Why anyone arguing against Brady as MVP proves themselves a biased Brady hater

[fnordcircle]

No, the easy rebuttal (two Ts?, sorry, I am French) is that since the Niners didn't miss a beat and Young played as good as Montana did, how can Montana be the MVP of the league if his backup is as efficient?

So give it to his backup? Give it to someone who played all 16 games and did significantly worse than Montana?

I mean, the award has to go to someone.

Also, you don't have to apologize for being French, we forgive you!

 

[Jetssuck]

Useful point of reference: In 1989 Joe Montana posted a 112 passer rating. Nobody else in the entire league put up higher than 92.

In other words, it was no contest. There was no Matt Ryan in 1989 with a better QB rating, higher completion percentage, more yards per attempt, more yards per game, and more TDs per game than Montana.

Jerry Rice should have been MVP in 89. He played all 16 games with 1483 yards and 17 tds.

 

[Le Numéro Douze]

So give it to his backup? Give it to someone who played all 16 games and did significantly worse than Montana?

I mean, the award has to go to someone.

Also, you don't have to apologize for being French, we forgive you!

French Canadian, not from France though. Lots of people with French Canadian roots in NE, so I guess I am still part of the family :laugh:

As for the debat at hand, I do agree that in this particular situation, yeah, Montana seems to be the only logical choice unless, well, you want to give it to a vastly inferior performer based on a far-fetched argument. Difficult to use the Young rebuttal when there is no other valid candidates.

However, my point, and I might not have articulate it clearly, is mostly that if Jimmy G. had put up numbers similar to Brady's, that argument would have been used (as the "he hasn't played every game argument" is). It would make a big difference as there are no clear-cut winners this year. Anyway, I don't have a problem with Ryan winning as long as people don't take a dump on our boy. As someone else pointed out, a vote for Ryan is more than fine, as long as it isn't a vote against Brady for some stupid reason.

 

[patchick]

Jerry Rice should have been MVP in 89. He played all 16 games with 1483 yards and 17 tds.

No respect for WRs in this world! I remember when Rice was named MVP of SuperBowl XXIII, he was pissed to learn that the "I'm going to Disneyland!" promotion gig wasn't set up for the MVP as most assumed, but for the quarterback of the winning team. Montana had to step in, and he and Jerry took a trip to the Magic Kingdom together.

 

[patfanken]

ENOUGH already. I wish they's announce it so we can all move on from this ludicrous discussion. Ryan has has a good enough stats on a good enough team that no one should have too much of a b!tch if he wins. Be honest, the only reason we really give a crap is that it for Brady to win it would be a huge FU to Roger Goodell, BSPN and the league. You can alreasy feel them start to sweat, and the articles specifically designed to denigrate Brady suddenly start to perculate out of the ooze. They stink of desperation.

That in itself is a win. For me this has gone on far too long. The only thing I care about is not having Aaron Rogders and his good half season and his just barely over 500 playoff winning percentage, win this award

 

[BradyFTW!]

The bigger indicator, IMO: when's the last time you saw anyone devote this much energy to campaigning for why someone shouldn't be MVP? This is usually the time of year where people make the case for the person who they think should win, not devote the entire front page of their website to smearing the guy they think shouldn't win.

 

[Gronkowski123]

tom isn't going to win the mvp. they'll give the award to loser perennial playoff choker matt ryan.thanks to kraft and goodell, brady will get screwed out of the mvp award. had he played in the first 4 games, tb12 would win it unanimously

to quote metallica, " sad but true "

 

[Snake Eyes]

Exactly. I don't think the Montana example in any way proves that missing games doesn't matter in the MVP calculation, just that it isn't an immediate disqualifier (an extreme position that AFAIK nobody's taking). Montana was so far ahead of the field that factoring in the missed time didn't bring him back to the pack.

This year is a totally different situation, with two very strong QB candidates. If a voter wanted to use games played as a mark in Ryan's favor, IMO that would be pretty reasonable.

Plenty of people are making the argument that the missed games are a disqualifier.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

I'm OK with Ryan getting the MVP, not so much the opinions of sports writers attempting to appear professional while hating on Brady.

My bigger concern is the HoF voting for players like Ty Law. MLB has hundreds of voters that do it in public. The NFL Selection Committee has only 48 "elite members." Statistics 101: have a large sample (i.e. lots of voters to reduce bias.) Is there bias on the NFL HoF? Dr Z resigned to protest it.

BB and TB will be a slam dunk for the HoF, but I'm concerned about the Ty Laws. Expect the Hatriots on the Selection Committee to diss Patriot candidates by spinning their stats negatively, "they were on a system team", BB and/or TB made them look too good, "they were on the Team of The Decade", more lame excuses that we probably will never hear.

 

[primetime]

Jerry Rice should have been MVP in 89. He played all 16 games with 1483 yards and 17 tds.

This is the correct opinion on 1989.

 

[nabwong]

Brady is playing for immortality. Nothing else but the Lombardi, I mean the Belichick trophy.

 

[sb1]

Another "Brady should not be MVP" article link:

Keidel: Tom Brady Should Not Win 2016 NFL MVP

Amazing. I can't say I've ever seen journalists actually go out of their way to talk down one player in the MVP conversation. It's as if these articles are not addressed to fans, they're addressed to the people voting for MVP and trying to create a narrative.... and the request to do this it's coming from much higher up on the sports chain and it's not that hard to figure out where.

Too bad Brady's not the kind of guy to retire and then tell them to go pound sand. Maybe Bill is. I suspect we'll be hearing more about this when he writes his book.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

all these other guys like Cam and Ryan having ONE good season while being mediocre both before and after,

It's like deciding if you'd rather have the hot car that goes 200 mph but only starts one time in five, or the almost-as-hot car that goes 195 mph and starts every single time and you can ALWAYS rely on it. Give me B.

 

[BobDigital]

Here is the case why Brady should be MVP.

#1 The MVP does not mean Most Valuable Player and the award has not been for that in a long time. It is the player which made the biggest impact on his team that year for the positive

#2 Your back up should not determine MVP. The otherside of the ball by this definition should not determine MVP. It is about you and the impact you have on the field. You don't get penalized for having a good back up or a good defense, offense or special teams.

#3 Brady did what he did with less help than the other MVP candidates on the other side of the ball. Dak and Zeke had each other and that OL. Rodgers had Nelson all year who looked really good as the year went on and Ryan had Jones nearly the entire year. Brady had a healthy Gronk only 4.5 of his 12 games. He had a pretty decent cast but clearly he had less to work with on the offensive side than Rodgers or Ryan.

#4 Brady had a more impressive year than anyone else considering his offense. 28/2 is insane over 12 games. Also the Brady led offense averaged 30PPG which is more than Rodgers did. Ryan's averaged 33.8 PPG but he has had on the whole better RB core better receiving targets and his team didn't step off the gas at the end of games and run due to his D being worse. So if you hold it against Brady for having a good D you need to also admit it limited his offensive output at times.

#5 The argument comes down to if you believe the potency of Brady is better than the quantity of Ryan. I would argue yes. Brady lead his team to the same number of wins in 12 games Ryan did in 16. This means The Pats would have had to lose the other 4 games he was not there to have the same record as the Falcons. Ryan had a great year and if he wins the MVP i would not feel like Brady was robbed (except maybe by Goodell) but in my mind it is clear. Brady was the reason his team has the #1 seed and the Falcons invested more on the offense and asked Rodgers to lead them to the #1 seed and he could not do it with 16 games.

 

[deroc5050]

I don't find it implausible that Ryan would be deserving of the MVP even if Brady had played in all 16 games. And, since he didn't, the case is pretty clear for me. That's not to take anything away from Brady. He had a great season. He was just handicapped from the start when it came to individual awards. That he was even in the MVP picture at the end says it all, really.

yeah in the other countless topics on this I said Ryan will and should win. He put up better numbers and he played in all 16 games.

2 things hurt Brady... 1 he lost Gronk half way through his season... thats huge.

And #2 Brady was all the rave about MVP but the Denver game kinda killed his chances.

All TB 12 cares about is a Super Bowl win.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

Who gives a **** about the MVP award. I just want Brady to lift that trophy after Goodell hands it to him and says "Congratulations New England"..

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Brady had a historic season, which I think is enough to overcome a four game absence. Fifty years from now, Brady's 2016 season may still be remembered for its vengeance and record setting efficiency (two turnovers!!), especially when these stats guys begin to realize just how important turnovers are at the QB position, and the fact that QBs with more INTs tend to get more empty yards and empty TDs.

Will Ryan's season be remembered as historic? Absolutely not. 11-5 and huge numbers but lacking in clutch situations, nine games in a dome, against bottom feeder divisional defenses. Newton in 2015 (15-1, major stats), Rodgers in 2014 (12-4, 38-5 ratio), Manning in 2013 (13-3, 55 TDs), Peterson in 2012 (2K yards), Rodgers in 2011 (15-1, 45-6 ratio) and Brady in 2010 (14-2, 36-4 ratio) were all better, and I think Ryan's season would have been trumped by any MVP winner in the five prior years.

 

[Jackson 2]

Jerry Rice should have been MVP in 89. He played all 16 games with 1483 yards and 17 tds.

While admitting later that he cheated...

 

[Brewskies]

Ya I didn't even bother to look at what that guy said. My point was more how there is a campaign in the media against Brady because the whole "missed games" thing and there are several arguments that completely kill the whole "Team was 3-1 without him" argument.

The media lies, haven't you been watching the TV, reading the internet and the news print for the past year and a half? It will also lie for the next 4 years.

Time to move on. He is our MVP.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Ryan put up numbers similar to what Brady puts up every year for the last ten years yet Brady has only won two MVPs. The only way Brady wins if he puts up record breaking otherworldly numbers.

If the media wasn't so stupid, lazy, ignorant, biased, agenda driven, click bait happy and uninformed they would actually see a man who overcame an unjust suspension/witch hunt to put up historic numbers and an age at which nobody has been really able to play at and see that it is a slam dunk.

But it won't happen that way, Ryan will likely get it even though he has been mediocre at best for the last decade, he'll get the award right around the same time he is choking away a one and done playoff game. Elliott and Prescott will be second and third.

In the end, who gives a ****, but Brady deserves the MVP, as he has many other years, they'll find any excuse to elevate anyone else in the discussion and downplay Brady's accomplishments. A fifth SB championship will have to do.