PHIL SIMMS '86, ELI MANNING '07

by wwtb?, Pacifist Viking

When you think of Phil Simms on the 1986 Super Bowl champion Giants, you probably think of the Super Bowl. Simms was the Super Bowl MVP, completing 22 of 25 passes in a 39-20 win.

When you think of Eli Manning on the 2007 NFC champion Giants, you probably think of an erratic, inaccurate quarterback that throws interceptions in bunches, but got just hot enough in the playoffs to help the Giants to the Super Bowl.

And you might be right on both counts, but here are Simms' and Mannings' stats in their respective Super Bowl years:

1986 Phil Simms: 55.3%, 3487 yards, 21 touchdowns, 22 interceptions
2007 Eli Manning: 56.1%, 3336 yards, 23 touchdowns, 20 interceptions

OK, those stats look pretty similar. But before we go suggesting they were equals in 1986 and 2007, keep in mind that the league-wide completion percentage in 1986 was 55.4% (making Simms average), and the league-wide completion percentage in 2007 was 61.2% (making Manning well below average). Manning also benefited more from his running game (the '07 Giants were 4th in the league with 4.6 yards per attempt; the '86 Giants were 11th in the league with 4.0 yards per attempt). For the season, though, Simms benefited from a stronger defense than Manning did ('86: 14.8 ppg, 2nd in the league; '07: 21.9 ppg, 17th in the league), which might partially account for the '86 Giants' 14-2 record and the '07 Giants' 10-6 record.

Of course, it is already obvious that the Super Bowl will play a big part in Eli Manning's historical legacy. Winning the game would make Eli Manning a Super Bowl winning quarterback, and in legacies, that's a big deal. But it's worth looking to Phil Simms to note just how critical Sunday's game could be for Manning in history. If he plays a spectacular game and the Giants win, he may be remembered fondly and could be annoying us all from the broadcast booth in 20 years. If he struggles and the Giants lose, he either needs to improve his play for the rest of his career, or get back to some Super Bowls, to have a good historical legacy. Otherwise he's like Stan Humphries, Kerry Collins, or any number of decent but not recognizably great quarterbacks to lose in a Super Bowl.