The stat clowns are definitely all over this thread, but misleading the public doesn't get you a membership to any elite club or new followers like twitter. How can anyone justify Eli Manning not deserving his rating when you have QB's like Mathew Stafford, Tony Romo, Mike Vick, and Phillip Rivers who for all the talent they may possess in their arms haven't proven capable of winning a damn thing. Nothing!!! Not in college, and definitely not in the NFL. Then you have the Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady lovers who can do no wrong in their eyes, but guess what "Eli beats them consistently as well."
So are we talking stats? Wins? Or clutch play? Because if we're talking wins or clutch play Rivers, Vick, and especially Romo should be rated in the 80's.
For those anxious to buy New England vs. Green Bay Superbowl tickets this year, here's a hint: "Keep dreaming, because it's not going to happen." Eli will win his 3rd ring before Rodgers or Brees wins their 2nd and then maybe he can get some respect around here. Hell, if Plaxico didn't go retardo and shoot himself in the club that night Eli would probably have 3 rings right now.
STOP HATING ON SUCCESS!!!
Winning is the most important thing in football, but it can't really be used as a measure of whether or not a player is better than somebody else. If it could, there would be absolutely no debate that Trent Dilfer had a better career than Dan Marino, which I'm quite sure isn't the case. Eli has two rings because he played well when it mattered AND he plays on a very, very talented team. I think that Eli is better than the QBs you listed in this post, but you can't really say that just because he won more because the other QBs play on lesser teams.
Eli's rating might be just a little bit too high, but he is in the correct general area that he should be, which is behind Rodgers/Brady/Brees and ahead of pretty much everybody else. I have more issues with Vick's rating than Eli's.