MVP Watch

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

That is about how their pea brains work. It's all about storylines... They desperately wanted to give the MVP in 39 to TO. When they couldn't they gave it to Branch for catching as many passes as Rice rather that bestow a third on the guy who was throwing him all those passes...not to mention a couple for TD's to his #2 WR and a freakin' LB...110 rating and 70% completion rate... Manning's only SB MVP was a gift. 81 rating, threw a TD and a pick. His two backs ran for almost 200 yards... But there was no way they were not giving it to Peyton...

 

[Fixit]

I just read a long argument that should have never been born. My guess is that I'll wake up tomorrow morning believing that it was all a dream, that no normally rational person would argue that Manning deserved the 2010 MVP over Brady.

 

[festy1986]

Someone is standing by his own statement to a fault. Manning played terrible that year and to say the reason is because his team sucks shows the actual difference between Brady and manning.

That patriot team was just as below average without Tom Brady as the colts would be without manning that year. Manning hit his prime coming into the nfl and working towards his decline. Brady has been and still is on his incline in comparison.

That patriot team was 1 and done in the playoffs and there wasn't a quarterback in the world that would of changed that. Brady's numbers show his importance to his team and to say he means less is bogus.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Ahh.... and now hurt feelings enter the discussion, along with the personal attacks. It's not just the so-called "contrarians" telling you you're crazy on this one, Rob: It's the homers as well.

Also, Rob, you're the contrarian on this one. Dig deeper for a better insult, and make it one that covers everyone who's agreeing that your argument is insane.

 

[Rob0729]

Ahh.... and now hurt feelings enter the discussion, along with the personal attacks. It's not just the so-called "contrarians" telling you you're crazy on this one, Rob: It's the homers as well.

Also, Rob, you're the contrarian on this one. Dig deeper for a better insult, and make it one that covers everyone who's agreeing that your argument is insane.

LOL! Always the victim. Huh, Deus. Call me insane and a homer multiple times and then cry about me throwing barbs back. Typical Deus crap.

You haven't hurt my feelings at all. Just tired of you same old crap all time. Play the agressor until people bite back and then play the victim. That's why I thave always and will alway think you are a joke. I am done arguing the point because it was a minor point of an overall argument that you questioned and it turned into a huge highjack of the thread.

I may be insane, but you are an arse. Go ahead and put me on your ignore list again like you do every year so I can eagerly await you giving me probation again some time in the offseason like I care. Speaking as a repeat visitor to your ignore list, there is no greater punishment than not having you look down your nose with your self-righteous intellectual superiority attitude at every one my posts.

 

[Haley]

While I agree that the media will always give the nod to Manning because the general pubic is too uninformed to keep up with all the important statistics, I still think the MVP is completely in Brady's hands.

I love this little Freudian slip. It really cuts to the heart of things. I mean let's face it. The uninformed general pubic is going to decide things. The general pubic will, as usual, make the MVP nothing more than a popularity contest.

For all the hemming and hawing and formulas and stat quoting and arm wrestling, WE ALL KNOW the media is DYING to select the forehead for accolades extraordinaire. The want to laud him with medals so badly they are fighting over which ones to give him! He's MVP! No, he's CPoY!.

We want the MVP to mean something so badly we have this five page discussion on why fivehead shouldn't have it. But the reality is, it means about as much as homecoming queen, also voted in by the general pubic. If it meant anything more than popularity, other positions aside from QB would be in the running far more often. I'd rather win the Super Bowl and give the homecoming queen something to cry about. Then maybe history will look back on things later on and realize just how worthless this award really is.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL! Always the victim. Huh, Deus. Call me insane and a homer multiple times and then cry about me throwing barbs back. Typical Deus crap.

1.) I didn't call you insane. I said your argument was insane and, prior to that, I said your posting in this thread was insane. Neither was a personal attack. Both were specific to the content of your posts.

2.) You are a homer. That's a simple description of your approach to your Patriots fandom, and it's not a personal attack. There are some here who take pride in being called homers, as a matter of fact. Patsnutme is just one example. But you already know this.

You haven't hurt my feelings at all. Just tired of you same old crap all time. Play the agressor until people bite back and then play the victim. That's why I thave always and will alway think you are a joke. I am done arguing the point because it was a minor point of an overall argument that you questioned and it turned into a huge highjack of the thread.

No, it's abundantly clear that I hurt your feelings. That was not my intention, though. I didn't expect that you would get butthurt about being called out for making such a ridiculous claim as your claim that Manning deserved the MVP in 2010. I'm sorry that your feelings got hurt about something this impersonal, and I hope you're feeling better now.

I may be insane, but you are an arse. Go ahead and put me on your ignore list again like you do every year so I can eagerly await you giving me probation again some time in the offseason like I care. Speaking as a repeat visitor to your ignore list, there is no greater punishment than not having you look down your nose with your self-righteous intellectual superiority attitude at every one my posts.

You should feel free to put me on your ignore list, then. If you do that, my putting you on ignore, or not putting you on ignore, won't matter.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) I didn't call you insane. I said your argument was insane and, prior to that, I said your posting in this thread was insane. Neither was a personal attack. Both were specific to the content of your posts.

2.) You are a homer. That's a simple description of your approach to your Patriots fandom, and it's not a personal attack. There are some here who take pride in being called homers, as a matter of fact. Patsnutme is just one example. But you already know this.



No, it's abundantly clear that I hurt your feelings. That was not my intention, though. I didn't expect that you would get butthurt about being called out for making such a ridiculous claim as your claim that Manning deserved the MVP in 2010. I'm sorry that your feelings got hurt about something this impersonal, and I hope you're feeling better now.



You should feel free to put me on your ignore list, then. If you do that, my putting you on ignore, or not putting you on ignore, won't matter.

I'm done hijacking this thread all together. I will say this and be done with it. Nothing you can say can hurt my feelings because I don't respect your opinion enough for anything you write to hurt me. I just don't like you and never will and you throw crap at me, I will throw it back. And I don't do those stupid "ignore list" things. If you aren't mentally strong enough to ignore posts you don't want to look at without an ignore list feature, you need more help than an ignore list app. You are the one who tells people they are getting banished to your ignore list as if they are being punished.

I am done arguing with you and I will conceed the 2010 argument. It wasn't my point to turn this thread about 2010, but to mention the MVP is a beauty contest for NFL QBs. It isn't about the true MVP of the league, but the best player of the league. No the best QB of the league (at least in the last decade). Most years, the true MVP of the league doesn't actually win the award. Usually, just the QB with the best stats and record combination. Or in Manning's case this year, the media darling who is the great story.

Sorry to everyone for derailing the thread and we can go back to the original discussion of the thread.

 

[DocHoliday]

Keep in mind that while MVP may literally mean Most Valuable Player, that valuable player has to actually be great to deserve the award.

So while 2010 Peyton may have been more important to his team's limited success than 2010 Brady (if this is even true, which I don't think so), 2010 Brady was far and away greater and was more responsible for the success above the mean of his team than Manning was.

If we're just going by 'who is more important to his team', then players that literally put their crap team on their back, like post and pre-Favre AP, 2011 MJD, and Revis (if he played this year) would probably win it.

First you have to be good. Then you have to take your team far with this ability.

I'd argue that while the Manningless 2010 Colts would suck a lot, they weren't good enough to merit much attention - Manning's play elevated the team, but not to a 'great' level.

Just cause you're the best player on your crappy team, doesn't mean you will win MVP. At the end of the day though, I don't understand why people are so constantly butthurt over this award.

 

[Rob0729]

Keep in mind that while MVP may literally mean Most Valuable Player, that valuable player has to actually be great to deserve the award.

So while 2010 Peyton may have been more important to his team's limited success than 2010 Brady (if this is even true, which I don't think so), 2010 Brady was far and away greater and was more responsible for the success above the mean of his team than Manning was.

If we're just going by 'who is more important to his team', then players that literally put their crap team on their back, like post and pre-Favre AP, 2011 MJD, and Revis (if he played this year) would probably win it.

First you have to be good. Then you have to take your team far with this ability.

I'd argue that while the Manningless 2010 Colts would suck a lot, they weren't good enough to merit much attention - Manning's play elevated the team, but not to a 'great' level.

Just cause you're the best player on your crappy team, doesn't mean you will win MVP. At the end of the day though, I don't understand why people are so constantly butthurt over this award.

This I can agree with you on. I really don't care who wins it. I can't even remember who won the thing more than a year or two ago (sometimes not even that long). There are no bonus points in the playoffs. Many years, the person most deserving doesn't win.

Manning will likely win it this year because he is the feel good media story, not necessarily because he deserves it. An MVP award is empty without a Super Bowl ring to back it up.

 

[DocHoliday]

Ill also say this - the Brady love will suddenly appear after he retires. And that is the mark of a true great.

 

[Ivan]

I think Brady would have to have a big edge in pretty much every meaningful category if they end up with the same records or close to that. The media is going to give Manning a big edge for being on a new team, and if they end up with similar records and stats they will cite that as the reason Manning should get it.

 

[Seanzayyy]

Here's the problem with the MVP award:

What does MVP mean? Most Valuable Player. Well, what does that mean? The player on the team that increases that team's winning percentage in the most significant margin. Well, how do we operationalize that? We can't. There are simply too many contributing factors or "what ifs" that we really can't determine which player is the MVP. We play the "what if" game. What if Brady went down. What if Peterson went down. Oh, but the Broncos have a solid defense, the Pats don't. Blah blah blah, it's all subjective. There's no formula. No numbers.

MVP also means, which is how it's most frequently used, the best player, or the player with the most gaudy stats. That's a lot easier to operationalize, since we can actually use statistics and crunch numbers. Gaudy stats may not equal most valuable, however.

If they changed the name from MVP to Best Player of the Year, then the current form of choosing the MVP would suffice.

 

[DocHoliday]

Consider that many feel MVP is Most Valuable... across the LEAGUE.

If you look at it that way, either interpretation makes sense

 

[Shed83]

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.

Hey Robo whilst i agree with the underlining theme in your arguments that the MVP should be the most Valuable player not the best player i just cant agree with you on the example that you are highlighting.

The part of your post that is in bold confirms to me that Brady was more valuable i.e Manning threw as many interceptions in just one game as Brady did in an entire 16 game season whilst throwing a couple more TDs on the season.

I just dont think there is an argument in this instance but i do get that in the wording MVP there has been some undeserving recipients of the award. They should just do what we do in Soccer and name it the POTY 'player of the year' award. Its pretty much the way its decided anyway so the name change would remove the ambiguity!

 

[brdmaverick]

Not only are the stats compared (Brady would still win that), but the media loves to talk about overall value to the team and tend to give Manning a leg up there?

But why?

For one, the Broncos have shown that they can win even with Tim Tebow leading them (who undeniably is a backup quarterback).

Two, the Patriots defensive woes have been so well documented, it should be obvious to the media and everyone that not only has Brady been great BUT HE HAS NEEDED TO BE GREAT to win. It's not like every game is a blowout where Brady is just padding stats.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

And years Brady deserved the MVP like 2006 were pedestrian years for his stats.

I do agree that the league MVP is sham based on stats (which you are implying) and popularity than truly who is the MVP, but I think the MVP deserves to go to the person who was the most valuable player on his team. In 2010, the Colts were Peyton Manning. Without him and with an average QB, they would have won three to four games. They were that bad.

Brady won it because the Pats went 14-2 (when many people were predicting the decline of the Pats that season and the Jets overtaking him) instead of 10-6 like the Colts did. Again, it is the dog and pony show of the league MVP.

I don't think Manning was better than Brady that year, but he was far more important to his team than Brady was. The 2010 Pats could have had a winning record with an average QB, the Colts couldn't have won 6 games without Manning that year.

So, the MVP award should now be based on your feelings instead of what it's been based on for the past [forever] number of years? Interesting. Making the argument for your case based on what you think COULD have happened if things had happened the way they did not... also an interesting choice.

As fun as speculation and thought games are, using them to discuss reality tends to derail any real conversation and destroy your credibility in said conversation.

The facts of the matter are that the MVP is voted on by 50 people who have chosen historically the person with the greatest personal statistics in that season. They also greatly favor quarterbacks over any other position. They also LOVE giant foreheads.

 

[BradyManny]

It's disgusting how Manning gets handed the MVP award unless he does something to lose it. He's already won a couple defacto trophies before, I'm sure he'll get it this year based on the Broncos remaining schedule.

The reality is that while the stats may look equal on paper, Manning's stats have some padding in them. He has thrown some meaningful picks that put them in huge holes in games, and he has thrown some ultimately meaningless TDs in games they were getting blownout (OTOH - 2 late ones vs Houston and 2 more vs Patriots, for instance).

The Brady led Pats have scored a league high 42 touchdowns on offense.

The Manning led Broncos have scored 32.

Basically, the Pats are scoring a touchdown more per game on offense - the fact that we're having Ridley pound it in instead of having Brady toss a 1 yard TD pass is why Brady doesn't have more TD passes than Peyton.

We're scoring a TD on a whopping 35% of our drives, next closest is New Orleans with 31%, from there, Denver comes in third with 26%. We're also scoring about 3 points per drive, which is 3/4 a point higher than Denver.

This Patriots offense is destroying teams right now - and considering Brady has been without a full arsenal of weaponry most of the season, I have a hard time buying Peyton Manning - at this point in the season - deserves MVP over him. Now, you might argue Ryan or JJ Watt or someone else deserve MVP. That's fine. And you might argue Manning might earn it down the stretch. That's fine too.

But to this point, for someone with a straight face to argue that Peyton Manning is the clearcut MVP choice, I would laugh in said face.

 

[BradyManny]

The 2010 Pats could have had a winning record with an average QB, the Colts couldn't have won 6 games without Manning that year.

We'll never know how many games the 2011 Colts would've won without Peyton Manning because the whole organization tanked the season the moment he was declared done.

The 2012 Colts are 7-4 without Peyton Manning right now, even with several core guys from the Manning years defecting to Denver.

The Broncos went 8-8 last year with a guy who can't even beat out Mark Sanchez. Does it mean anything? Not really.

I don't read into any of those situations just like I don't read into Cassel winning 11 games in 2008 with the 16 game winning team Brady led in 2007. You can't make these comparisons on a 53 man roster with wildly differing degrees of difficulty in schedules from year to year.

 

[ivanvamp]

It's disgusting how Manning gets handed the MVP award unless he does something to lose it. He's already won a couple defacto trophies before, I'm sure he'll get it this year based on the Broncos remaining schedule.

The reality is that while the stats may look equal on paper, Manning's stats have some padding in them. He has thrown some meaningful picks that put them in huge holes in games, and he has thrown some ultimately meaningless TDs in games they were getting blownout (OTOH - 2 late ones vs Houston and 2 more vs Patriots, for instance).

The Brady led Pats have scored a league high 42 touchdowns on offense.

The Manning led Broncos have scored 32.

Basically, the Pats are scoring a touchdown more per game on offense - the fact that we're having Ridley pound it in instead of having Brady toss a 1 yard TD pass is why Brady doesn't have more TD passes than Peyton.

We're scoring a TD on a whopping 35% of our drives, next closest is New Orleans with 31%, from there, Denver comes in third with 26%. We're also scoring about 3 points per drive, which is 3/4 a point higher than Denver.

This Patriots offense is destroying teams right now - and considering Brady has been without a full arsenal of weaponry most of the season, I have a hard time buying Peyton Manning - at this point in the season - deserves MVP over him. Now, you might argue Ryan or JJ Watt or someone else deserve MVP. That's fine. And you might argue Manning might earn it down the stretch. That's fine too.

But to this point, for someone with a straight face to argue that Peyton Manning is the clearcut MVP choice, I would laugh in said face.

I don't think Manning should win the MVP, at least if the vote were held today (who knows what will happen over the next 5 weeks). But that doesn't mean he isn't an MVP-caliber player having an MVP-caliber season. The guy has been tremendous and he deserves a ton of credit. He very much is having an MVP-caliber season. That Brady has been better doesn't diminish what Peyton has done.