wrong, due to the fact that the majority of writers for Fox Sports are slightly more intelligent than people with Down's Syndrome. And as this is a New Yok blog who has Steeler fans that consist about half of the writers, I thought this was a rather appropriate subject to correct.

Yes, I said correct, because Mr. O'Connor's reasons for his choice (Eli) while have merit, his "deciding factors" that put Eli over Ben are pretty much full of shit. So I've listed below the six reasons he has that give Eli the edge and why they dont hold much, if any weight at all.

Eli is 1-0 in the postseason vs. the ultimate measuring stick, Brady; Roethlisberger is 0-1.

The sad part is he is serious about this. Ben lost in his rookie year to the Pats in the AFC Championship game, who were probably going to win anyway because Bill Cowher is so obvious in his gameplan. So much so that Belichick told his lackey's to put the camera's away. Run, Run, Pass. That's the first three plays of 90% of every series under Field Goal Bill's reign. Not that Eli's win wasnt impressive, but really, based on each team meeting the Pats ONCE in the playoffs? Give me a break.

Eli was MVP of Super Bowl XLII; Roethlisberger was a dreadful participant in Super Bowl XL. No real arguing this one here. SBXL was practically a comedy of errors and Ben didnt play well. Of course the MVP Heins Ward only played an average game, which sadly was enough to win the MVP. Having two more years I'm sure helped Eli some in this.

Eli defeated one of the greatest teams of all time to win his title; Roethlisberger beat the Seahawks, with some help from the refs, to win his.

Any weight this argument carries is wiped out by the refs comment. I still find it amazing that people only acknowledge the missed calls against the Steelers and not the Seahawks (namely a block in the back on the interception return that put the Seahawks at the Steelers 5 instead of their own 30). Or how the Seahawks, you know, dropped about 6 first down passes and missed two fields. He also is intimating with the tone this is the Seahawks of this year who suck something bad. Three years ago the Seahawks were a good team. In fact, their 13-3 record was the best in the NFC that year. Give credit where it's due, the Seahawks didnt reach the Superbowl because they were lucky.

Roethlisberger takes too many hits for too many lost yards — he's been sacked 164 times, or 65 times more than Manning.

Of course he ignores the obvious fact: the Steelers "offensive" line. Over the past three years, some games it looks as though the Steelers dont even have one. It's been well documented to be their achilles heel. And not that Ben wont hold it too long sometimes, the vast majority is the offensive line not doing their job (see Simmons, Kendall and Mahan, Sean for further information). Ben is pretty mobile, and tough to bring down, and the fact that the Steelers have allowed the most sacks of any playoff teams the past three years by a wide margin shows just how bad they are. If you switch the offensive lines, I'd venture to say those numbers would easily be reversed, and in fact infalted more towards Ben favor.

Eli owns the most important talent of all — the ability to stay on the field. He hasn't missed a single start since being given the job; Eli played through the slightly separated shoulder last year that reportedly would keep him out for a month.

Good god. This is just plain f'ing stupid. The majority games Ben has missed are from 1) getting hit head on in a motorcycle accident (watch the South Park episode Grey Dawn for a cameo by the person who hit him) and 2) an emergency appendectomy IN THE SAME SEASON. Somehow, two things neither of which were really his fault means he cant stay healthy. And seriously, has he not been paying attention to the media? The first five weeks the main topic of conversation on the Steelers was, get this, BEN'S SHOULDER! I mean, how can you just blatently ignore these things? Oh yeah, and there's that whole offensive line sucking thing again.

Manning has grown up in the tougher, noisier market, has weathered brutal criticism from the media and the fans and has managed the heavy expectations that come with being a Manning and a No. 1 overall pick.

I'm not going to say Pittsburgh is tougher to play in, but its also the biggest fanbase world wide from people who expect the team to be good. He was the first QB the Steelers took in the first round since Terry Bradsahw; you know, the QB who helped the Steelers win 4 Superbowls, so I'd say there were some expectations there. Yes, the New York media is probably the worst to deal with, but its not like Ben had nothing. He just started off playing good to get the people on his side, something Eli didnt do. Wait, how come the fact Ben started off good and Eli took three years to even be considered semi consistent is not taken into consideration?

I'm not saying Eli is better than Ben, or vise versa. It's just that when you try and decide, dont use either bullshit reasons or exaggerate the pros for one and negatives for the other to influence things. Half the things he gives Eli credit for and holds against Ben are stuff that arent portrayed in a fair light. So I have to wonder, would Ian O'Connor make the same choice knowing his deciding factors are bullshit?

Well, probably. He does work for Fox Sports after all.

P.S. -the only good thing about the article is that San Diego uber douche QB Phillip Rivers isn't even considered. Who, btw, looks a lot like Devo's favorite person, Sean Avery