MVP Watch

[Rob0729]

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.

I don't disagree about that, but that isn't because they were sucking for Luck. That was stupidity of Polian to think that Manning would never miss a game. They overpaid for Kerry Collins in a desperation move thinking he could keep the team competitive in a lousy AFC South (remember everyone were predicting the Texans to be the worst team in the division before the season, not one of the best teams in the AFC).

As for me talking about the Colts' offensive talent, I am talking about players besides the QB.

 

[RodThePat]

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.

Yeah, Peyton Manning sure was great on that 2010 season. The Colts played 5 teams who could pose a problem to them that year, the Giants, the Patriots, the Eagles, the Cowboys and the Chargers. Against those teams, Manning had a 1-4 record, with 12 TDs and 13 INTs. The rest of his games were played against the Texans x 2 (they were 6-10 that season, with a horrible defense), the Titans x 2, the Jaguars x 2, the Chiefs, the Raiders, the Broncos and the Redskins. Those were some of the worse teams in the league, and against them he threw a Brady-like 21 TDs and 4 picks. So he absolutely feasted on crappy teams and lost to pretty much every team that had an honest chance of beating them. Wow, MVP indeed.

I mean, Brady had a loaded offense that year, with Welker coming off knee-surgery, the corpse of Deion Branch, two rookie TEs and a UFA RB. Oh, and the Patriots had a very good defense that year too, right? Just ask Matt Flynn. Please, stop because you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

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.

It's not B.S. at all.

Manning was under 7 yards per attempt for the first time since his rookie year.

Manning went without a 4th quarter comeback for the first time since 2001.

Manning was 6th in the NFL in INTs, with 17. That was his highest total since 2002.

Manning was less than 2:1 in TD:INT ratio. That was the first time since 2002.

Manning's 4.9% TD% was tied for his lowest since..... 2002.

Manning's QB rating was his lowest since...... 2002

That passer rating was good for #10 in the NFL, not particularly higher up than "average".

That's nowhere near being so impressive that an average QB couldn't have replaced him with 9-10 wins.

There's a reason that Manning wasn't at the top of the ballot, and it sure as hell wasn't because people don't like Peyton Manning.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

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.

Ok just for my records...You are a Colts fan right?

 

[Rob0729]

Yeah, Peyton Manning sure was great on that 2010 season. The Colts played 5 teams who could pose a problem to them that year, the Giants, the Patriots, the Eagles, the Cowboys and the Chargers. Against those teams, Manning had a 1-4 record, with 12 TDs and 13 INTs. The rest of his games were played against the Texans x 2 (they were 6-10 that season, with a horrible defense), the Titans x 2, the Jaguars x 2, the Chiefs, the Raiders, the Broncos and the Redskins. Those were some of the worse teams in the league, and against them he threw a Brady-like 21 TDs and 4 picks. So he absolutely feasted on crappy teams and lost to pretty much every team that had an honest chance of beating them. Wow, MVP indeed.

I mean, Brady had a loaded offense that year, with Welker coming off knee-surgery, the corpse of Deion Branch, two rookie TEs and a UFA RB. Oh, and the Patriots had a very good defense that year too, right? Just ask Matt Flynn. Please, stop because you're embarrassing yourself.

First, when did I say the Pats had a very good defense? I said it was decent and much better than the Colts' defense. Down the stretch, they held four out of five teams to 7 points or less. Against the Bears, they let up one garbage time TD when it was 36-0 midway through the third. They gave up a garbage time TD (up 38-0 with 2:11 left in the game) against the Dolphins. The Pats' defense was very good down the stretch of 2010 in the regular season.

Second, Matt Flynn had a good game, but nothing like his 480 yard, 6 TD game last year against a good Lions team. He threw for something like 250 yards, 3 TDs, and 1 INT. It was a very good game for him, but let's not make it sound like he was a stud.

Third, you are skewing the combined stats for Manning a bit by combining them. Against the Giants (won 38-14), Manning threw for 255 yards, 3 TDs, and 0 INTs. Against the Pats (lost 31-28), he threw for 396 yards, 4 TDs, and 3 INTs (Colts could only rush for 71 yards on 20 carries). Against, the Cowboys (won 38-35 in OT) he threw for 365 yards, 2 TDs, and 4 INTs (because the Colts could only rush for 40 yards on 17 carries). Against the Eagles (lost 26-24), he thew for 294 yards,1 TD, and 2 INTs (the Colts rushed for 62 yards on 19 carries). Against the Chargers (lost 36-14), he threw for 285 yards, 2 TDs, and 4 INTs (the Colts rushed for 24 yards on 13 carries).

Fourth, My numbers show above that Manning was the offense. When the running game stalled (which was often), he was forced to air it out.

 

[patsinthesnow]

The people that currently have Manning above Brady for MVP are just ignorant and clearly aren't even analyzing the situation.

Brady is beating him in nearly every statistical category and is leading a historic offense (37ppg) that will most likely finish top 5 all time and who knows, could even maintain the #1 spot.

Manning is leading a pretty good offense, but nowhere near as good with 28.9ppg tied for 44th all time, 8 points behind Brady's offense.

There is no rationale for Manning currently as MVP over Brady.

 

[Rob0729]

It's not B.S. at all.

Manning was under 7 yards per attempt for the first time since his rookie year.

Manning went without a 4th quarter comeback for the first time since 2001.

Manning was 6th in the NFL in INTs, with 17. That was his highest total since 2002.

Manning was less than 2:1 in TD:INT ratio. That was the first time since 2002.

Manning's 4.9% TD% was tied for his lowest since..... 2002.

Manning's QB rating was his lowest since...... 2002

That passer rating was good for #10 in the NFL, not particularly higher up than "average".

That's nowhere near being so impressive that an average QB couldn't have replaced him with 9-10 wins.

There's a reason that Manning wasn't at the top of the ballot, and it sure as hell wasn't because people don't like Peyton Manning.

Manning was forced to air out the ball because he had zero running game and defense. He was without Clark and Collie for a large portion of the season too. That is why his numbers sucked. If you put an average QB in that situation and it would have been a disaster.

It was the worst team that either Brady or Manning has ever been on.

I thought Brady deserved the MVP in 2006 because he had very little to work with and still got the Pats to the AFC Championships and that was his worst year in terms of yards other than 2001, his second worst year in terms of YPA, his third worst year in terms of TDs. Statistically, it was one of Brady's worst years in the league, but in reality it may be one of his best and a year he definitely deserved the MVP. But it went to Manning because he had the stats.

Again, this isn't the best player award (granted it usually becomes the best player award), it is the most valuable player award. Manning had absolutely nothing to work with including one of the worst head coaches in recent history and he somehow got the Colts to 10 wins.


He wasn't great and Brady was clearly better. In fact, I think Brady would have done better with that Colts' team that year, but for that given season Manning was more of the MVP of his team because he had far less to work with and had to carry the team more. You put the 2010 Brady on that 2010 Colts' team and I think Brady would have deserved the MVP and probably would have gotten the Colts to 11 or 12 wins. But he wasn't in that situation.

 

[Rob0729]

Ok just for my records...You are a Colts fan right?

No. I am just trying to look at it objectively. I don't think Manning was a better QB in 2010. Not even close. I just think he was more important to his team that year because he had far less to work with in that season. Brady didn't have his 2007 offense and the 2003 Pats' defense, but it was far better than what Manning had to work with.

Again, as I said in my last post, I think Brady would have done much better than Manning did in the situation Manning had in 2010, but the situation made Manning more valuable.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

How do you come to the conclusion that Brady played better but Manning's team would have missed him more?
What a teams record would have been without the guy is just a silly point. It is nothing more than a guess that has no fact behind it. Essentially, you made up a reason.
By the way, the Colts defense ranked higher, and likely only allowed more points because of all of Mannings Ints. We had undrafted RBs, rookies TE, a hobbled Welker and an old Deion Branch as 'weapons'.
What exactly do you think the Patriots would have done without Brady, when they weren't good at anything but QB?

 

[Rob0729]

The people that currently have Manning above Brady for MVP are just ignorant and clearly aren't even analyzing the situation.

Brady is beating him in nearly every statistical category and is leading a historic offense (37ppg) that will most likely finish top 5 all time and who knows, could even maintain the #1 spot.

Manning is leading a pretty good offense, but nowhere near as good with 28.9ppg tied for 44th all time, 8 points behind Brady's offense.

There is no rationale for Manning currently as MVP over Brady.

I think more importantly, you need to look at defenses. The Broncos have the 4th ranked defense and 8th ranked in points allowed. The Pats have the 27th ranked defense and 13th ranked in points allowed. Von Miller is third in the league in sacks with 14. Dummerville is 14th with 8. Both have more than the Pats' sack leader in Ninkovich and Jones (both with 6).

Just like my argument with Manning for 2010 MVP, you have to look at the team around them. Manning gets far more help on the defense.

 

[Ring 6]

No. I am just trying to look at it objectively. I don't think Manning was a better QB in 2010. Not even close. I just think he was more important to his team that year because he had far less to work with in that season. Brady didn't have his 2007 offense and the 2003 Pats' defense, but it was far better than what Manning had to work with.

Again, as I said in my last post, I think Brady would have done much better than Manning did in the situation Manning had in 2010, but the situation made Manning more valuable.

That makes absolutely no sense.
If Brady would have done much better with Mannings situation, then that would mean, what, 12 wins? So that would mean the non QB talent on the teams was 2 games apart, and Brady took his team to 4 more wins.
You really are just making things up to make your argument now.

 

[Ring 6]

Manning was forced to air out the ball because he had zero running game and defense. He was without Clark and Collie for a large portion of the season too. That is why his numbers sucked. If you put an average QB in that situation and it would have been a disaster.

It was the worst team that either Brady or Manning has ever been on.

Last years Patriots were much worse on defense and about equal in the running game.

I thought Brady deserved the MVP in 2006 because he had very little to work with and still got the Pats to the AFC Championships and that was his worst year in terms of yards other than 2001, his second worst year in terms of YPA, his third worst year in terms of TDs. Statistically, it was one of Brady's worst years in the league, but in reality it may be one of his best and a year he definitely deserved the MVP. But it went to Manning because he had the stats.

The Colts won the AFCC and the SB, basically because Manning outplayed Brady in the head to head reg season game where Brady threw 4 Ints.
I just don't get how you think playing on a team you consider bad and not winning is a better accomplishment than winning.
Most Valuable isnt 'can make most excuses for losing'.

Again, this isn't the best player award (granted it usually becomes the best player award), it is the most valuable player award. Manning had absolutely nothing to work with including one of the worst head coaches in recent history and he somehow got the Colts to 10 wins.

You keep saying this, but anyone could equally argue that Brady had less talent and did more with it.

He wasn't great and Brady was clearly better. In fact, I think Brady would have done better with that Colts' team that year, but for that given season Manning was more of the MVP of his team because he had far less to work with and had to carry the team more. You put the 2010 Brady on that 2010 Colts' team and I think Brady would have deserved the MVP and probably would have gotten the Colts to 11 or 12 wins. But he wasn't in that situation.

So if you put 2010 Manning on 2010 NE they only win 12 or 13 games, therefore Brady by your own calculation was more valuable.

 

[Rob0729]

How do you come to the conclusion that Brady played better but Manning's team would have missed him more?
What a teams record would have been without the guy is just a silly point. It is nothing more than a guess that has no fact behind it. Essentially, you made up a reason.
By the way, the Colts defense ranked higher, and likely only allowed more points because of all of Mannings Ints. We had undrafted RBs, rookies TE, a hobbled Welker and an old Deion Branch as 'weapons'.
What exactly do you think the Patriots would have done without Brady, when they weren't good at anything but QB?

How do I come to that? Because Brady played for the Pats and Manning played for the Colts. The Colts other 52 just sucked far more than the Pats' other 52 meaning they needed Manning more to win. Hence he was more valuable. Again, this is the most valuable player, not the best player.

Also, you are exaggerating that the Pats had a worse defense. Yes, they gave up about 20 less yards per game (everyone including you said last year that yards were overrated for a defensive stat), but the Pats had 17 more take aways and allowed 4.7 less PPG. The Pats played a bend don't break while the Colts played a Tampa 2 attack style. The Pats gave up more yards, but they were a better defense especially in the second half of the season.

 

[Rob0729]

Last years Patriots were much worse on defense and about equal in the running game.

And they had one of the best WRs in football, a TE who had the best performance in league history, a solid o-line, and another top flight TE. But then again, last year was 2011.

The Colts won the AFCC and the SB, basically because Manning outplayed Brady in the head to head reg season game where Brady threw 4 Ints.
I just don't get how you think playing on a team you consider bad and not winning is a better accomplishment than winning.
Most Valuable isnt 'can make most excuses for losing'.

Yeah, but Indy was stacked on offense in 2006 (solid o-line, Harrison, Addai when he was good, Wayne, Clark). Brady had Reche Caldwell as his #1 WR and Corey Dillon who worked out his hand hard than his legs waiving himself out of the game.

You keep saying this, but anyone could equally argue that Brady had less talent and did more with it.

Brady didn't have less talent. It would be a lie or homer bias (and this is coming from someone who is accused of being a homer).

So if you put 2010 Manning on 2010 NE they only win 12 or 13 games, therefore Brady by your own calculation was more valuable.

No. You are missing the point. Manning's situation made him more needed to win for his team. That makes him more valuable. Manning carried his team to 10 wins because he had absolutely nothing to support him other than Reggie Wayne for the most part. His head coach was a joke. His o-line sucked. He had no running back. Collie and Clark were injured. His defense gave up a lot of points.

Again this is MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Not best player. There is an award for the best offensive player. Manning was more valuable to his team in 2010 than Brady was. He wasn't the better player.

Ok, I am done highjacking this thread. This is about this year and not 2010 or 2006. My original point was that often the player who deserves the MVP doesn't get it and it is a popularity and stats contest. That is why Manning, barring some drastic change in how he or Brady plays, will win the award. I didn't mean to turn this into an argument about 2010.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I think more importantly, you need to look at defenses. The Broncos have the 4th ranked defense and 8th ranked in points allowed. The Pats have the 27th ranked defense and 13th ranked in points allowed. Von Miller is third in the league in sacks with 14. Dummerville is 14th with 8. Both have more than the Pats' sack leader in Ninkovich and Jones (both with 6).

Just like my argument with Manning for 2010 MVP, you have to look at the team around them. Manning gets far more help on the defense.

Great point, something else that shows Manning over Brady for MVP is absurd.

To your defending of Manning for 2010 MVP, you bring up a decent argument with 2006 Brady. However, it has always been voted on performance-based; otherwise Peyton should of won it last year without playing a snap right?

 

[Deus Irae]

The only unanimous MVP in history didn't deserve the award despite dramatically outplaying Manning while having a lesser defense to support him, and losing Moss to trade mid-season, leaving him with the immortal Brandon Tate as his big play wide receier.

The only competition (such as it was) Brady had for the award, Michael Vick, didn't deserve the award, despite putting up 21 TDs and only 6 INTs, posting a career-best 100.2 QB rating, and rushing for 676 yards and 9 TDs.

Neither of those guys deserved the award. It was the guy who was in clear decline (Now known to be due to injury) and playing not all that much higher than NFL average QB level (Jon Kitna was #14 in QB rating at 88.9 and went 4-5 after the starter went 1-5, and Cutler was #16 at 86.3 and took the Bears to 11-5 after a 7-9 season).

:bricks:

Looking at QBs alone, Roethlisberger, Vick, Brady, Rodgers and Rivers all had better MVP arguments than did Manning. Hell, Cutler might have had a better argument, given the clear improvement of the Bears in wins from one year to the next, while the Colts were dropping from a 14 win team to a 10 win team.



Rob's posting in this thread is so insane that it must be an attempt to build up "skeptic" capital for the next time he goes over-the-top with his homer posts.

 

[Ring 6]

How do I come to that? Because Brady played for the Pats and Manning played for the Colts. The Colts other 52 just sucked far more than the Pats' other 52 meaning they needed Manning more to win. Hence he was more valuable. Again, this is the most valuable player, not the best player.

Once again, you are creating a reason out of thin air. There is no legitimate way to determine the Colts other 52 were any worse, much less MORE THAN 4 games worse than the Patriots. You said yourself if you switched QBs the Colts would do better and the Pats worse, so by your own defintion Brady got more out of what he had to work with than Manning did. Even if the Colts other 52 were worse, Brady got 40% more out of his team.

Also, you are exaggerating that the Pats had a worse defense. Yes, they gave up about 20 less yards per game (everyone including you said last year that yards were overrated for a defensive stat), but the Pats had 17 more take aways and allowed 4.7 less PPG. The Pats played a bend don't break while the Colts played a Tampa 2 attack style. The Pats gave up more yards, but they were a better defense especially in the second half of the season.

The 4.7ppg are directly related to the enormous difference in Ints.
Why would which half they were better have anything to do with it?
It is very fair to call these defenses equal.

 

[Ring 6]

And they had one of the best WRs in football, a TE who had the best performance in league history, a solid o-line, and another top flight TE. But then again, last year was 2011.

What does that have to do with you saying the 2010 Colts had the worst defense of any Brady or Manning team? Is moving the goalposts your version of admitting that was wrong?

Yeah, but Indy was stacked on offense in 2006 (solid o-line, Harrison, Addai when he was good, Wayne, Clark). Brady had Reche Caldwell as his #1 WR and Corey Dillon who worked out his hand hard than his legs waiving himself out of the game.

So losing and blaming your teammates is more valuable than winning?

Brady didn't have less talent. It would be a lie or homer bias (and this is coming from someone who is accused of being a homer).

Wait, now saying the Patriots had LESS talent makes me a homer? Please update me on the rules.
But let me get this straight, YOUR idea of what the Colts would have done with Joe Flacco at QB or the Patriots would have done with Joe Flacco at QB is the only one that counts? I think there is no way in the world a Flacco Patriot team is 40% better than a Flacco Colt team, and actually is seems silly to suggest otherwise.

No. You are missing the point. Manning's situation made him more needed to win for his team. That makes him more valuable. Manning carried his team to 10 wins because he had absolutely nothing to support him other than Reggie Wayne for the most part. His head coach was a joke. His o-line sucked. He had no running back. Collie and Clark were injured. His defense gave up a lot of points.

But Manning DIDNT win. 10 is not 14. Your argument says an average player on a crappy team is more valuable than a great player on a good team. That is silly. Brady carried his team to 14.
His HC took them to a near undefeated season and a SB the year before. Now I'm sure you will take your standard approach here and say he sucked and Manning overcame his suckiness. His OL sucked yet he was only sacked 16 times? Again, I'm sure that's because he should have been sacked 60 but they suck because you say they did and the facts are stupid.
He had as much at RB as Brady did. You are naming an MVP based on 1 backup WR and a TE being injured? But you ignore 17 Ints?
His defense gave up about what the Patriots did, plus more because of almost an extra Int a game.

Again this is MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Not best player. There is an award for the best offensive player. Manning was more valuable to his team in 2010 than Brady was. He wasn't the better player.

You said yourself the Colts win more and the Patriots win less if you switch them.
What are you calling value?
The Patriots won more games because of Brady than they would have won with the guy you think is most valuable. How is Brady not more valuable then? They won more games with him than with anyone else in the league. Your words. How else do you define value?

Ok, I am done highjacking this thread. This is about this year and not 2010 or 2006. My original point was that often the player who deserves the MVP doesn't get it and it is a popularity and stats contest. That is why Manning, barring some drastic change in how he or Brady plays, will win the award. I didn't mean to turn this into an argument about 2010.

I actually do not think Manning wins the award this year. The voters actually have shown a good history of picking the right player most of the time.

 

[sphen]

Brady beat Peyton and the bronchitis head to head. Brady wins MVP and Superbowl for first time in history. Then best quarterback to have ever picked up a football being Tom Brady cannot even be argued by trash bagging sando.

 

[Rob0729]

The only unanimous MVP in history didn't deserve the award despite dramatically outplaying Manning while having a lesser defense to support him, and losing Moss to trade mid-season, leaving him with the immortal Brandon Tate as his big play wide receier.

The only competition (such as it was) Brady had for the award, Michael Vick, didn't deserve the award, despite putting up 21 TDs and only 6 INTs, posting a career-best 100.2 QB rating, and rushing for 676 yards and 9 TDs.

Neither of those guys deserved the award. It was the guy who was in clear decline (Now known to be due to injury) and playing not all that much higher than NFL average QB level (Jon Kitna was #14 in QB rating at 88.9 and went 4-5 after the starter went 1-5, and Cutler was #16 at 86.3 and took the Bears to 11-5 after a 7-9 season).

:bricks:

Looking at QBs alone, Roethlisberger, Vick, Brady, Rodgers and Rivers all had better MVP arguments than did Manning. Hell, Cutler might have had a better argument, given the clear improvement of the Bears in wins from one year to the next, while the Colts were dropping from a 14 win team to a 10 win team.



Rob's posting in this thread is so insane that it must be an attempt to build up "skeptic" capital for the next time he goes over-the-top with his homer posts.

I guess I have defer to your expert judgement since no one has posted more moronic contrarian posts on this board than you. You are the board's resident idiot contrarian.