Talk:Manning–Rivers trade

Neutrality

I think this article is not neutral at all, and lacks any sources, and needs to be fixed up. Eisen8388 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think parts of it were better before your edits. For instance, 85.9% is not "slightly" higher than 79.6% as a field goal kicker (in grades, a solid B versus a C+), and the swirling winds are hardly relevant because Feely's accuracy was worse, not better, when he played in Atlanta's Georgia Dome. I propose we put the percentages in the article, remove the bit about Giants stadium (since it actually seems to have worked in his favor), and let the reader decide.

There were some weasel words that needed to be fixed (in the form of "most experts would agree...") but the article was still more factual then than it is now. This is not the article about Eli Manning; this is an article about the trade. We ought to be comparing the athletes acquired therein, not stating for what Eli is most notable while discrediting Rivers as a beneficiary of Tomlinson's success. If you as a Giants fan want to argue about why one of them is succeeding while the other is failing, or speculate about what might come to pass in the future, you are welcome to do so on the Chargers or Giants forum. This page is for giving information about the trade as it has occurred to date. Kryptx 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented decision

From the article; "Manning, along with members of his family insisted that their unprecedented decision to refuse to play in San Diego", what about Bo Jackson? Didn't he do the same thing to Tampa Bay in '86, just without announcing it ahead of time?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I read the story used as a citation, and edited the text to more accurately reflect what was reported there - removing the word "unprecedented" and clarifying the family vs. Eli decision. Good catch! -Pete 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight digression but Elway was the first I know about - drafted by the Colts & forced them to trade him to Denver. Bo Jackson refused to sign & chose baseball & I'm not sure Tampa got any compensation - the Raiders just re-drafted him. The real difference with Manning is that he didn't have baseball to fall back on like Jackson & Elway so had the Chargers been unable to trade him away he literally would have had to sit out the whole year before re-entering the draft. A decision that would have cost him his first year's salary plus quite possibly the #1 overall pick status (and money) - mind you given the state of the 2004 draft he probably would have still gone #1 to San Francisco - if he'd agreed to play for them...

Anyway, if I do have a point it's that the Elway case has more & better parallels than Bo Jackson Megamanic 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Part 2

Rivers has a higher career QB Rating than Manning [7][8], But one should also take note that Eli Manning has played 23 games more than Phillip Rivers, Hereby reducing his rating by the laws of averages.

What utter crap! Who's trying to be an Eli apologist? If he had played better in those 23 games we wouldn't need to read this pathetic excuse. If you put "played on an inferior team" or "behind an inferior OL" we might be able to talk but what is written is mathematically incorrect unless you are trying to argue that Eli is inherently an average QB who will regress to an average QB rating, which I don't think you are. I'm changing this to something a little less weasly Megamanic 09:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major article surgery

I have removed much of the text of the article since it was full of biased and speculative analysis, weasel words and irrelevant analysis about players not involved in the trade. I would urge editors to read Wikipedia's core policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Thanks, Gwernol 09:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I wasn't "BOLD" enough to just delete the section where the relative merits of other players are debated but that's the right approach.Megamanic 03:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

I don't understand why this needs an article, it really isn't notable at all. something could be mentioned on Eli's page or the Chargers main page but I definitely does not deserve its own article Gailim 06:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. Especially with the consistent neutrality issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by President David Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. What's the pont. There have been a ton of draft day trades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilliganfanatic (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

Shouldn't this article just be called the 'Eli Manning trade' as he was the focal point of the entire trade? No one ever says the Rivers-Manning as Merriman is seen as the best of the platers received. I am going to request a move if no one disputes this. --Endless Dan 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree thats a better title. Also a more pov but accurate title would be 'Biggest rip-off in NFL history'. Noor Aalam 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I suggest this page be merged with the 2004 NFL Draft because this article really just says about a minor trade between two teams. This information can easily be put into the 04 draft no?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree RC-0722 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --71.62.4.205 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Teams trade players and draft picks all the time. What makes this one so special? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.205.161 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]