MVP Discussion Thread

[jth1331]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

Couldn't agree more and people now expected that to be the standard.


Yeah but is that enough to NOT give it to Rodgers? Or is it moreso because of the fact they went 15-1 last year and he had one of the greatest seasons at the position and now everyone expected him to maintain that level for a second year?

I'm not saying Manning shouldn't win it but moreso did Rodgers do anything or not do anything to lose it in the first place?

Then Manning is showing why he shouldn't lose the MVP status he had earlier too.
Its most valuable, and Manning turned this average/above-average Broncos team into a Super Bowl Contender. A serious Super Bowl contender.

[realtalktruth]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

It's a flawed argument and you can dig through this thread for more details since it's the exact same one that was already discussed. In short, Manning plays a large roll in how well those players around him are playing... which is partially why it's hard for anyone who isn't a QB to get the award. It's hard for a non-QB to have that kind of effect.

I'd argue the opposite. Manning has playmakers on both sides of the ball and they are great players even without his influence. Does Manning make them better? Yes. But they were good to begin with.

What's rare and MVP worthy is a QB playing with average to bad players and making a push at the playoffs with them. That's what I would consider MVP worthy.

Look at the Vikings game today. They can win with AP playing average and lose with him playing great. It's just the nature of the position. You can't just look at stats to see what Manning does for that team. He's basically running the offense. If he plays average (with stats and bad decisions) the Broncos don't win... period.

Ponder stepped up and Peterson might have had a hand in that. Would that not be the same case or even greater when it comes to Manning considering the level the defense and running game are playing at compared to Ponder?

And I'll never be convinced that we should ignore a player who has his team in position for a 1st round bye and possibly the top spot in the conference in favor of someone who's team hasn't clinched the last wildcard spot.

Isn't that what's happening with Watt, Ryan, and Rodgers? You wouldn't ignore a player like that because you want to reward a great player playing great and elevating his team to a top Super Bowl contender. Then come up with a reward that does so, or change the name of the MVP award. But don't give him the MVP, because he isn't the most valuable player.

Answers in bold.

[z Revis]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

Peyton could probably win the MVP every single year. That's just how valuable he is. To me other QB's would have to beat him out statistically by a fairly large margin in order for them to get it(and have a better record). That's just me. I'm biased, but to me he's the most valuable player in the league year in and year out.

To answer jth, I understand TD's and points are what matters, but when you put up 117 receptions with 1,800+ yards you helped your team considerably. He obviously didn't get as many TD opportunities as he would've liked, but you can't ignore the fact that he broke a historic record and could also land himself at 2nd on the receptions in a season list. Those statistics EASILY qualify him for OPOY.

[Chrisksaint]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

Rodgers has a good season and it has nothing to do with his previous season to me, it's just I think Manning and AP are having better seasons

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

Better season based on what though?

Again, what has Rodgers done or NOT done to lose it in the first place? Especially if he's playing as well as he did last year, according to some, which BTW was an MVP type year.

And this is coming from someone who already said that Manning will win it based on the comeback factor alone and the fact that the Media has a massive hard-on for him and would love nothing more than to give him to MVP this year.

[jth1331]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

Better season based on what though?

Again, what has Rodgers done or NOT done to lose it in the first place? Especially if he's playing as well as he did last year, according to some, which BTW was an MVP type year.

And this is coming from someone who already said that Manning will win it based on the comeback factor alone and the fact that the Media has a massive hard-on for him and would love nothing more than to give him to MVP this year.

Because Manning has turned the Broncos into a Super Bowl team. How many times do I need to explain this?

Manning is having a slightly better statistical year, while drastically improving the team he is on. The impact he has on the Broncos can not be ignored, without Manning the Broncos are probably where the Ravens are right now, at best. A playoff team maybe, but huge questions and not going anywhere in the playoffs(most likely anyways).

With Manning, they have a chance at the #1 seed in the AFC and have absolutely destroyed most of their competition, while falling just short against three top opponents.

[wwharton]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

Couldn't agree more and people now expected that to be the standard.


Yeah but is that enough to NOT give it to Rodgers? Or is it moreso because of the fact they went 15-1 last year and he had one of the greatest seasons at the position and now everyone expected him to maintain that level for a second year?

I'm not saying Manning shouldn't win it but moreso did Rodgers do anything or not do anything to lose it in the first place?

Considering the injuries the Packers have had, I'd say Rodgers has made a late push to get serious consideration. I think the slow start and eyes on Manning all season has kept Rodgers under the radar. But if we take hype out of the equation my order would be Manning, Rodgers, Brady, AP.

Answers in bold.

Problem with answering like that is that I can't quote it so anyone reading will have to go back to see what the responses are to (just an fyi).

1. Already been stated... the great players around Manning weren't great just last year. But lets also remember this, Peterson is playing on the same team as last year also... they won 3 games. That landed them one of the easiest schedules in the league. The NFL system is built for the Vikings to bounce back to win about 8 games. The AFC West isn't the strongest division but the Broncos played a first place schedule despite having really a poor season last year (don't care about making the playoffs in this regard... they were a .500 team that lucked into half of those wins) and lost their starting RB weeks ago. Brandon Stokley came off his couch and is producing... you're really undervaluing Manning's effect on the players around him, and that includes the defense.

2. No it's not the same. Basically, if the Vikings were able to have a more balanced attack throughout the year they'd likely win more games overall... and Peterson would probably have less touches and not be even sniffing the record. As I said earlier, pretty much all the 2,000 rushers had bad offenses around them which is why they were force fed the ball enough to put up those type of stats. I bring up yesterday's game bc it's not like Peterson didn't play well, he just didn't have to carry the load. That's why stats can't be all that's looked at also. He contributed very much to the win, but they didn't need 200 yards from him. A QB (and I do hate the idea that QBs pretty much always win this but this is why I kind of get it) like Manning (or Rodgers, Pack... lol) in a similar situation is still reading the defense to dictation the situation, and setting the offense up to operate.

So yes, the threat of AP helped Ponder become more successful... but if that were possible more often we'd be looking at Foster. Great player having a great year but not in MVP discussions. Again, there's a reason only one 2,000 rusher has won an MVP... and he split the award.

3. We're not talking about Watt, Ryan or Rodgers. My perspective is all should be in the MVP discussion. I think it's very hard to give it to Watt just like it is any individual defensive player... especially with dominant forces at WR and RB on the offensive side. But Ryan, Rodgers, Brady and Manning all have very good cases. My vote goes to Manning and I give AP more credit than Ryan because he really does have insane targets at WR and TE but I think they are all in the discussion.

Peyton could probably win the MVP every single year. That's just how valuable he is. To me other QB's would have to beat him out statistically by a fairly large margin in order for them to get it(and have a better record). That's just me. I'm biased, but to me he's the most valuable player in the league year in and year out.

To answer jth, I understand TD's and points are what matters, but when you put up 117 receptions with 1,800+ yards you helped your team considerably. He obviously didn't get as many TD opportunities as he would've liked, but you can't ignore the fact that he broke a historic record and could also land himself at 2nd on the receptions in a season list. Those statistics EASILY qualify him for OPOY.

Yeah, my vote would go to AP but CJ very much deserves serious consideration. He's broken a couple of other records too. It'd be silly to focus on the TDs considering AP isn't going for any TD records himself. I overstated in response to the earlier post comparing TDs but my point really was that 11 TDs for a RB is just a good season... it's generally top 10 and with only a handful of main backs, we're talking about top 3rd of the league. Definitely good but not anything incredible. If we're not looking at the team's records (which I think we shouldn't for OPOY) CJ is VERY close to AP in the running.

Because Manning has turned the Broncos into a Super Bowl team. How many times do I need to explain this?

Manning is having a slightly better statistical year, while drastically improving the team he is on. The impact he has on the Broncos can not be ignored, without Manning the Broncos are probably where the Ravens are right now, at best. A playoff team maybe, but huge questions and not going anywhere in the playoffs(most likely anyways).

With Manning, they have a chance at the #1 seed in the AFC and have absolutely destroyed most of their competition, while falling just short against three top opponents.

lol, that's a pretty bad comparison. They'd be nothing like the Ravens. All season many of us Ravens fans expressed our worry with the team but never had a doubt about them making the playoffs. That wouldn't be true with Denver if they had anybody else but Manning back there.

[bigbob]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

For the record, the Vikings were given the 8th toughest schedule at the start of the season, so they weren't "built for 8 wins".

Peterson also isn't being "force fed" the ball. If he was being force fed the ball, he'd be averaging over 25 carries a game. 20 carries a game for the top running back in the league is a joke.

[wwharton]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

For the record, the Vikings were given the 8th toughest schedule at the start of the season, so they weren't "built for 8 wins".

Peterson also isn't being "force fed" the ball. If he was being force fed the ball, he'd be averaging over 25 carries a game. 20 carries a game for the top running back in the league is a joke.

Eight toughest schedule? They've got 6 games against teams we know will be in the playoffs. That includes the Colts who no one expected to be sniffing the post season and the 2 division games against the Pack. They haven't played the 2nd game against the Pack yet and are 2-3 in the other games with the win against the Texans yesterday.

If we include the bubble teams they are 3-6 (split with Chicago and a loss to Washington). Their other wins came from teams that are a combined 23-51-1 with the best being the Rams. Maybe that does somehow amount to the 8th toughest schedule, I don't know how that was figured out if true. But it's far from anything to write home about... and clearly plays a part in them even having a shot at making the playoffs.

And the last 9 games he's averaging over 23 carries per game. Before that Harvin was the main focus and AP was averaging 83 ypg. Since Harvin went down the offense has most definitely gone through AP... as it should bc there is no one else. It seems the total plays are low in general for the Vikings, but there is no denying he is the offense. "Force fed" is strong if you take it literally, but the point is he's been in the same situation as all the other backs that have run for over 2,000 yards. Offense strongly going through them bc the passing attack is weak.

[gopher_guy]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

Eight toughest schedule? They've got 6 games against teams we know will be in the playoffs. That includes the Colts who no one expected to be sniffing the post season and the 2 division games against the Pack. They haven't played the 2nd game against the Pack yet and are 2-3 in the other games with the win against the Texans yesterday.

If we include the bubble teams they are 3-6 (split with Chicago and a loss to Washington). Their other wins came from teams that are a combined 23-51-1 with the best being the Rams. Maybe that does somehow amount to the 8th toughest schedule, I don't know how that was figured out if true. But it's far from anything to write home about... and clearly plays a part in them even having a shot at making the playoffs.

And the last 9 games he's averaging over 23 carries per game. Before that Harvin was the main focus and AP was averaging 83 ypg. Since Harvin went down the offense has most definitely gone through AP... as it should bc there is no one else. It seems the total plays are low in general for the Vikings, but there is no denying he is the offense. "Force fed" is strong if you take it literally, but the point is he's been in the same situation as all the other backs that have run for over 2,000 yards. Offense strongly going through them bc the passing attack is weak.

He was referring to the Strength of Schedule, calculated at the beginning of the year, based on 2011 records.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/56896/2012-nfl-strength-of-schedule

[wwharton]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

He was referring to the Strength of Schedule, calculated at the beginning of the year, based on 2011 records.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...th-of-schedule

I'm sure that's what it said, but if you look at the schedule I wouldn't have thought it'd be 8th based on the teams. Redskins, Hawks and Colts are playing better than expected, Lions, Bears and Cards are playing worse than expected so I'd think it'd balance out. Either way, the reality of what the schedule was from what we now know is pretty easy... or, at the very least, they got to their current record by beating up on bottom feeder teams and losing to the decent ones.

Not saying Bob is wrong on what the strength of schedule was, but is that what we're really talking about? The truth is if the argument is AP should get more credit bc they are in the playoff "hunt" then I look at the schedule and the teams they beat. They looked like an 8-8 team coming into the season to me and it seems (they could win but based on my prediction) they will finish 9-7... the win over HOU would really end up being the difference between what I saw them as coming into the season and what they'd end up being. And that's pretty consistent with teams that are average but end up with horrible records one year and get an easier schedule bc of it the next.

[gopher_guy]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

I'm sure that's what it said, but if you look at the schedule I wouldn't have thought it'd be 8th based on the teams. Redskins, Hawks and Colts are playing better than expected, Lions, Bears and Cards are playing worse than expected so I'd think it'd balance out. Either way, the reality of what the schedule was from what we now know is pretty easy... or, at the very least, they got to their current record by beating up on bottom feeder teams and losing to the decent ones.

Not saying Bob is wrong on what the strength of schedule was, but is that what we're really talking about? The truth is if the argument is AP should get more credit bc they are in the playoff "hunt" then I look at the schedule and the teams they beat. They looked like an 8-8 team coming into the season to me and it seems (they could win but based on my prediction) they will finish 9-7... the win over HOU would really end up being the difference between what I saw them as coming into the season and what they'd end up being. And that's pretty consistent with teams that are average but end up with horrible records one year and get an easier schedule bc of it the next.

No arguing with that!

[realtalktruth]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

1. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Von Miller was playing great last year and he can only improve going into his second season and staying healthy. Thomas and Decker were playmakers last year even with Tebow and the run heavy offense they used. McGahee rushed for over 1000 yards last year and the defense played great during stretches of that season.

As for Peterson... last year he wasn't playing at an MVP level. The Vikings winning 3 games and getting an easy schedule based on last year to me means nothing. Like you said, great teams last year can get worse and the opposite holds true as well. Manning was 2-3 against playoff teams which covers all of the Broncos losses. Besides those 2 playoff teams the Broncos haven't beat a single other team with a record at or above .500. Vikings went 2-4 against playoff teams and won against 2 other teams with a record at or above .500. Pretty close for me.

2. Again, that is exactly my point. If the Vikings have a more balanced attack or a more dominant defense then how can Peterson be the most valuable player when someone without those things is still producing and winning? Peterson has to carry the load and has to be more valuable to his team than anyone else in the league because that's all they have.

3. That was my point... we are ignoring players who are putting their team in position for a 1st round bye and possibly the top spot in the conference. Ryan has a bottom 5 rushing game and middle of the pack defense that bends alot but doesn't break. Up the defense and running game but take away the weapons on the passing side due to injuries and you can make a case for Rodgers. Watt single-handedly swats points off the board and sometimes helps put points on the board as well.

[wwharton]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

1. I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Von Miller was playing great last year and he can only improve going into his second season and staying healthy. Thomas and Decker were playmakers last year even with Tebow and the run heavy offense they used. McGahee rushed for over 1000 yards last year and the defense played great during stretches of that season.

Agree 100% with Miller, and we can extend it to the defense as a whole. But they are playing at another level this year and it's directly related to the offense. They have more time to rest and can spend more time just rushing the passer from playing with a lead. They also look very similar to the old Colts D's (but better) which we have to assume also comes from help from Manning.

Thomas and Decker weren't anywhere close to the level their playing at this year. They had flashes and also lots of drops and bad routes (mostly Thomas). Manning's skill as a QB and practice with them has them on an all pro level. McGahee was about the same but for different reasons so he's definitely a wash, but Moreno was garbage last year. It's easier for him to run now, and Manning's ability to read defenses puts him in great plays he wasn't seeing before.

As for Peterson... last year he wasn't playing at an MVP level. The Vikings winning 3 games and getting an easy schedule based on last year to me means nothing. Like you said, great teams last year can get worse and the opposite holds true as well. Manning was 2-3 against playoff teams which covers all of the Broncos losses. Besides those 2 playoff teams the Broncos haven't beat a single other team with a record at or above .500. Vikings went 2-4 against playoff teams and won against 2 other teams with a record at or above .500. Pretty close for me.

That's true, but Vikings aren't fighting for a first round bye, they're fighting to just get into the playoffs and probably won't (imo). They are last year's Seattle or Arizona. It's a great story because that still seems like an over achievement, and that's directly because of the season Peterson is having. I won't argue that he belongs in the discussion... I've said before he's 3rd on my list which is pretty high, and if they make the playoffs (winning 10 games) I'd probably give it to him. I just don't think that's going to happen, and think that's a milestone he needs to have on his resume to deserve it. They play the game to win the SB and if you didn't get your team in the dance, I don't see how you deserve to be MVP.

2. Again, that is exactly my point. If the Vikings have a more balanced attack or a more dominant defense then how can Peterson be the most valuable player when someone without those things is still producing and winning? Peterson has to carry the load and has to be more valuable to his team than anyone else in the league because that's all they have.

Actually that's just ignoring my point. RBs that challenge for the record generally have to carry a heavy load bc the players around him are bad. It doesn't seem to happen on teams with serious shots at contention. So, not taking anything away from the amazing seasons the backs have, if it doesn't put his team in position to win it all then how can he be considered the MVP of the league? It's not about who was the most valuable to his team, it's the most valuable in a league who's goal is to win the championship.

If the Lions were in the Vikings' position we'd be having the same discussion about Calvin Johnson. But we're not because of their record. AP deserves to be in the discussion because of his record, but he needs another win and that playoff birth to deserve serious consideration (imo of course).

3. That was my point... we are ignoring players who are putting their team in position for a 1st round bye and possibly the top spot in the conference. Ryan has a bottom 5 rushing game and middle of the pack defense that bends alot but doesn't break. Up the defense and running game but take away the weapons on the passing side due to injuries and you can make a case for Rodgers. Watt single-handedly swats points off the board and sometimes helps put points on the board as well.

I'm not really ignoring them, they just haven't been part of the discussion. People have mentioned them, just haven't been many disagreements on where they stand. I really think Rodgers is running pretty close to Manning now that they are in contention for the #2 seed. I don't know why I don't consider Ryan quite as high, but he's top 5 and I'd love to hear a legit case for him to be higher.

Like RBs, history shows that defenders are hard to measure against the offensive players. There have been quite a few DPOYs that have had similar impacts as Watt but never considered for MVP. Maybe they should've been, but with so many other legit candidates, I doubt that change comes this year.

[wwharton]

Re: MVP Discussion Thread

So... season's over, Vikings are in the playoffs but Peterson doesn't have the record (still has a 2,000 yard season) and the Broncos are the #1 see in the AFC.

Where's everybody sitting on this now?