https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...-_ZWHNiY57fmswQuote:
Originally Posted by Fritz
Now...we'll have none of that talk around here.
Printable View
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...-_ZWHNiY57fmswQuote:
Originally Posted by Fritz
Now...we'll have none of that talk around here.
(First I had to suppress the urge to pour gasoline on Mad's House of Fun and see if we could crank this thread up past 10,000 posts of Favre versus Starr. I eventually overcame the inner adolescent.)
I had very few problems with Favre in the MVP era. He had a better than 2:1 TD to INT ratio (112-42) . At the time, that was good, though not the best in the League (which would have been Young). A lot of the INTs were head scratchers, but he worked very well inside the offense and a significant number were late trying to score.
The stretch in the Super Bowl year when he lost Brooks, Freeman and Hot Tub and had to make do with Beebe, Rison and Jackson was remarkable, though it did had a decided effect on the Offense's output. The Defense outplayed the Offense that year in most of the games. Still, with a second division lineup in midseason, the team still went 13-3 and the O lead the League in points.
98 and 99? Those two years looked like he was still high on Vicodin.
Just on the field Rodgers, Romo, and Brady are all a lot more valuable than two or three JJ Watts. Rodgers isn't that much better than Romo or Brady but still better by most measures. What else is left to compare him to? Himself? I also don't think Rodgers has been really any better this year than he was in 2012, but he should have won MVP in 2012 as well.
The comparison to the oscars doesn't quite work because players don't all have the same job. The MVP award isn't "who was best at their respective job" and rightfully so. My biggest criticism is that it doesn't seem take into account salary. Like Patler said, if all the QBs are roughly the same when it comes to their contribution to winning football games, shouldn't the lowest salary win? He literately provides the best value which seems important for MVP. I guess I'd have to vote for Russell Wilson.
The Packers 1996 defense was #1 in lowest total yards against and more importantly #1 in lowest points against. They had the lowest opponent QB rating, yielded the least yards passing and 4th least rushing. They were #2 in interceptions and returned 3 for touchdowns. Special Teams scored 4 touchdowns and yielded none. The '96 Packers defense and epcial teams were darned good.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Interesting............... I hadn't ever thought of it that way. Performance/$.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3irty1
Wouldn't it make more sense to consider the QB with the highest salary the most valuable? Isn't a Porsche more valuable than a Chevy?:-|Quote:
Originally Posted by 3irty1
You completely missed my point. I pointed out that QBs who threw for amazing TD totals previously ALWAYS had HOF caliber talent around them. Marino, Fouts, Kelly, etc...they all had ELITE TALENT to work with. Are you trying to actually argue that any of the guys Favre had around him in the mid 1990s were ELITE? I never said these guys were devoid of ability...they are all good to very good players. However, most have no claim whatsoever to being elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
You downplay Favre's TDs by saying he threw a bunch of dumb INTs. I would beg to differ...during those MVP years. His INT totals those years (~14) weren't much different from those put up by HOF guys in the same era like Marino/Elway (~14) or Montana/Aikman (~12)...who all had WAY MORE TALENT ON THE OFFENSIVE SIDE OF THE BALL TO WORK WITH. (except for maybe Elway, who also toiled with more modest talent typically) So did all QBs just throw a bunch of stupid INTs all the time?
I have respect for Brooks, Levens and the rest. They were team players for the most part...not sure I can say that of Jackson. They sacrificed for the team and played well within the scheme Holmgren and his staff developed. However, I have more respect for Ron Wolf. He's the one who laments the talent he put around Favre during his era in Green Bay...and what I always thought he meant was a combination of ELITE talent procured and just overall depth in general. There weren't a lot of Pro Bowls from that group of skill position players...despite playing on a league leading offense led by a MVP caliber QB. I would argue that is evidence of my point that the talent wasn't close to being elite by and large.
Brooks and Bennett? Neither were ever picked for a Pro Bowl. Good players...but not close to elite. Levens and Freeman each had only one selection. Good players who each had some excellent seasons...but again not what I would consider close to the elite category. Chmura is the first guy who you might be able to argue was elite. I would not agree with that assessment, but I can see the argument. Chmura never caught more than 7 TD passes in a season. Keith Jackson, a true All-Pro talent at TE who walked into Green Bay in the declining years of his career, proved to be a far more impactful receiving TE while posting 40 receptions and 10 TDs. Chmura was always more impressive as a blocker to me. He got three Pro Bowl nods. IMO he was a very good player...not elite, but a guy you certainly want on your team. Jackson did earn a Pro Bowl selection for his one real season in Green Bay...after he finally decided to show up.
Keith Jackson is the only true All-Pro talent of any of these guys...he was an elite player career-wise, although he may not have been that by the time he reached Green Bay. He and Chmura did give Favre some great talent at TE. The rest were very fortunate to play with Favre and within the dominant offensive system devised by Holmgren and put into practice by coaches such as Andy Reid and Jon Gruden. They were not elite players independently...it would be downright foolish to argue that. However, they were strong together as a team when led by a gunslinger who gave them the confidence that they could do more than they probably otherwise figured they could.
Or is the CHEAPEST QB that produces highly most valuable...because his salary allows the team to procure talent elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi
I guess Russell Wilson wins that debate.
Yet the offense WAS JUST AS GOOD...and WITH FAR LESS OVERALL TALENT. Again...goes back to why Favre earned the MVP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
I guess this is what I can't figure out...I don't understand how you can win because of and in spite of at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
To me, it is either one or the other.
The 1967 Packers did not win in spite of Starr. It doesn't matter how many INTs he threw. They won BECAUSE of him.
The same is true of the Favre MVP years.
Football is more than sheer numbers. That is precisely what the MVP award is all about. Trying to measure it with numbers alone is dumb. It is about what you see on the field. The leadership. Making plays when it matters. The total package.
That is why I don't buy the JJ Watt argument. He's got the "stats"...but he's missing on the total package thing.
Or is the most expensive QB who produces most highly the most valuable...because you don't need the highest quality talent on the rest of your team? It still comes down to the question of how do you determine different levels of production?:-)Quote:
Originally Posted by King Friday
Defense had an aging Reggie White and Leroy Butler who were elite. Beyond that just a bunch of good players who were well-coached and bought into the program, much like on the offensive side.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Friday
All true. And everyone remembers the lack of targets during the injury epidemic and how it affected the offense. They didn't sign Rison because they were confident with the situation. But I was stunned to see they still led the League in Points Scored. Even with 7 TDs from other sources, that is an impressive Offensive performance. And we can't subtract other sources of scoring without looking at all teams like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
But as I said, that season's team was led by the D. Pro Football Reference calculates a down and dirty average value (AV) for all players based on available stats for the season, and that was the year White was the best player for the Packers, not Favre. It was Brett in the other two MVP seasons.
Well, if you don't get my play on phraseology, we have both wasted a lot of time the last two days arguing with each other. No point continuing.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Friday
There's our answer! Let's let them pick the MVP! If they can distinguish between Favre and White in 1996, they can certainly decide between Rodgers, Romo, Brady, Watt, etc. this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Computers are magnificent creatures!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
You guys are really getting all balled up.
MVP = Most VALUABLE player. To the league. So think in terms of $$$. Which guy draws people in to watch and generate coin. Favre was that guy, whether he threw crushing, game and season-ending INTs (1995, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007) or threw SB winning TD passes(1996). Favre coulda won more MVPs just for the drama$$$ factor.
Starr was a great field general for a great TEAM, that won because Lombardi was their coach. Lombardi coached mediocre guys into greatness. As evidence - the time he coached a high school basketball team to a state championship. Lombardi could get a team of girl scouts and coach them to the highest culinary award for cooking, because he could coach people. He did the same with Starr - drilled that guy into greatness. Starr was a miserable specimen of a QB, but with Lombardi driving him to greatness, like a lot of other sorry schlubs, they won and won again. MVP - who the hell cares - Starr was a winner, mostly because of his coach. Similarly, Favre did his best work when he was tightly controlled by great coaches - Holmgren and Stubby. MVP - sure, sometimes, and sure again when he was the media drama queen, because $$$$, and because he was crazy flashy.
I wasn't alive for the 60's so I don't have that feel for what people were looking for in an MVP, but my sense is that times were different, and since Lombardi was in the drivers seat - CLEARLY he was the driving personality of that team - so why not pick Starr - because, well, he's the frickin' QB. Of course he's the guy they'd pick, because that was a TEAM, and you pick the on field leader of the best team.
Both MVPs, but for different reasons.
Rodgers is the MVP because he's the best QB, with the most influence on the outcome of the team, playing on the best team, that has a huge national following. Brady could follow, Romo - no because of the split between he and the RB, and Watt - no because he's on a sucky team and gets no exposure. You will never generate national $$$ to watch Watt play. Good luck with that. he's way down on the $$$ list.
Rand, by your logic wouldn't it follow that Lombardi should have been the MVP?
sure, except that he's not a Player. So you have to pick the next best thing - the on field general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi