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.Originally Posted by King Friday
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.
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.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
This is closer to the truth.
Rich Eisen made this rationale for Rodgers, and rolls the RELAX comments in:
Sure, to people who care about only the game as it is played on the field, that statement is blank as a fart. But the game is so much more than that. It's scaffolded by an enormous hype machine that creates, picks up, and pumps up narratives ad nauseum to augment the action we see and drive revenue for the league Between Rodgers's RELAX comments and his dramatic return in the final game of the year--a game where the Packers outscored the Lions 30-6 with him in the game and got outscored 0-14 with him out--his ability to generate his own compelling narratives is tremendous. Rodgers is, in his own way, a drama queen. Just as Favre was.I went with Rodgers over Watt merely because Rodgers played as flawlessly at his position over a 10-week stretch as I’ve ever seen. Plus, for a quarterback to directly address his fan base in this social-media-driven, long-time-listener-first-time-caller-laden day and age and telling them to relax, it makes his play the greatest walking of the walk I’ve ever seen.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
Check out this article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...all-of-fame-is
The guy not only argues that Paul Hornung didn't deserve being named MVP in 1961, but that Hornung is the least deserving player in the NFL Hall of Fame.
Classic case of letting stats get in the way of "drama."
6. Hornung had no business winning a MVP
Like his Heisman Trophy, Hornung’s MVP award in 1961 was a bit of a sham as well. He led the league in scoring again with 146 points, but he had just 742 yards from scrimmage and 10 total touchdowns. Hornung won the MVP, yet did not even get selected to the Pro Bowl. Figure that one out.
Once again Hornung was not the best back on his own team, as Jim Taylor had an excellent season with 1,307 rushing yards and a league-leading 15 rushing touchdowns.
It was also more about Johnny Unitas having a down year in Baltimore, and while Jim Brown was again great, the Browns were only 8-6. The only teams that had a strong record were Green Bay (11-3), New York Giants (10-3-1), and the Philadelphia Eagles (10-4).
Y.A. Tittle had a good year for the Giants, but he did not start every game. However, the Newspaper Ent. Assoc. did award Tittle the MVP, while the AP and UPI went with Hornung.
By today’s standards, Sonny Jurgensen should have won the MVP in 1961 for leading the Eagles to a 10-4 record despite having one of the league’s lowest-ranked defenses and running games. Jurgensen set a NFL record with 3,723 passing yards and had a record-tying 32 touchdown passes. That is much more in line with the standard of being the “Most Valuable Player."
Not what Hornung did.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
He was quite famous - the glam face of the 60's Packers.Hornung is the least deserving player in the NFL Hall of Fame.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Yer right, Rand.
It's the Hall of Fame, the NFL's most famous players.
Hornung is the least deserving?
He averaged over 14 points a game one season.
The least deserving HOFer is a guy named Wayne Millner, look up his numbers one time.
If any RB should have won that MVP that year it should have been Jimmy Taylor.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote