MVP Watch - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

***Rob0729*** · 11-28-2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pazrul72

I could see the voters wanting to reward both Peyton and AP for the steller seasons they are having. So CPOY goes to AP and MVP goes to Peyton. And Brady...you were supposed to be awesome so despite your better numbers sucks to be you.

Manning doesn't even deserve the comeback player of the year. Adrian Peterson is on track for an 1,800 season (which would be his best season in terms of yards for his career) with a 5.8 YPC (also a career high) after blowing out his ACL last year. The fact that no one talks about him for comeback player of the year is a crime. He deserves it more than Manning.

I think Manning will end up winning both awards. He is the media darling.

PatsWSB47 · 11-28-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Yes, they were 2-14 because they didn't have a competent QB, but they would have been 5-11 with a competent QB. That is my point. I didn't say that the Colts would have been 2-14 without Manning in 2010, but they would be closer to that.

People forget how Colts games went that year. Opposing offenses would move the ball at will against the Colts' defense and score in bunches only for Manning to score in a minute to keep the Colts in games. They ended up winning a lot close shoot outs that year.

The Colts scored 435 points that year (fourth in the league and only 6 points behind the second place team) and only had a 47 point points differential for the year (or averaged winning games by 2.9 ppg). By comparison, the Pats had a 205 points points differential (or averaged winning games by 12.8 PPG) while scoring a whopping 518 points that year.

They didn't want a competent quarterback. They were sucking for Luck. 2-14 was self induced.

Cassanova792 · 11-28-2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Yes, they were 2-14 because they didn't have a competent QB, but they would have been 5-11 with a competent QB. That is my point. I didn't say that the Colts would have been 2-14 without Manning in 2010, but they would be closer to that.

People forget how Colts games went that year. Opposing offenses would move the ball at will against the Colts' defense and score in bunches only for Manning to score in a minute to keep the Colts in games. They ended up winning a lot close shoot outs that year.

The Colts scored 435 points that year (fourth in the league and only 6 points behind the second place team) and only had a 47 point points differential for the year (or averaged winning games by 2.9 ppg). By comparison, the Pats had a 205 points points differential (or averaged winning games by 12.8 PPG) while scoring a whopping 518 points that year.

What i'm saying is that this 2012 Colts team might actually be worse than last years team in terms of talent (No Garcon, Wayne 1 year older, mostly rookies playing on offense). The only difference is that they now have a competent QB in Luck. Bottom line is if Luck took that Colts 2011 team, they would probably be in the HUNT for the wild card, similar to this year. So the Colts as a TEAM wasn't nearly as bad as you think they were, they just had really really really really really incompetent QB's .

***Rob0729*** · 11-28-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsWSB47

They didn't want a competent quarterback. They were sucking for Luck. 2-14 was self induced.

I think that was overplayed. But even if they were sucking for Luck, they were a 3-4 win team at best. Seriously, guys like Wayne, Garcon, Mathis, and others were in contract years. Do you really think they were sucking for Luck so that the Colts could get Luck and they could get smaller contracts this past offseason?

***Deus Irae*** · 11-28-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

He was the best player and deserved Offensive Player of the Year. Manning was the MVP of his team that year by a mile.

I know the MVP has been bastardized to the best player award, but the 2010 Pats would have been a decent team with an average QB while the Colts would have been one of the worst teams if they had most other QBs besides Manning.

I think the MVP should go to the most valuable player, not the best player.

Manning wasn't even good for the runner up spot.

And the 2 win thing is a joke. Manning had an off year. An average QB would have still won 9-10 game with that team.

PatsWSB47 · 11-28-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

I think that was overplayed. But even if they were sucking for Luck, they were a 3-4 win team at best. Seriously, guys like Wayne, Garcon, Mathis, and others were in contract years. Do you really think they were sucking for Luck so that the Colts could get Luck and they could get smaller contracts this past offseason?

Getting Luck was the number one priority and was their plan before the season even started in my opinion. Letting Manning go was the first step in the plan.

***Deus Irae*** · 11-28-2012, 06:18 PM

Someone must have hacked Rob's account. He's posting crazy-talk.

***Rob0729*** · 11-28-2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassanova792

What i'm saying is that this 2012 Colts team might actually be worse than last years team in terms of talent (No Garcon, Wayne 1 year older, mostly rookies playing on offense). The only difference is that they now have a competent QB in Luck. Bottom line is if Luck took that Colts 2011 team, they would probably be in the HUNT for the wild card, similar to this year. So the Colts as a TEAM wasn't nearly as bad as you think they were, they just had really really really really really incompetent QB's .

IDK, Wayne seems rejuvenated plus he is 34 which still might not be enough to hit age wall. Some WRS last til their later 30s.

I don't know if Garcon was that good or a product of a system. He has been hurt this year.

Also, in 2010, Clark missed 10 games (playe all 16 lastyear), Austin Collie missed 7 games (played all 16 last year), and Garcon was still a good #3 WR (not a starter except for injury related and he broke out in 2010). So the team they had last year was not the team they had in 2011.

Ive_Killed_People · 11-28-2012, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

I think that was overplayed. But even if they were sucking for Luck, they were a 3-4 win team at best. Seriously, guys like Wayne, Garcon, Mathis, and others were in contract years. Do you really think they were sucking for Luck so that the Colts could get Luck and they could get smaller contracts this past offseason?

Curtis Painter couldn't have won 6 games with our offense and the 85 Bears defense. I'm surprised he can get out of bed in the morning without ****ing his pants.

***Rob0729*** · 11-28-2012, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Manning wasn't even good for the runner up spot.

And the 2 win thing is a joke. Manning had an off year. An average QB would have still won 9-10 game with that team.

BS. Manning had 4700 yards (2nd in the league behind Rivers) and 33 TDs (2nd in the league behind Brady) in 2010. Tell me how many average QB get that many yards or TDs. The Colts won 10 games that season. No way an average QB 3ould have gone on a team with no running game and no defense and win the same amount or one less game than Manning did that year.

It was Manning's best year for yards and tied for his second best in terms of TDs. His completion percentage was down (66.3% which is worst since 2002) and he had a higher number than average of INTs (17 which was his third worst year), but that was due to the fact that he had to carry the team and throw the ball. That "off year" for Manning would have been a career year for 90% of the QBs in the league.

The Colts had no running game (29th in the league compared to the Pats' 9th ranked running game) and no defense.

Again, in 2010 it was the Indianapolis Mannings because he was the team. The 2010 Pats had a decent running game and defense. Brady was the better player, but Manning was his entire team especially when Clark and Collie went down.