MVP debate: Who's most deserving? A.Rodgers - JJ Watt - T.Brady - P.Manning - D.Murray?

[woodbuck27]

MVP debate: Who's most deserving?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12036792/nfl-mvp-debate-jj-watt-aaron-rodgers-tom-brady-peyton-manning-demarco-murray

Our expert panel debates the merits of Rodgers, Murray, Watt, Brady, Manning

[King Friday]

It is a race between Brady and Rodgers now. If Rodgers leads the Packers to 2 more wins and a bye in the NFC, he's the likely choice.

[Patler]

It is a race between Brady and Rodgers now. If Rodgers leads the Packers to 2 more wins and a bye in the NFC, he's the likely choice.

You are probably right, but it should be JJ Watt. He has been unbelievable. Tackles, sacks, passes defensed, interception TD, offensive TDs; really a remarkable season.

[woodbuck27]

You are probably right, but it should be JJ Watt. He has been unbelievable. Tackles, sacks, passes defensed, interception TD, offensive TDs; really a remarkable season.

J.J. Watt for MVP !? Well........

He's also 'ALL the HYPE' of late.

I finally got through my recording of the Packers @ Bills and Moses,Jenkins and Aaron (brother of Moses).

If I never watched the NFL games and saw Aaron Rodgers for the first time and someone informed me that he was the leading NFL MVP candidate !

I would be in total disbelief.

He looked anything but on too many levels.

[Tyrion Lannister]

You are probably right, but it should be JJ Watt. He has been unbelievable. Tackles, sacks, passes defensed, interception TD, offensive TDs; really a remarkable season.

All that for a .500 team. I am sure the Texans could win 7 games without Watt. I doubt the Packers, Broncos, Cowboys and Pats would win 7 games without their MVP candidates.

[Tyrion Lannister]

I finally got through my recording of the Packers @ Bills and Moses,Jenkins and Aaron (brother of Moses).



Man, you definitely can take the pain. I'd rather commit suicide than rewatch that game. ;-)

[woodbuck27]

All that for a .500 team. I am sure the Texans could win 7 games without Watt. I doubt the Packers, Broncos, Cowboys and Pats would win 7 games without their MVP candidates.

That's why the MVP won't be tainted and JJ Watt be the winner.

It's right now Aaron Rodgers MVP to lose and he did a fine job of getting there in Buffalo.

[Tyrion Lannister]

That's why the MVP won't be tainted and JJ Watt be the winner.

It's right now Aaron Rodgers MVP to lose and he did a fine job of getting there in Buffalo.

Might as well switch the M and P in MVP around and call it the Peyton von Manning award. My bucks is on the Manning winning it again.

[George Cumby]

All that for a .500 team. I am sure the Texans could win 7 games without Watt. I doubt the Packers, Broncos, Cowboys and Pats would win 7 games without their MVP candidates.

Agreed. Reference last season.

[mraynrand]

Man, you definitely can take the pain. I'd rather commit suicide than rewatch that game. ;-)

If you need help, let me know.

[Patler]

All that for a .500 team. I am sure the Texans could win 7 games without Watt. I doubt the Packers, Broncos, Cowboys and Pats would win 7 games without their MVP candidates.

So Watt makes no difference at all? They've won 7 with him, and you are "sure" they could win 7 without him? If that were true, no team should ever pay more than minimum to anyone other than their QB.

How did the Patriots do in 2008, when Brady played only part of one game before missing the rest of the season?

[Patler]

Agreed. Reference last season.

There were issues beyond just the fact that Rodgers went down last season. I believe GB would have done better if GB had a backup who was prepared, or if Wallace had not been injured in the first series of his first start, or if Flynn had been there earlier. In short, the problem was that Tolzien was simply not ready to play.

Flynn brought them back to a tie against the Vikings. I think it is entirely plausible they would have won that game if Flynn had played the entire game. Thereafter, Flynn went 2-2. One loss was to Detroit at Detroit, in a game not unlike Rodgers' loss to them this year. The other was against Pittsburgh, when the Packers scored 31, but surrendered 38.

[Striker]

There were issues beyond just the fact that Rodgers went down last season. I believe GB would have done better if GB had a backup who was prepared, or if Wallace had not been injured in the first series of his first start, or if Flynn had been there earlier. In short, the problem was that Tolzien was simply not ready to play.

Flynn brought them back to a tie against the Vikings. I think it is entirely plausible they would have won that game if Flynn had played the entire game. Thereafter, Flynn went 2-2. One loss was to Detroit at Detroit, in a game not unlike Rodgers' loss to them this year. The other was against Pittsburgh, when the Packers scored 31, but surrendered 38.

14 of those points did come off of Flynn turnovers (1 INT returned for a TD, 1 fumble recovered on the Packers 17), but for the most part I agree. Tolzien wasn't quite ready and, more than anything, I don't think they were ready for the possibility of starting the 3rd string QB.

[Tyrion Lannister]

If you need help, let me know.

Thanks for the offer, but I have Dr. John Holmes, MD, PhD.

[Tyrion Lannister]

So Watt makes no difference at all? They've won 7 with him, and you are "sure" they could win 7 without him? If that were true, no team should ever pay more than minimum to anyone other than their QB.

How did the Patriots do in 2008, when Brady played only part of one game before missing the rest of the season?

That Pats? They missed the playoffs.

Watt is an awesome player and he's having a great season. Would love to see Thompson trade an entire draft for him. Football is the ultimate team game and all that, but you just don't hand over the Heisman to a guy on a losing/mediocre team, not even if he rushed for 5000 yards and 30 TDs for a 0-12 team.

[woodbuck27]

Green Bay Packers @packers #Packers

QB Aaron Rodgers finishes first in Pro Bowl fan voting:

pack.rs/27ivh pic.twitter.com/CmfMtViNLe

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nfl.com/labs/rr/manoftheyear/dev

Walter Payton Man of the Year Award * Nominee Aaron Rodgers.

* One of this years 32 Nominees for this prestigious award.

http://www.nfl.com/content/public/static/html/labs/rr/manoftheyear/img/award_nominees/large/GB_2.png

" Aaron Rodgers is a strong activist for the Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer (MACC) Fund, an organization working to cure childhood cancer and blood disorders. He recently eclipsed the $1.5 million mark in total monies raised through his own personal efforts, campaigns and events. "

GO Aaron GO !

[pbmax]

It really shouldn't be an MVP award. People are used to that by now and perhaps earlier liked the rhyme.

If you want to recognize the best season, regardless of team or position, it has to be Most Outstanding Player. Because no one on the field is more important than the best QBs.

Watt would win the MOP.

[Zool]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9W-smdTVjA

[George Cumby]

There were issues beyond just the fact that Rodgers went down last season. I believe GB would have done better if GB had a backup who was prepared, or if Wallace had not been injured in the first series of his first start, or if Flynn had been there earlier. In short, the problem was that Tolzien was simply not ready to play.

Flynn brought them back to a tie against the Vikings. I think it is entirely plausible they would have won that game if Flynn had played the entire game. Thereafter, Flynn went 2-2. One loss was to Detroit at Detroit, in a game not unlike Rodgers' loss to them this year. The other was against Pittsburgh, when the Packers scored 31, but surrendered 38.

I disagree with none of your factual points. I think it's a matter of definition. What is meant by "most valuable"? PB just hit on it, the term is somewhat anachronistic and may not be relevant to what we are discussing.

[Pugger]

You are probably right, but it should be JJ Watt. He has been unbelievable. Tackles, sacks, passes defensed, interception TD, offensive TDs; really a remarkable season.

Yes, JJ has been great but his wonderful play really hasn't helped his team be any better than mediocre or .500. Usually the MVP winner is on a winning/playoff team.

[Fritz]

You are probably right, but it should be JJ Watt. He has been unbelievable. Tackles, sacks, passes defensed, interception TD, offensive TDs; really a remarkable season.

Maybe they can put him in at QB and get him a few TD throws, too.

And then have him drop-kick a PAT. That'd do it, for sure.

[Pugger]

That's why the MVP won't be tainted and JJ Watt be the winner.

It's right now Aaron Rodgers MVP to lose and he did a fine job of getting there in Buffalo.

Tainted because he had a lousy game? Brady and Manning - 2 players also under consideration - have had stinkers this year too.

[Pugger]

Might as well switch the M and P in MVP around and call it the Peyton von Manning award. My bucks is on the Manning winning it again.

Manning hasn't been the front runner in over a month now. If Rodgers doesn't win it then it will probably go to Brady.

[woodbuck27]

Tainted because he had a lousy game? Brady and Manning - 2 players also under consideration - have had stinkers this year too.

I believe that today....Aaron Rodgers is the leading MVP candidate.

If he shows up with another 'stinker game' as he certainly had in Buffalo and that with occasional help of his receivers.

He flushes that MVP down the toilet along with the Green Bay Packers 2014 Season.

I believe that Aaron Rodgers will play extremely well Vs Tampa Bay and the Detroit LIONS.

I believe Aaron Rodgers will lead the Green Bay Packers to the NFC NO. 2 Seed.

I believe that Aaron Rodgers then will deserve to receive the NFL MVP Award again.

If all I believe happens:

Aaron Rodgers will be the 2014 NFL MVP.

[mraynrand]

Thanks for the offer, but I have Dr. John Holmes, MD, PhD.

I didn't know he offered his services in assisted suicide

[mraynrand]

Tainted because he had a lousy game? Brady and Manning - 2 players also under consideration - have had stinkers this year too.


It's how you finish. I wish MVP awards weren't decided until after the entire season is over. I'd like playoff performances to factor into the choice.

[Patler]

It really shouldn't be an MVP award. People are used to that by now and perhaps earlier liked the rhyme.

If you want to recognize the best season, regardless of team or position, it has to be Most Outstanding Player. Because no one on the field is more important than the best QBs.

Watt would win the MOP.

Agreed, which is why, as awarded, it is really an MVQB award. However, I think you can look at value to your team as currently constituted. A team with a lousy QB, or mediocre offense might have a defender, punter or kicker who is extremely valuable to them. Unfortunately, the media influences via popularity.

[channtheman]

When was the last time a non QB won the award? It feels like it's pretty much the best teams/one of the best teams QB wins the award.

EDIT:

I decided to look since I was curious. It appears AP won the award as an RB in 2012. I completely forgot about that. Here's a list if anyone's interested.


2013 NFL Peyton Manning Denver Broncos
2012 NFL Adrian Peterson Minnesota Vikings
2011 NFL Aaron Rodgers Green Bay Packers
2010 NFL Tom Brady New England Patriots
2009 NFL Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts
2008 NFL Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts
2007 NFL Tom Brady New England Patriots
2006 NFL LaDainian Tomlinson San Diego Chargers
2005 NFL Shaun Alexander Seattle Seahawks
2004 NFL Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts
2003 NFL Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts
2003 NFL Steve McNair Tennessee Titans
2002 NFL Rich Gannon Oakland Raiders
2001 NFL Kurt Warner St. Louis Rams
2000 NFL Marshall Faulk St. Louis Rams
1999 NFL Kurt Warner St. Louis Rams
1998 NFL Terrell Davis Denver Broncos
1997 NFL Brett Favre Green Bay Packers
1997 NFL Barry Sanders Detroit Lions
1996 NFL Brett Favre Green Bay Packers
1995 NFL Brett Favre Green Bay Packers
1994 NFL Steve Young San Francisco 49ers
1993 NFL Emmitt Smith Dallas Cowboys
1992 NFL Steve Young San Francisco 49ers
1991 NFL Thurman Thomas Buffalo Bills
1990 NFL Joe Montana San Francisco 49ers
1989 NFL Joe Montana San Francisco 49ers
1988 NFL Boomer Esiason Cincinnati Bengals
1987 NFL John Elway Denver Broncos
1986 NFL Lawrence Taylor New York Giants
1985 NFL Marcus Allen Los Angeles Raiders
1984 NFL Dan Marino Miami Dolphins
1983 NFL Joe Theismann Washington Redskins
1982 NFL Mark Moseley Washington Redskins
1981 NFL Ken Anderson Cincinnati Bengals
1980 NFL Brian Sipe Cleveland Browns
1979 NFL Earl Campbell Houston Oilers
1978 NFL Terry Bradshaw Pittsburgh Steelers
1977 NFL Walter Payton Chicago Bears
1976 NFL Bert Jones Baltimore Colts
1975 NFL Fran Tarkenton Minnesota Vikings
1974 NFL Ken Stabler Oakland Raiders
1973 NFL O.J. Simpson Buffalo Bills
1972 NFL Larry Brown Washington Redskins
1971 NFL Alan Page Minnesota Vikings
1970 NFL John Brodie San Francisco 49ers
1969 NFL Roman Gabriel Los Angeles Rams
1968 NFL Earl Morrall Baltimore Colts
1967 NFL Johnny Unitas Baltimore Colts
1966 NFL Bart Starr Green Bay Packers
1965 NFL Jim Brown Cleveland Browns
1964 NFL Johnny Unitas Baltimore Colts
1963 NFL Y.A. Tittle New York Giants
1962 NFL Jim Taylor Green Bay Packers
1961 NFL Paul Hornung Green Bay Packers
1960 NFL Norm Van Brocklin Philadelphia Eagles
1959 NFL Johnny Unitas Baltimore Colts
1958 NFL Jim Brown Cleveland Browns
1957 NFL Jim Brown Cleveland Browns

[Guiness]

It really shouldn't be an MVP award. People are used to that by now and perhaps earlier liked the rhyme.

If you want to recognize the best season, regardless of team or position, it has to be Most Outstanding Player. Because no one on the field is more important than the best QBs.

Watt would win the MOP.

It's very difficult to make a case against a QB when it comes to the MVP award. Maybe baseball has it right by having a Cy Young and an MVP. There have been a few cases with both going to the same player, but that is only in exceptional situations.

I vote the QB award get named...The Bart Starr Award!:cool:

[MadtownPacker]

Nice idea for the award name Guniness.

I say give it to JJ Watt. Yeah his team is likely not making the playoffs but they have a chance thanks to him. If that doesnt convince you then maybe his sick dance moves on the cell phone commercial.

[gbgary]

Rodgers.

[Pugger]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-year-in-holy-st-aaron-rodgers-green-bay-quarterback-football/

[Tyrion Lannister]

I didn't know he offered his services in assisted suicide

Doc Holmes not only posses a foot long wood, he also posses an MD and a PhD concurrently. That means he is authorized to prescribe dope. Two or 3 spoonful of heroins should do the trick.

[Tyrion Lannister]

I vote the QB award get named...The Bart Starr Award!:cool:

As the top award in college football is named after the great USC Trojans RB, Heisman Trophy, the NFL MVP award should be named "The Manning" or the "P-Mann." Peyton Manning, after all, has won it more times than anyone else.

[woodbuck27]

As the top award in college football is named after the great USC Trojans RB, Heisman Trophy, the NFL MVP award should be named "The Manning" or the "P-Mann." Peyton Manning, after all, has won it more times than anyone else.

He has to die first.

[mraynrand]

He has to die first.

why? Are you a sadist?

[Cheesehead Craig]

JJ will get votes, but if Rodgers doesn't crap the bed in the final 2 games, I think he wins. It just won't be a slam dunk.

[pbmax]

As the top award in college football is named after the great USC Trojans RB, Heisman Trophy, the NFL MVP award should be named "The Manning" or the "P-Mann." Peyton Manning, after all, has won it more times than anyone else.

Wikipedia:

Heisman was born in Cleveland, Ohio, the son of Sara (née Lehr) and Johann Michael Heisman.[3]:3–6 He grew up in northwestern Pennsylvania near Titusville, where he played varsity football for Titusville High School in 1884, 1885, and 1886, and was salutatorian of his graduating class.[4] He went on to play football at Brown University (1887–1889)[2] and at the University of Pennsylvania (1890–1891).[5] He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1892.[5]


Also, Woodbuck might be on to something, the award bearing his name wasn't named that until his death.

[woodbuck27]

The media is all over this:

Add Tony Romo and to some extent Russell Wilson to the NFL MVP conversation.

Might Tony Romo win this award? Discuss.

[mraynrand]

I'd give the MVP to Sherman before Romo, Brady, or Wilson

[pbmax]

Romo can't get an award that belongs to DeMarco Murray if it goes to a Cowboy. Or the offensive line.

[Pugger]

Romo has had a nice stretch of games these past few weeks but how can he win the MVP when he isn't even the MVP of his own team? If Rodgers has a nice game, has more than one TD and we win Aaron will win it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd go with JJ Watt

[woodbuck27]

I'd go with JJ Watt

and I'll finish your sentence:

as the Defensive Player of The Year.

[woodbuck27]

If Aaron Rodgers and the Packers show up on Sunday... Aaron Rodgers wins the NFL MVP.

It's 'only' Aaron Rodgers award to lose.

Everything else that we read and listen to is spin.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/sports/football/the-envelopes-please-nfl-award-winners-for-2014.html?_r=0

The Envelopes, Maybe: Predicting the 2014 N.F.L. Award Winners

By: CHASE STUARTDEC. 23, 2014

" With one game left in the N.F.L. regular season, there is little drama surrounding which players will wind up winning the annual awards.

Aaron Rodgers, the leader of the Packers’ ruthlessly efficient offense, is likely to be the N.F.L.’s most valuable player.

He leads the league in Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt, ranks first in interception rate (1 percent), second in touchdown rate (7.2 percent), and third in net yards per pass attempt (7.57), an across-the-board level of dominance that cannot be matched.

Green Bay leads all teams in points scored per drive, while the Packers have punted a league-low 48 times. The Packers’ offense is a ruthlessly efficient offensive machine, and Rodgers is the driving force behind the team’s success. "


Please click on the LINK where the article offers a pick for all of the NFL Awards.


Comment woodbuck27:

The MVP Award votes will get split up with a lot of hype for JJ Watt but in the end Aaron Rodgers will get the most support. A win Vs Detriot will sure go a long way to solidifying that result. :-)




GO Aaron GO ! GO PACK GO !!

[mraynrand]

I'd go with JJ Watt

He's a terrific player, but he's not as dominant as he's sold. I've watched a number of their games and the guy disappears for long, long stretches, even with being singled by the O-line.

I'd take Sherman for DPOY.

[KYPack]

As the top award in college football is named after the great USC Trojans RB, Heisman Trophy, the NFL MVP award should be named "The Manning" or the "P-Mann." Peyton Manning, after all, has won it more times than anyone else.

Tank, stop making up stupid shit, if you can.

[Maxie the Taxi]

To say he's the Most Valuable Packer wouldn't be right, but Cobb has been pretty damn important this season. Nevermind his TD's; the guy's a first down machine. Plus, he's a legitimate weapon out the backfield. I don't think there's anyone else on the roster that could take his place.

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2307399-houston-texans-jj-watt-needs-20-sacks-to-steal-the-nfl-mvp

Comment woodbuck27:

Check out this hype that I entreat it as trivia:

Houston Texans' JJ Watt Needs 20 Sacks to Steal the NFL MVP. by the way the author sure has been wrong a lot this season.

By: Rivers McCown , AFC South Lead Writer

Dec 22, 2014

Final comment:

Nice try 'Rivers McCown'.

[gbgary]

it was all Rodgers until the last two games. now it's all watt. AR's gonna need one hell of a game tomorrow.

[Pugger]

I'd go with JJ Watt


Do you think we'd be 11-4 right now if we had JJ and Houston had Rodgers? I submit if Rodgers was the Texans' QB they win that division and are in the playoffs. This is why Watt be the DPOY and not MVP. The MVP isn't always the best player but the one who makes his team great. This is a QB driven league and why the QB wins this award almost all every year lately.

[woodbuck27]

Do you think we'd be 11-4 right now if we had JJ and Houston had Rodgers? I submit if Rodgers was the Texans' QB they win that division and are in the playoffs. This is why Watt be the DPOY and not MVP. The MVP isn't always the best player but the one who makes his team great. This is a QB driven league and why the QB wins this award almost all every year lately.

The Packers will defeat the Lions tomorrow.

As a result that will be the finishing touch. The NFL MVP will be Aaron Rodgers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do you think we'd be 11-4 right now if we had JJ and Houston had Rodgers? I submit if Rodgers was the Texans' QB they win that division and are in the playoffs.

MVP really is the top QB award, as is the Heisman.

That bores me so I invented my own criteria: most dominant and valuable player. I'm a rebel, I can't live by society's rules. I'm too sexy for my shirt.

[vince]

Game Set Match. Remember the days when Rodgers wasn't tough or clutch?

The legend grows. (http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=18461&is_corp=1)

[woodbuck27]

it was all Rodgers until the last two games. now it's all watt. AR's gonna need one hell of a game tomorrow.

Aaron Rodgers got that 'one hell of a game'.

Aaron Rodgers will win the NFL MVP or he's been robbed.

GO Aaron GO !

[King Friday]

If JJ Watt actually was good enough to get his team into the playoffs, he might actually earn some consideration.

However, he is not actually that good. He's the Kevin Love of the NFL...a guy who posts monster stats on a team that never goes anywhere. Sure, he's good...but you can't tell if a player is elite until they play in meaningful games. What meaningful NFL game has JJ Watt ever played in?

[Harlan Huckleby]

If JJ Watt actually was good enough to get his team into the playoffs, he might actually earn some consideration.

Plenty of great players are on so-so teams.

[King Friday]

Plenty of great players are on so-so teams.

And plenty of them don't get MVP consideration.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Right, the MVP award goes to best QB that makes playoffs.

I'm disagreeing with your theory that JJ Watt is not so great because his team didn't make playoffs.

[King Friday]

Right, the MVP award goes to best QB that makes playoffs.

I'm disagreeing with your theory that JJ Watt is not so great because his team didn't make playoffs.

I'm not so much dumping on the playoff miss...they were a Ravens loss away from making it.

I'm far more leaning toward the inferior schedule the Texans played in terms of facing experienced, elite QBs. Did Watt rack up this incredible season facing superior QB competition? Did he play in meaningful games against top talent? The answer is a resounding NO.

Did he face Tom Brady? No. Peyton Manning? No. Aaron Rodgers? No.

When the Texans did face an upper tier QB, they ALWAYS lost. Twice against Luck? Two losses. Once against Big Ben? Another loss. Once against Romo? Yet another loss.

In today's pass happy NFL, it is easier for QBs to put up numbers...and it is easier for DEs to rack up sacks. 20 sacks today is probably equal to 30+ just a generation ago. It isn't a stat that impresses me. Wins impress me. Wins over elite talent really impresses me. Watt did not have a win over elite talent. He had a great year. He's not the most valuable player in the league...not by a long shot.

[mraynrand]

I'm not so much dumping on the playoff miss...they were a Ravens loss away from making it.

I'm far more leaning toward the inferior schedule the Texans played in terms of facing experienced, elite QBs. Did Watt rack up this incredible season facing superior QB competition? Did he play in meaningful games against top talent? The answer is a resounding NO.

Did he face Tom Brady? No. Peyton Manning? No. Aaron Rodgers? No.

When the Texans did face an upper tier QB, they ALWAYS lost. Twice against Luck? Two losses. Once against Big Ben? Another loss. Once against Romo? Yet another loss.

In today's pass happy NFL, it is easier for QBs to put up numbers...and it is easier for DEs to rack up sacks. 20 sacks today is probably equal to 30+ just a generation ago. It isn't a stat that impresses me. Wins impress me. Wins over elite talent really impresses me. Watt did not have a win over elite talent. He had a great year. He's not the most valuable player in the league...not by a long shot.


This is a good post. Without biasing you with my view, would you do the same assessment for Rodgers - How do you think his stats/performances line up, especially against elite defenses/talent?

[King Friday]

This is a good post. Without biasing you with my view, would you do the same assessment for Rodgers - How do you think his stats/performances line up, especially against elite defenses/talent?

Aaron Rodgers certainly was more effective against poor defenses...that is expected. So let's throw out all the gaudy numbers he put up against piss poor defenses. He is supposed to toy with those units, and he did to a VAST extent.

However, Rodgers did face a fair number of very good to great defenses this season to test him. Using top 10 defenses...based on total yardage allowed over the season...Rodgers faced those units 6 times out of 16 games. Rodgers was .500 in those 6 games...he won the home games, lost the road games. He was not consistently dominant against elite defenses, but he held serve at home and had several big performances.

Seattle (#1) - Week #1 - Rodgers was mediocre in this game. Granted, it was the first game of the year...on the road...against the defending champs. He completed 70% of his passes, but wasn't impactful.
Jets (#6) - Week #2 - Rodgers and the offense was not firing on all cylinders here either, but in key situations Rodgers was good...QBR over 84. 7-14 on 3rd downs. 3 TD passes, including an 80 yarder to Jordy late in the 3rd quarter to give Green Bay the lead.
Detroit (#2) - Week #3 - Very tough start to the season facing the top 2 defenses in the league on the road! The Lions made things uncomfortable for Rodgers and he wasn't effective on the road.
Carolina (#10) - Week #7 - Rodgers dominated a good Panther defense. Only 3 incompletions. 94 QBR. 3 TD passes.
Buffalo (#4) - week #15 - Perhaps Rodgers' worst game ever. He certainly got no help from his receivers with 7 drops, but some of that was due to inaccuracy by Rodgers.
Detroit (#2) - week #17 - With a division title on the line and a nagging injury in cold temperatures, Rodgers posted a 97+ QBR against an elite defense in an epic performance.

In addition to those, Rodgers also had statement WINS over capable Patriots (#13) and Dolphins (#12) defenses.

The best offense JJ Watt can claim to have beaten this year...using the same yardage metric? Baltimore at #12.

Bottom line? Against better offenses, JJ Watt and his defense did not do enough to win games. It wasn't like Houston's offense was horrible either to the point they had to be overcome...they weren't great, but they were 14th in points scored in the league. If Watt was SO dominating and SO disruptive and SO much better than any defensive player since LT...why were they only 9-7 against a cupcake schedule?

Sorry...I do not see how any of that translates to an MVP award for Watt. If he put up the numbers he did and his team was 12-4 or 13-3...yeah, put him in the debate like LT was. However, you can't be valuable if your team doesn't get wins...because WINS are what ultimately determine value more than anything else. Rodgers got wins against elite competition and in big moments. Watt did not.

[Freak Out]

Good stuff King.

If Watt gets the MVP over Rodgers it will be a crime.

[mraynrand]

Aaron Rodgers certainly was more effective...Watt did not.

Nice post. I repped you. I don't agree with everything you write, but it's a decent argument. I forget who floated the argument that other teams elevate their play against Rodgers, but I 'd like to see (or do myself) that analysis, especially in light of the Jets' performance at Miami yesterday.

[pbmax]

Here are some numbers on Rodgers versus the best Defenses he has faced this season. He has not fared as well as he has done in the past and the author concludes its a result of a small sample size. But I blame this on the lack of a true third option in the passing game plus road protection woes. Adams/Quarless/Rodgers/Boykin only dominated in maybe 1 or 2 games this season (domination in the statistical sense, beating one on one coverage while attention was devoted elsewhere).

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/game-previews/2014/week-17-game-previews


The Packers have been beaten pretty easily in three games against those top-ten pass defenses, winning only against Miami with some late-game heroics. Fortunately for the Packers, there is little reason to think that Rodgers' inability to find more consistent success against the NFL's best pass defenses will continue. Over the last five years, Rodgers has fared well against top-ten pass defenses, and only a little worse than he has against the rest of the league. The four games from earlier this year look like a small-sample quirk.
In fact, most quarterbacks perform similarly against the top pass defenses and the rest of the league in terms of DYAR per game. That's not all that surprising since DYAR accounts for the opposing defense's strength.

[pbmax]

Carolina was a bad defense for a good portion of the season that came on at the end to finish medicare overall. They were just starting their upswing when the Packers faced them.

[mraynrand]

They were just starting their upswing when the Packers faced them.

Do you mean to say the fourth quarter of that game was their turning point? And to think I was there to see it!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Did Watt rack up this incredible season facing superior QB competition? Did he play in meaningful games against top talent? The answer is a resounding NO.

There are many ways to evaluate the greatness of a defensive lineman. Quality of opposing QBs is pretty low on that list. Stats don't tell the story either.

I think JJ Watt is the best player in the NFL. It is a subjective evaluation. I get that the MVP Award is reserved for QBs.

[woodbuck27]

Well Packerrats the latest news on the NFL MVP:

Maybe it isn't Aaron Rodgers?

The buzz is that huge support exists (It's all over twitter) Tony Romo and of course as we know ....JJ Watt.

Aaron Rodgers almost appears as the forgotten man.

"What in hell is going on around here?"



I support the obvious choice or Aaron Rodgers for NFL MVP for the 2014 Season.

[mraynrand]

I hope Rodgers doesn't get the MVP. Give it to Romo. a little extra motivation couldn't hurt.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sorry...I do not see how any of that translates to an MVP award for Watt. If he put up the numbers he did and his team was 12-4 or 13-3...yeah, put him in the debate like LT was. However, you can't be valuable if your team doesn't get wins...because WINS are what ultimately determine value more than anything else. Rodgers got wins against elite competition and in big moments. Watt did not.

This is not basketball. There are about 35 critical players on each team that determine record, not to mention coaching. If anything, outstanding players on inferior teams have proven themselves more valuable than great players who benefit from talent around them.

The QB position is a little different in that it is so determinative But myself, I still would reward impact more so than the final team record.

I get what the MVP award has become - the coronation of the QB of a Super Bowl bound team. There certainly is plenty of logic to this system in a pass-happy league.
I prefer to pick who I think really is the best and most valuable player in the league. Why? Because I can.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think the MVP should be the League's chief statistician. Without him, no one would know how good anyone really is.

[Cheesehead Craig]

But can Rodgers win with it being a close vote or when he wasn't the frontrunner?

[RashanGary]

The 2nd or third best QB is more valuable than any other player IMO. It's been that way for many, many years. I'd always give it to a Qb until something drastic changes in the NFL.

[woodbuck27]

But can Rodgers win with it being a close vote or when he wasn't the frontrunner?

I believe at some point if not for the balance of the season that Aaron Rodgers was a (if not the) front runner.

Recall what the talk was and NFL MVP before Tom Brady and the New England Patriots arrived in Green Bay?

Wasn't that at least partially billed as the battle between leading candidates?

[mraynrand]

If anything, outstanding players on inferior teams have proven themselves more valuable than great players who benefit from talent around them.

This reminds me of all those years George Cumby played in the shadows of a terrible team, with no one knowing how great he really was. sniff, sniff, sob....

[mraynrand]

I think the MVP should be the League's chief statistician. Without him, no one would know how good anyone really is.

According to sources, a tree may have just fallen in the woods, but there were no statisticians there to observe it. #neverhappened

[pbmax]

Well now this all sounds like the Heismann vote, and we will next be determining which regions will vote which way (Southwest for Romo/Watt, Midwest for Rodgers, East for Brady, West for Merlin Olson). Which means this is all a crock of crap.

Change it to the MOP for Pete Rozelle's sake.

[mraynrand]

Well now this all sounds like the Heismann vote, and we will next be determining which regions will vote which way (Southwest for Romo/Watt, Midwest for Rodgers, East for Brady, West for Merlin Olson). Which means this is all a crock of crap.

Change it to the MOP for Pete Rozelle's sake.

Prom King

[Harlan Huckleby]

I would say most of Walton Payton's career is a better example.
Jim Brown never won an NFL championship, and he played on some mediocre teams.
Archie Manning had lousy record.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Change it to the MOP for Pete Rozelle's sake.

Then Matt Flynn is a shoe in. He's the best MOP up player in the league this year.

[mraynrand]

I would say most of Walton Payton's career is a better example.
Jim Brown never won an NFL championship, and he played on some mediocre teams.
Archie Manning had lousy record.

Walton?

[woodbuck27]

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-locker-room-report/article-1/Teammates-say-Aaron-Rodgers-is-hands-down-the-MVP/655fe2cf-66c2-4257-a52e-2d60a67121a6?campaign=email_141229

Teammates say Aaron Rodgers is 'hands down' the MVP


Mike Spofford ... packers.com senior writer

Comment woodbuck27:

I would say that above any official award that this is most valuable to Aaron Rodgers from a personal standpoint.

[pbmax]

I would say most of Walton Payton's career is a better example.
Jim Brown never won an NFL championship, and he played on some mediocre teams.
Archie Manning had lousy record.

1964. Look it up, live it, learn it.

[pbmax]

Walton?

He got one with Portland and then another one or two in Boston as the big slow white guy.

[MadtownPacker]

After yesterday there is no doubt ARod is the man. He was like in 300, he gave them nothing and took everything from them (fuck suh)!!

Crown his ass!!

[woodbuck27]

I believe at some point if not for the balance of the season that Aaron Rodgers was a (if not the) front runner.

Recall what the talk was and NFL MVP before Tom Brady and the New England Patriots arrived in Green Bay?

Wasn't that at least partially billed as the battle between leading candidates?

There is this (not that it is totally respected). There have been times this season when we've read that Aaron Rodgers 'is' the greatest QB the NFL has ever seen :

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000430967/article/aaron-rodgers-leads-list-of-top-10-mvp-candidates

[woodbuck27]

http://www.ibtimes.com/5-nfl-mvp-candidates-2014-season-1764214

5 NFL MVP Candidates For 2014 Season

By Greg Price @GP_IBTimes on December 21 2014 1:29 PM

Comment woodbuck27:

R - E - L - A - X.

Smarter heads will prevail.

It will be Aaron Rodgers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

1964. Look it up, live it, learn it.

I had him confused with James Brown

[pbmax]

I had him confused with James Brown

I woke up this morning,
and I heard a disturbing sound!

[King Friday]

There are many ways to evaluate the greatness of a defensive lineman. Quality of opposing QBs is pretty low on that list.

So you don't think it is harder to post sacks against guys like Manning, Brady or Rodgers...as opposed to whoever JAX or TEN throw out there?

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you don't think it is harder to post sacks against guys like Manning, Brady or Rodgers...as opposed to whoever JAX or TEN throw out there?

My evaluation of JJ Watt goes beyond sack statistics. The fact that he gets a ton of sacks from the defensive tackle position is just a cherry on the protein shake.

You'll just have to accept that I am a football genius and can see things that you can't. You'll understand when you are older.

BTW, is it that hard to sack Peyton Manning?

[King Friday]

My evaluation of JJ Watt goes beyond sack statistics. The fact that he gets a ton of sacks from the defensive tackle position is just a cherry on the protein shake.

You'll just have to accept that I am a football genius and can see things that you can't. You'll understand when you are older.

BTW, is it that hard to sack Peyton Manning?

I dunno. You are the genius. Maybe you have the ability to decipher what this chart has to say on the subject.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-quarterback-sacked-per-game/2014/

[3irty1]

If you take the award for face value its almost impossible for a non-QB to win, much less a defensive player.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you take the award for face value its almost impossible for a non-QB to win, much less a defensive player.

right, it is award for best QB among teams having good shot to get to SB

this year is coin flip twixt Romo and Rodgers

[red]

Talking heads on ESPN radio today think its an easy win for a rod

[HarveyWallbangers]

My evaluation of JJ Watt goes beyond sack statistics. The fact that he gets a ton of sacks from the defensive tackle position is just a cherry on the protein shake.

He's a DE. A DE in a 3-4, so still impressive. Pickett was their NT. Nix was supposed to be the starter at NT, but got injured in the preseason.

[Pugger]

right, it is award for best QB among teams having good shot to get to SB

this year is coin flip twixt Romo and Rodgers

I find it rather curious that NOBODY talked about Romo as a viable MVP candidate until after Rodgers' poor showing in Buffalo. One crappy performance since the NO game and now he's toast?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I find it rather curious that NOBODY talked about Romo as a viable MVP candidate until after Rodgers' poor showing in Buffalo. One crappy performance since the NO game and now he's toast?

It's more about Romo. It took some time for people to trust that Romo was playing at such a high level. He finished with a higher QBR than Rodgers, which is amazing.

[wist43]

My vote has to go to Watt... It's either Watt or Rodgers, but what Watt has done this year is otherworldly.

[mraynrand]

I find it rather curious that NOBODY talked about Romo as a viable MVP candidate until after Rodgers' poor showing in Buffalo. One crappy performance since the NO game and now he's toast?

Murray set the single season rushing record, breaking Smith's mark. That's a huge deal considering what Smith ran behind. If you watch the Cowboys this year, a ton of their passing game is short stuff, very safe. Not awe inspiring, but still capable of beating any team out there.

[mraynrand]

BTW, is it that hard to sack Peyton Manning?

I assume you've watched this guy play, right? He doesn't take sacks.

[3irty1]

It's more about Romo. It took some time for people to trust that Romo was playing at such a high level. He finished with a higher QBR than Rodgers, which is amazing.

Romo and Murray hurt each other when it comes to MVP consideration. There really isn't a contender besides Rodgers IMO.

[pbmax]

My vote has to go to Watt... It's either Watt or Rodgers, but what Watt has done this year is otherworldly.

Join me in pushing for a MOP award.

[woodbuck27]

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/12063868/tony-romo-nfl-mvp-dallas-cowboys-say-no-question

Cowboys make case for Romo MVP

Updated: December 22, 2014, 9:24 AM ET

By Tim MacMahon | ESPNDallas.com

[woodbuck27]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/aaron-rodgers-performance-stirs-talk-of-mvp-b99414856z1-287066611.html

Aaron Rodgers' performance stirs talk of MVP

[woodbuck27]

http://nesn.com/2014/12/matt-chatham-nfl-mvp-discussion-meaningless-when-comparing-unlike-things/

Matt Chatham: NFL MVP Discussion Meaningless When Comparing Unlike Things

by: NESN Staff on Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:54AM

[King Friday]

It's more about Romo. It took some time for people to trust that Romo was playing at such a high level. He finished with a higher QBR than Rodgers, which is amazing.

Romo played well this year...but the reason why his QBR was so high is entirely due to the running game he had this year. That is the difference between this year and all the others where Romo has come up short. So do you give the credit to Romo or Murray?

[Cheesehead Craig]

For all the MVP candidates, they should just judge them by what gifts they gave their teammates.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Don Banks of "Sports Illustrated" said on the wireless that the MVP race is close this year, in his opinion. He mentioned Rodgers, Watt, Romo. I wonder if the chatter is close, but actual vote will be Rodgers landslide. I think Rodgers will get benefit of lifetime achievement.

[King Friday]

My vote has to go to Watt... It's either Watt or Rodgers, but what Watt has done this year is otherworldly.

I disagree. LT was otherworldly. Watt is dominating...but he also played an incredibly weak, cupcake filled schedule. That isn't otherworldly. Watt isn't getting 20+ sacks back in 1986. He's getting numbers in a much different NFL. LT racked up 3 sacks in both regular season games against the Redskins...who finished 12-4 in 1986 and were an elite team back then who the Giants also had to beat in the NFCC game.

Watt racks up 3 sacks twice against the 2014 Jacksonville Jaguars.

You tell me Wist. Which is more otherworldly?

[King Friday]

Don Banks of "Sports Illustrated" said on the wireless that the MVP race is close this year, in his opinion. He mentioned Rodgers, Watt, Romo. I wonder if the chatter is close, but actual vote will be Rodgers landslide. I think Rodgers will get benefit of lifetime achievement.

I think Watt will get some votes. I doubt either of the Cowboys get much consideration, because they take away from each other. In the end, Rodgers will get more then 50% of the votes and win going away.

[3irty1]

Romo doesn't belong in an honest discussion for the MVP. Its Rodgers and Watt, and that decision is really a decision of what the award means.

Watt has been much better compared to other defensive lineman than Rodgers has compared to other QB's for sure. But giving the award to a defensive player on a non-playoff team means bending the award more from its literal meaning than has ever been done. Rodgers is worth more towards the goal of winning football games than three JJ Watts. It could happen, Peter Kings said he's splitting his vote.

[pbmax]

Lawrence Taylor changed the way NFL teams draft Left Tackles. He didn't change the game, he changed the front office. Any comparison is null and void.

[smuggler]

I read a mock and Rodgers got ~28 votes, Watt about 20. Seems like it'll be close, but Rodgers will win.

[woodbuck27]

What has Aaron Rodgers done to screw this up ..... since Week 14?

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24864829/nfl-mvp-projection-aaron-rodgers-locked-in-at-no-1-going-into-week-14

NFL MVP Projection: Aaron Rodgers locked in at No. 1 ..

[Zool]

Lawrence Taylor changed the way NFL teams draft Left Tackles. He didn't change the game, he changed the front office. Any comparison is null and void.

He was the last D player to win MVP I think? That's the comparison. You have to be that good to be an MVP on defense.

[mraynrand]

Lawrence Taylor changed the way NFL teams draft Left Tackles. He didn't change the game, he changed the front office. Any comparison is null and void.

That's the inspiration for the book on Oher, isn't it - or the chapter on the left tackles (wait a minute, LT, Lawrence Taylor, Left Tackle .....oooooooo...coincidence or False Flag operation??)

Just wondering here - LT and 49ers together got a lot of teams to switch to the short "west coast" passing game. QBs were getting killed by guys like LT and then Reggie White. Watt isn't changing the game, he's just having a good season.

[woodbuck27]

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/12/30/nfl-awards-mvp-rookie-coach/

Tue Dec. 30, 2014

The 2014 MMQB Awards

The regular season is over, but the NFL makes fans wait another month before revealing its annual award winners. Why prolong it? We polled 26 smart NFL observers and are ready to unveil our MVP, top rookies, best coach and more

By: Peter King

[Harlan Huckleby]

Romo doesn't belong in an honest discussion for the MVP.

Keepin the Mexican down.

[woodbuck27]

It's more about Romo. It took some time for people to trust that Romo was playing at such a high level. He finished with a higher QBR than Rodgers, which is amazing.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSok0ba2QREEUmjiq524BdX2Q4GwiH5D 0gj9KgxqPQkEyaKN_xc

" I don't doubt Tony."

[Pugger]

Folks keep mixing up most valuable player with best player. Had JJ is the MVP his team would be in the playoffs. He didn't lead the league in sacks, tackles or INTs. However he scored a couple TDs playing TE. His defense wasn't even in the top half of the league. The main reason IMO why he isn't the MVP is simple: If you could chose either player to play for your team who do you choose? I'd bet most GMs would take Rodgers. This is a QB driven league today. If you don't have a good/great QB you don't win. Period.

[red]

Folks keep mixing up most valuable player with best player. Had JJ is the MVP his team would be in the playoffs. He didn't lead the league in sacks, tackles or INTs. However he scored a couple TDs playing TE. His defense wasn't even in the top half of the league. The main reason IMO why he isn't the MVP is simple: If you could chose either player to play for your team who do you choose? I'd bet most GMs would take Rodgers. This is a QB driven league today. If you don't have a good/great QB you don't win. Period.

You nailed it pugs, spot on

[Harlan Huckleby]

Folks keep mixing up most valuable player with best player. Had JJ is the MVP his team would be in the playoffs.

Now that 2nd statement isn't true. There are 35 meaningful players on a team. Even if JJ is the best defensive player in history, he can't guarantee a playoff spot. Many hall-of-fame players have spent time on bad teams, including QBs.

[mraynrand]

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSok0ba2QREEUmjiq524BdX2Q4GwiH5D 0gj9KgxqPQkEyaKN_xc

" I don't doubt Tony."

*Si*

[mraynrand]

Romo doesn't belong in an honest discussion

We only engage in dishonest discussion here at Packerrats

[pbmax]

We only engage in dishonest discussion here at Packerrats

Romo is juicing. Heard it from a guy who knows someone who went to a bar in Burlington.

[mraynrand]

Romo is juicing. Heard it from a guy who knows someone who went to a bar in Burlington.

And it makes a swell Christmas gift!

http://www.seenon.com/imgcache/product/resized/000/449/499/catl/00449499-431814_500.jpg?k=0c7daba2&pid=449499&s=catl&sn=seenontv

[Patler]

My vote has to go to Watt... It's either Watt or Rodgers, but what Watt has done this year is otherworldly.

Joel Corry at the National Football Post ranked the top 5 candidates, and came up with Watt as the most deserving, while acknowledging that he will not win it. He put some statistics together on Watt's season:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Who-deserves-the-NFL-MVP-award.html



Watt had one of the most dominant seasons ever for a defensive player. His historic performance was better than his 2012 season when he was named the NFL’s Defensive Player of the Year. Watt became the first player in NFL history to have multiple 20 sack seasons by tying his career high with 20.5 sacks. He had a league leading five fumble recoveries, tied for second with four forced fumbles and was second in sacks. Advanced metrics better capture Watt’s dominance. According to Pro Football Focus (PFF), Watt had a career-best 119 quarterback pressures (combined sacks, hurries and hits) to top has previous high of 85 in 2013. NFL sacks leader Justin Houston was second this year to Watt with 85 pressures.

Watt was an occasional two-way player as a red-zone threat on offense. He also became the first player in NFL history with an interception return for a touchdown, a fumble recovery touchdown and three touchdown receptions during a season. Although the Texans narrowly missed the playoffs with nine victories, Watt led the team to the NFL’s biggest win improvement in 2014. The seven-game turnaround from a league-worst two wins in 2013 occurred without a legitimate starting quarterback or another elite defensive player to turn the opposition's attention away from Watt. It will be a surprise if Watt wins the MVP because of the advantage quarterbacks have by impacting the game on practically every offensive play. A quarterback has been named MVP in 37 of the 57 years of the award. Watt should get more than four votes, which would be the most for a defensive player during the 21st century.

119 pressures? With the next best in the league at 85? That's insane.
He doesn't even mention that Watt also deflected 10 passes.

[Patler]

I expect that Rodgers will win the award, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure why it is such a forgone conclusion, especially compared to other QBs (since it almost is a QB award).
- Sure, GB has little chance without him, but does that distinguish him from Brady, Luck, Brees, P. Manning, Roethlisberger or any top QB?
- Does it really even distinguish him from Demarco Murray? Where would Dallas be without him this year?
- Statistically, AR has not really separated himself from the top QBs this year.
- AR's claim to fame is the totality of his performance, as indicated by QB rating. Even in that this year, he did not separate himself from other QBs, and didn't even finish #!.
- AR didn't have a lights-out season. He was underwhelming at Seattle, at Detroit, at New Orleans, and was awful at Buffalo.

If Rodgers switched places with any other top QB this year, Brady, Brees, Manning, Roethlisberger, Luck, Smith, etc, (even Romo) would the Packers have been appreciably worse, or the other team appreciably better? Why does Rodgers seem to be the run-away winner over the other top QBs?

[woodbuck27]

Ohh Dear Patler! Reading your posts #131 and #132 immediately above this post.

I see a convincing argument for supporting JJ Watt as this seasons MVP.

Then .... I think of this:

I know people love drama.

What we witnessed last week in Lambeau Field is about as high a drama as one might expect post anything drama and Brett Favre. How many of us Green Bay Packer fans got a tad antsy when Aaron Rodgers was carted off the field? How did Y'all feel when you saw his return? Did you R - E - L - A - X when you observed that Aaron Rodgers confident stride along the sidelines and realized that he would return to action?

The way he did return and with that strength of passing fully evident. Didn't you feel that Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers would prevail on the day? The capper when he somehow got his body and the ball over the goal line for six! Didn't you shout MVP!?

I think back to Aaron Rodgers triumphant return last season to lead the Packers again and lead the team to a third straight NFCN Championship.

Adding it up and again this season ... his body of work. Aaron Rodgers certainly does deserve his second NFL MVP Award.

Will he get it? I believe so but it will be closer and closer as the media builds the drama. More and more the NFL is becoming about drama. Which drama is most powerful? Which brew will the eligible voters swallow?

It seems now that it's Packer Nation Vs the rest of the NFL World. This member of Packer Nation shouts 'Aaron Rodgers'.

GO PACKER NATION !

[Patler]

Woodbuck;

I didn't mean to imply that AR doesn't deserve it, I'm just fascinated that by about a month ago, it seemed his to lose. As of then, maybe even as of now, why is he anymore the clear cut front runner than Tom Brady or several others?

AR is what he is and has been for a number of years already. Why has the hype for MVP been all about him this year, but in 2012 not so much? 2011 was easy to understand. His performance that year was a notch above all other QBs. Has he been that much better this year than he was in 2012?

Personally, I didn't feel any drama on Sunday. AR went out with an injury that looked serious, but turned out to be not as bad as feared. I was very glad to see him back, but just didn't sense any real drama about it.

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck;

I didn't mean to imply that AR doesn't deserve it, I'm just fascinated that by about a month ago, it seemed his to lose. As of then, maybe even as of now, why is he anymore the clear cut front runner than Tom Brady or several others?

AR is what he is and has been for a number of years already. Why has the hype for MVP been all about him this year, but in 2012 not so much? 2011 was easy to understand. His performance that year was a notch above all other QBs. Has he been that much better this year than he was in 2012?

Personally, I didn't feel any drama on Sunday. AR went out with an injury that looked serious, but turned out to be not as bad as feared. I was very glad to see him back, but just didn't sense any real drama about it.

Not only does Aaron Rodgers deserve the MVP. He'll win it ! The mold of tradition is hard to break.

If one plotted a curve of Aaron Rodgers and his QBR this season and building towards the big match up in Lambeau Field with the New England Patriots. You might see a clear argument for Aaron Rodgers clearing himself from any other candidate for the MVP.

Then suddenly it seemed to me; the complexion on the matter of who deserves the MVP suddenly changed focus >>> J.J. Watt became much more prominent as the deserving MVP.

Finally we're learning about the legitimate eligibility of Tony Romo.

DRAMA.

[Patler]

I agree that Rodgers will win it in all likelihood. For anyone other than a QB is a surprise, and for a defensive player to win would be a shock. It's easy to see players on offense as MVP, because they score points which are easy to associate win victories. It is much more difficult to tie players on defense to success of the team. No player is more closely tied to scoring points than the QBs.

I don't think it is "wrong" for Rodgers to win it this year. But I also don't think it would be "wrong" for Brady, Romo or Murray to win it.

If "most valuable" means most necessary for wins, then the award has to go to a QB of the Super Bowl contenders. But why is Rodgers the prohibitive favorite over the other QBs who took their teams to the playoffs? For Rodgers to be the hands-down favorite over Brady, you have to believe that New England would be significantly better with AR, and the Packers significantly worse with Brady. Same for the other QBS. I just don't see that as being the case.

[BZnDallas]

I agree that Rodgers will win it in all likelihood. For anyone other than a QB is a surprise, and for a defensive player to win would be a shock. It's easy to see players on offense as MVP, because they score points which are easy to associate win victories. It is much more difficult to tie players on defense to success of the team. No player is more closely tied to scoring points than the QBs.

I don't think it is "wrong" for Rodgers to win it this year. But I also don't think it would be "wrong" for Brady, Romo or Murray to win it.

If "most valuable" means most necessary for wins, then the award has to go to a QB of the Super Bowl contenders. But why is Rodgers the prohibitive favorite over the other QBs who took their teams to the playoffs? For Rodgers to be the hands-down favorite over Brady, you have to believe that New England would be significantly better with AR, and the Packers significantly worse with Brady. Same for the other QBS. I just don't see that as being the case.

TD/INT ratio, R-E-L-A-X, fake spike comeback win on road, Sundays drama filled cart-off and heroic lead of team after giving up lead and momentum to re-spark the team and lead to division win and placement of no. 2 seed.

There maybe a couple of other reasons you could add to this list as to why AR over other QBs for the MVP race, but these are off the top of my head.

[Patler]

The other playoff QBs have had no similar events? What about all of the dramatic late game wins that Stafford put together? Those were extremely significant in the Lions making the playoffs. I'm sure the others have had some important performances, too.

The over-hyped "R-E-L-A-X" thing? I'm not sure what that has to do with the MVP award. Brady made some bold statements when the Patriots were 2-2 as well. The media just picked up on AR's.

The fake spike? Just another play which has been done by others. Nothing novel or creative. Besides, the "most valuable" performer on the fake spike was probably Adams for recognizing it, making the catch and getting the first down.

To me, any "heroics" against Detroit are off set by AR crapping the bed against Buffalo. That was very un-MVP.

TD/INT ratio is a plus for sure. But his TD # alone was good, but certainly not overly impressive, and his low number of interceptions is somewhat offset by his consistent fumbling this year. He was very fortunate to lose only two of the 10 fumbles he had. But for a great effort by TJ Lang, one of the fumbles would have been a killer.

[Patler]

Romo lead a team that few predicted to do well, and elevated it to a division winner. He did so in such an efficient manner, that he beat Rodgers for highest QB rating. He did so with broken bones in his back. Is that any less heroic than Rodgers playing with a sore calf?

[woodbuck27]

Romo lead a team that few predicted to do well, and elevated it to a division winner. He did so in such an efficient manner, that he beat Rodgers for highest QB rating. He did so with broken bones in his back. Is that any less heroic than Rodgers playing with a sore calf?

Jeesssshh!

I hope none of the eligible voters see your posts Patler. :-)

The headline:

Packer Nation votes to ban Packerrats.com

[BZnDallas]

The other playoff QBs have had no similar events? What about all of the dramatic late game wins that Stafford put together? Those were extremely significant in the Lions making the playoffs. I'm sure the others have had some important performances, too.

The over-hyped "R-E-L-A-X" thing? I'm not sure what that has to do with the MVP award. Brady made some bold statements when the Patriots were 2-2 as well. The media just picked up on AR's.

The fake spike? Just another play which has been done by others. Nothing novel or creative. Besides, the "most valuable" performer on the fake spike was probably Adams for recognizing it, making the catch and getting the first down.

To me, any "heroics" against Detroit are off set by AR crapping the bed against Buffalo. That was very un-MVP.

TD/INT ratio is a plus for sure. But his TD # alone was good, but certainly not overly impressive, and his low number of interceptions is somewhat offset by his consistent fumbling this year. He was very fortunate to lose only two of the 10 fumbles he had. But for a great effort by TJ Lang, one of the fumbles would have been a killer.

Very good points indeed and I agree with most of them. R elax was very much over-rated and I hated hearing about it for the following weeks. But for some it could be his calming leadership quality breaking through. As devils advocate I'll just say Stafford isnt even in the running. Romo has Murray to steal away votes and vice versa and Brady likes his triple fux too much.

Honestly Im with Wood on this one. Keep typing Patler and you might convince me Romo is the MVP.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I agree that Rodgers will win it in all likelihood. For anyone other than a QB is a surprise, and for a defensive player to win would be a shock. It's easy to see players on offense as MVP, because they score points which are easy to associate win victories. It is much more difficult to tie players on defense to success of the team. No player is more closely tied to scoring points than the QBs.

I don't think it is "wrong" for Rodgers to win it this year. But I also don't think it would be "wrong" for Brady, Romo or Murray to win it.

If "most valuable" means most necessary for wins, then the award has to go to a QB of the Super Bowl contenders. But why is Rodgers the prohibitive favorite over the other QBs who took their teams to the playoffs? For Rodgers to be the hands-down favorite over Brady, you have to believe that New England would be significantly better with AR, and the Packers significantly worse with Brady. Same for the other QBS. I just don't see that as being the case.

I don't know if Rodgers has to be "significantly better" than the competition, that's setting the bar pretty high for any player and I don't think you need to believe that to be the favorite. Rodgers was doing historic things this year at the QB position, I don't recall that being said of any of the other QBs in the playoffs.

[woodbuck27]

I don't know if Rodgers has to be "significantly better" than the competition, that's setting the bar pretty high for any player and I don't think you need to believe that to be the favorite. Rodgers was doing historic things this year at the QB position, I don't recall that being said of any of the other QBs in the playoffs.

That's where his application for MVP got some momentum.

Did he finish?

After a fumble (Buffalo) I believe he did.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The other playoff QBs have had no similar events? What about all of the dramatic late game wins that Stafford put together? Those were extremely significant in the Lions making the playoffs. I'm sure the others have had some important performances, too.

The over-hyped "R-E-L-A-X" thing? I'm not sure what that has to do with the MVP award. Brady made some bold statements when the Patriots were 2-2 as well. The media just picked up on AR's.

The fake spike? Just another play which has been done by others. Nothing novel or creative. Besides, the "most valuable" performer on the fake spike was probably Adams for recognizing it, making the catch and getting the first down.

To me, any "heroics" against Detroit are off set by AR crapping the bed against Buffalo. That was very un-MVP.

TD/INT ratio is a plus for sure. But his TD # alone was good, but certainly not overly impressive, and his low number of interceptions is somewhat offset by his consistent fumbling this year. He was very fortunate to lose only two of the 10 fumbles he had. But for a great effort by TJ Lang, one of the fumbles would have been a killer.


Romo lead a team that few predicted to do well, and elevated it to a division winner. He did so in such an efficient manner, that he beat Rodgers for highest QB rating. He did so with broken bones in his back. Is that any less heroic than Rodgers playing with a sore calf?

It's easy to point out the flaws for each candidate.

Romo has a fellow MVP candidate to hand the ball off to. A defense that has to load up to stop the run is much more susceptible vs the pass. Plus it helps when the defense goes from absolute worst in the league to at least respectible. Romo sure didn't elevate it alone, but QBs sure do get all the glory.

I know it's just a discussion point you're doing. Just having fun.

[mraynrand]

Romo lead a team that few predicted to do well, and elevated it to a division winner. He did so in such an efficient manner, that he beat Rodgers for highest QB rating. He did so with broken bones in his back. Is that any less heroic than Rodgers playing with a sore calf?

Romo versus Rodgers straight up seems pretty simple. Murray carried the load and Romo wasn't asked to do as much. Romo did play well, but I think the perception will be that Dallas' running game was a far bigger factor in Dallas' success than GB's/Lacy. I only watched maybe 4-5 cowboy games, but the degree of difficulty in the passing game seemed far less for Romo than Rodgers. On the other had, numbers are what they are, and Romo had great numbers and the Cowboys are America's Team, the most beloved franchise in the country, so Romo might get it. on the other foot, people hate Jerry Jones, so maybe not.

[denverYooper]

The other playoff QBs have had no similar events? What about all of the dramatic late game wins that Stafford put together? Those were extremely significant in the Lions making the playoffs. I'm sure the others have had some important performances, too.

The over-hyped "R-E-L-A-X" thing? I'm not sure what that has to do with the MVP award. Brady made some bold statements when the Patriots were 2-2 as well. The media just picked up on AR's.

The fake spike? Just another play which has been done by others. Nothing novel or creative. Besides, the "most valuable" performer on the fake spike was probably Adams for recognizing it, making the catch and getting the first down.

To me, any "heroics" against Detroit are off set by AR crapping the bed against Buffalo. That was very un-MVP.

TD/INT ratio is a plus for sure. But his TD # alone was good, but certainly not overly impressive, and his low number of interceptions is somewhat offset by his consistent fumbling this year. He was very fortunate to lose only two of the 10 fumbles he had. But for a great effort by TJ Lang, one of the fumbles would have been a killer.

Something can be creative without being novel. Most creative endeavors are not novel but are variations on a foundation of past creation. Jazz musicians, in the height of improvisational creation, will often "quote" other well-known phrases within the context of a solo. Rodgers's fake spike in that situation, in Miami where Dan Marino was considered to have crafted that move, was extremely creative and showed a level of transcendent awareness that few in the game can conjure. But I don't think that alone earns him the MVP.

Stafford had some late game heroics but if you look at his other stats, they're very ordinary. His YPA was 1.5 yards less than Rodgers, his rating was 30 points lower. Tom Brady was also 1.5 yards per attempt lower than Rodgers with almost 20 points' worse rating. Romo threw more INTs with a 1/2 yard lower YPA, plus he missed a game and had the most productive running back in the league this year.

Although he did fumble a lot, he ran a lot more than Romo(6 fumbles) Stafford (8), Brady(6), or Manning((5). Manning had 11 fumbles last year and still won the MVP. Big Ben had 9. Russell Wilson had 11 fumbles and several more rushing attempts. Andrew Luck ran about 20 more times and had 13 fumbles. QBs, because they are often hit with a less secure carry of the football and a lot more prone to blindsiding, are also at more risk for fumbling when they get hit than receivers or TEs. Running/Scrambling QBs generally have even higher fumble numbers, and his numbers are not out of line with other notable scramblers.

But if you want to play the woulda-coulda game on fumbles, he threw exactly 1 interception to a defender. 4 of his 5 INTs were off of deflections. So his INT numbers could have been even lower. He's pretty widely regarded by observers and statistics alike as the most accurate passer in the history of the game, and having the most accurate season of his career.

All of the other drops in the Buffalo game aside, if Jordy catches that TD pass, the Buffalo game looks very different. That cancels out his fumble and Lang's recovery (I guess).

[Pugger]

Woodbuck;

I didn't mean to imply that AR doesn't deserve it, I'm just fascinated that by about a month ago, it seemed his to lose. As of then, maybe even as of now, why is he anymore the clear cut front runner than Tom Brady or several others?

AR is what he is and has been for a number of years already. Why has the hype for MVP been all about him this year, but in 2012 not so much? 2011 was easy to understand. His performance that year was a notch above all other QBs. Has he been that much better this year than he was in 2012?

Personally, I didn't feel any drama on Sunday. AR went out with an injury that looked serious, but turned out to be not as bad as feared. I was very glad to see him back, but just didn't sense any real drama about it.

Rodgers was a slam dunk to win it all until that performance in Buffalo. His timing for laying an egg was poor to say the least. Before that game a small handful of folks talked about Murray and Watt (nobody considered Romo) but not seriously.

[Pugger]

Romo lead a team that few predicted to do well, and elevated it to a division winner. He did so in such an efficient manner, that he beat Rodgers for highest QB rating. He did so with broken bones in his back. Is that any less heroic than Rodgers playing with a sore calf?

A lot of folks question whether Romo is even the MVP on his own team - many think it is Murray - so how can he be the league's MVP?

[mraynrand]

To me, any "heroics" against Detroit are off set by AR crapping the bed against Buffalo. That was very un-MVP.

Rodgers isn't competing for the MVP against himself, but other QBs, who have crapped the bed too (e.g. Brady in KC, Manning several times). Don't recall how Romo did in his losses.

But I would argue that yes, heroics outweigh bed-crapping, so long as the heroics are in important games, and bed-crapping is in less important games. Favre used to do this in his MVP years too.

I think some bedsheets need washing.

[Patler]

I don't know if Rodgers has to be "significantly better" than the competition, that's setting the bar pretty high for any player and I don't think you need to believe that to be the favorite. Rodgers was doing historic things this year at the QB position, I don't recall that being said of any of the other QBs in the playoffs.

He's not just the favorite, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that he will win over any other QB. For others to be out of consideration, I think AR does have to be significantly better than they are.

What historic things was Rodgers doing? Avoiding interceptions? Nothing else that I can think of. Nice thing to do, but all in all probably not as important as some other QB things. Heck, how many times have writers brought up and we discussed the idea that his obsession might in fact be a weakness. Personally, I do not agree with this, but some writers and a few people on here have argued that he really should take a few more risks, even though that might lead to a few more interceptions. As I wrote before, I think the positive of his interception avoidance has been offset by his sloppy ball protection when being sacked. He had 10 fumbles this year. Jay Turnover had only two more.

[pbmax]

Romo lead a team that few predicted to do well, and elevated it to a division winner. He did so in such an efficient manner, that he beat Rodgers for highest QB rating. He did so with broken bones in his back. Is that any less heroic than Rodgers playing with a sore calf?

Romo leads the Dallas unit that was expected to do well. If Romo was a linebacker, then his unit's performance would be a bigger surprise and a huge feather in his cap.

[Patler]

A lot of folks question whether Romo is even the MVP on his own team - many think it is Murray - so how can he be the league's MVP?

Maybe they should be co-MVPs, just as Favre and Sanders were in 1997 and Manning and McNair were in 2003. If two guys on different teams can be "the" MVP, why can't two guys on one team be "the" MVP?

[Patler]

Rodgers was a slam dunk to win it all until that performance in Buffalo. His timing for laying an egg was poor to say the least. Before that game a small handful of folks talked about Murray and Watt (nobody considered Romo) but not seriously.

I agree, but why? Personally, I think he was just as good in 2012, but had little support for MVP that year; and I don't think he distinguished himself in either year enough to exclude serious consideration of other players. In 2011, I think he did stand out enough to do that.

[Pugger]

Maybe they should be co-MVPs, just as Favre and Sanders were in 1997 and Manning and McNair were in 2003. If two guys on different teams can be "the" MVP, why can't two guys on one team be "the" MVP?

That would be unprecedented for sure. I don't think that has ever happened in the long history of the award.

[Patler]

Romo leads the Dallas unit that was expected to do well. If Romo was a linebacker, then his unit's performance would be a bigger surprise and a huge feather in his cap.

But I thought it was all about wins, making the playoffs, and the fact that the QB is most responsible for all of that? (See all the arguments against the real MVP - JJ Watt). ;) :D

[Pugger]

I agree, but why? Personally, I think he was just as good in 2012, but had little support for MVP that year; and I don't think he distinguished himself in either year enough to exclude serious consideration of other players. In 2011, I think he did stand out enough to do that.

I'm guessing its because he was playing so darn well that we were blowing out opponents for a stretch so he could sit on the bench the second half of these games. Then he out-dueled Brady.

[Patler]

I'm guessing its because he was playing so darn well that we were blowing out opponents for a stretch so he could sit on the bench the second half of these games. Then he out-dueled Brady.

HE was playing so darn well, or the TEAM was playing so darn well that they were blowing out opponents? Blowouts don't happen because of the QB.

[Pugger]

But I thought it was all about wins, making the playoffs, and the fact that the QB is most responsible for all of that? (See all the arguments against the real MVP - JJ Watt).

It all depends upon how you define MVP. Is it reserved for the player who is the most valuable to his team compared to all others or the one who played the best? In 2009 Drew Brees' numbers were better than P. Mannings but because his team missed the playoffs he didn't win it. Saints and other fans cried foul. Brees did win the OPOY that year.

[Patler]

That would be unprecedented for sure. I don't think that has ever happened in the long history of the award.

Well, it was pretty darn strange when Sanders and Favre got one award, too.

[Maxie the Taxi]

HE was playing so darn well, or the TEAM was playing so darn well that they were blowing out opponents? Blowouts don't happen because of the QB.

If TEAM is so important in football, maybe the whole idea of an MVP is foolish and contradictory.

[Patler]

It all depends upon how you define MVP. Is it reserved for the player who is the most valuable to his team compared to all others or the one who played the best? In 2009 Drew Brees' numbers were better than P. Mannings but because his team missed the playoffs he didn't win it. Saints and other fans cried foul. Brees did win the OPOY that year.

Ya, but we keep adding criteria/limitations that really aren't there.

[mraynrand]

Blowouts don't happen because of the QB.

LOL. Then no one is responsible.

[pbmax]

But I thought it was all about wins, making the playoffs, and the fact that the QB is most responsible for all of that? (See all the arguments against the real MVP - JJ Watt). ;) :D

He is the MOP.

The bigger question is how on earth did the Cowboys assemble a functional D? They lost some of their better players and looked to be on track for an even more catastrophic year than the previous debacle.

[mraynrand]

MVC: most valuable collective

[Pugger]

HE was playing so darn well, or the TEAM was playing so darn well that they were blowing out opponents? Blowouts don't happen because of the QB.

If you jump out to an early lead most of the time it is because the offense is clicking on all cylinders and the QB is the driving force almost all of the time. There were 6 games where we were scoring at a ridiculous clip before the Buffalo game. Yes, our D got turnovers but you still have to get points off these turnovers.

[Pugger]

Well, it was pretty darn strange when Sanders and Favre got one award, too.

Yes, but I don't think the award has ever been awarded to 2 players from the same team.

[Patler]

If TEAM is so important in football, maybe the whole idea of an MVP is foolish and contradictory.

Actually, I have always argued that. I think offensive and defensive performers of the year make some sense, because the questions to ask are reasonable. Who did their job the best? In that evaluation, the success of the team is not real important. Exceptional performers on bad teams merit consideration. We might not always agree on the answers, but at least there are real things to evaluate and compare.

But, "most valuable" is almost entirely subjective, and almost always eliminates from serious consideration everyone but QBs on playoff teams. Runningbacks and receivers have a long shot, but defenders need not apply.

[Patler]

Yes, but I don't think the award has ever been awarded to 2 players from the same team.

Before Favre and Sanders, the same award had not gone to two players on different teams either, at least not the "official" award from the Associated Press. There is always a first time.

[mraynrand]

Antonio Brown: OPOY

[Patler]

If you jump out to an early lead most of the time it is because the offense is clicking on all cylinders and the QB is the driving force almost all of the time. There were 6 games where we were scoring at a ridiculous clip before the Buffalo game. Yes, our D got turnovers but you still have to get points off these turnovers.

But it isn't a blowout unless the defense is also preventing the other team from scoring. We saw that all the time in the 1980s when Dickey, Lofton, Coffman, et. al scored at record paces, but couldn't even win, let alone get a blow out win.

[Patler]

He is the MOP.

The bigger question is how on earth did the Cowboys assemble a functional D? They lost some of their better players and looked to be on track for an even more catastrophic year than the previous debacle.

How? Tony Romo. Remember, it is the QB who is most responsible for a teams success, so improved play from the defense must be because of the quarterback.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Actually, I have always argued that. I think offensive and defensive performers of the year make some sense, because the questions to ask are reasonable. Who did their job the best? In that evaluation, the success of the team is not real important. Exceptional performers on bad teams merit consideration. We might not always agree on the answers, but at least there are real things to evaluate and compare.

But, "most valuable" is almost entirely subjective, and almost always eliminates from serious consideration everyone but QBs on playoff teams. Runningbacks and receivers have a long shot, but defenders need not apply.

It's all vanity and pandering to fans, if you ask me. It's like giving Oscars to actors. The stats tell us pretty much who performed best in certain areas. Beyond that, I don't really care.

[Patler]

LOL. Then no one is responsible.

... or everyone is responsible.

[mraynrand]

... or everyone is responsible.

even the janitor sweeping the halls of the atrium.

[mraynrand]

It's all vanity and pandering to fans, if you ask me. It's like giving Oscars to actors. The stats tell us pretty much who performed best in certain areas. Beyond that, I don't really care.

hear, hear!

[Patler]

It's all vanity and pandering to fans, if you ask me. It's like giving Oscars to actors. The stats tell us pretty much who performed best in certain areas. Beyond that, I don't really care.

Oscars. - Great comparison!

MVP has always driven me a bit batty. When Favre was winning his, I often felt the Packers won in spite of Favre almost as often as they won because of Favre. Heck, in the same game they would win because of Favre in spite of Favre. Is that what an MVP should be? I sure don't know.

[Patler]

even the janitor sweeping the halls of the atrium.

Yes, everyone contributes to the success of the organization. Now go out and do your part!

[King Friday]

He is the MOP.

The bigger question is how on earth did the Cowboys assemble a functional D? They lost some of their better players and looked to be on track for an even more catastrophic year than the previous debacle.

Like Watt, they mostly avoided the best offenses in the NFL. They played Philly only after Butt Fumble was in there.

[pbmax]

How? Tony Romo. Remember, it is the QB who is most responsible for a teams success, so improved play from the defense must be because of the quarterback.

Momentum. Example. Leadership. Toughness.

I present to Tony Romo, the MELT award.

[King Friday]

Oscars. - Great comparison!

MVP has always driven me a bit batty. When Favre was winning his, I often felt the Packers won in spite of Favre almost as often as they won because of Favre. Heck, in the same game they would win because of Favre in spite of Favre. Is that what an MVP should be? I sure don't know.

Seriously Patler? The Favre bashing is beneath you. You felt the Packers won in spite of Favre during his MVP run? Really? That is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you say. I can see you saying that of the Sherman era Favre...or the late career diva Favre...but not the MVP era Favre.

When Favre was winning his MVPs, he CARRIED the offense. His three year stretch during that MVP run was one of the most dominating periods a QB has ever posted. QBs didn't throw for 30 TDs back then. In 1992, when Favre began his career in Green Bay, the ONLY QB at that time to ever throw more than 40 TDs was Marino. The next closest guys were YA Tittle and George Blanda at 36 TDs. The next QB within the previous 20 years was Fouts at 33. Jim Kelly and Warren Moon had just barely eclipsed the 30 mark in the previous few years. If you did eclipse 30 TD passes, it was usually because you had some significant All-Pro caliber talent at receiver to work with. Marino had Duper and Clayton. Kelly had Andre Reed. Moon had Givins, Hill, and Jeffires.

In 1995 and 1996...with skill position talent that was modest at best, and at times just plain crap because of injury...Favre tossed 38 and 39 TD passes. He accomplished this without the talented receivers Marino had...or Fouts had...or Kelly had. Hell, in the Super Bowl year, Brooks went down to injury...Freeman busted up his arm...Favre was throwing by the end of the year to a washed up Don Beebe and washed up Andre Rison. The most receptions any individual player had in 1996 was 56. And Favre threw 39 TD passes to whoever the Packers lined up out there.

And you claim that is winning IN SPITE OF FAVRE, Patler?

To say the Packer won in spite of Favre during his MVP years is an incorrect comment in the least...and more likely just a flat out dumb lash out to demean Favre.

[pbmax]

Like Watt, they mostly avoided the best offenses in the NFL. They played Philly only after Butt Fumble was in there.

Football Outsiders has Dallas as the 22nd Defense. Maybe Patler has a point about Romo. :)

[Maxie the Taxi]

He is the MOP.

The bigger question is how on earth did the Cowboys assemble a functional D? They lost some of their better players and looked to be on track for an even more catastrophic year than the previous debacle.

I found a couple of articles that might explain the success of the Dallas D:

Can Rod Marinelli Fix the Cowboys Defense? (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1981901-can-rod-marinelli-fix-the-cowboys-defense)

And

Cowboys' Surprisingly Strong Defense Playing Role in Dallas' Shocking Success (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2233689-cowboys-surprisingly-strong-defense-playing-role-in-dallas-shocking-success)

Basically it boils down to a coaching change: installing Rod Marinelli, Lovie Smith's partner in crime in Chicago, as DC:


It's working because defensive coordinator Rod Marinelli is living up to his billing as the best coach/motivator in the league.


He is likened by the Cowboys defenders to Master Splinter, the rat sensei of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They fear him. They follow him. They want to run through a wall for him.


But most important, they listen to him. It has paid off for a Cowboys defense that's short on proven playmakers but has succeeded because it plays fundamentally sound football and swarms to the ball.


"He’s indispensable," Jones said of Marinelli. "His spirit, the way he expresses himself, what he asks of his defensive players, has impacted the entire team. It sounds corny almost, when you see him talk about, 'I just want some guys, he may not be the biggest, I just want some guys who will run and every day at practice give it to me'. Well, yeah, but don’t we need somebody who is bigger and faster? Well, Marinelli is showing us just give me somebody who will go out there and give me 20 plays when we got them and we’ll take care of business."


Cornerback Brandon Carr said Marinelli acts like a maniac at times in how he addresses the players, but he has brought a level of accountability not seen before in the Cowboys locker room.


It’s not just one person trying to fill the leadership void left by Ware, Hatcher and Lee but all 22 defenders who are active on game day.


"It's 22 men buying in to a system," Carr said. "We have a heck of defensive coordinator that puts in the right position to make plays. And guys just showing max effort.

Accountability is there. It hasn't been in there in the past. It's showing up all across the board, just every phase of the game right now it's showing up."



And then there is this quote from Marinelli:

You want to build a really good foundation of fundamentals—bone-on-bone football—[with] how we tackle, how we force, how we break on the ball. When that's in place, I think progress will be made. Without that, then I think you become a gimmick defense. When that foundation is set, then we can take off. But when you build a house of straw—if you're doing too much [schematically]—you might be winning by scheme, you don't want to do that in my opinion.

That last part is kind of scary considering what we got in Dom Capers.

[King Friday]

Football Outsiders has Dallas as the 22nd Defense. Maybe Patler has a point about Romo. :)

Romo has been strong this year.

However, I think his success is more because of the run game. Murray is the MVP of the Cowboys, not Romo. Romo had the same skill position talent in prior years minus Murray, and didn't do anything with it.

[pbmax]

Romo has been strong this year.

However, I think his success is more because of the run game. Murray is the MVP of the Cowboys, not Romo. Romo had the same skill position talent in prior years minus Murray, and didn't do anything with it.

I agree, I was joking; I expected that Cowboy D to show better in the rankings. You may have a point about their opposition, because when I watched I was impressed by the effort and result mostly.

[mraynrand]

How? Tony Romo. Remember, it is the QB who is most responsible for a teams success, so improved play from the defense must be because of the quarterback.

:roll: It might be possessing the ball with a run-heavy offense.

[mraynrand]

Football Outsiders has Dallas as the 22nd Defense. Maybe Patler has a point about Romo. :)

I like the Packer's offense against this Marinelli defense. If Dallas doesn't run up 250 yards in rushing and 35-40 minutes of possession, the Packers will gut them.

[King Friday]

I like the Packer's offense against this Marinelli defense. If Dallas doesn't run up 250 yards in rushing and 35-40 minutes of possession, the Packers will gut them.

I agree. If you contain their run game and force it into a shootout between Romo and Rodgers, the Packers have an excellent chance at winning. Our run defense will be the main key if we play Dallas.

[woodbuck27]

Before Favre and Sanders, the same award had not gone to two players on different teams either, at least not the "official" award from the Associated Press. There is always a first time.

Is there a certain and always the same number of people voting for this award?

My research on this question has turned up empty.

[Patler]

Seriously Patler? The Favre bashing is beneath you. You felt the Packers won in spite of Favre during his MVP run? Really? That is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you say. I can see you saying that of the Sherman era Favre...or the late career diva Favre...but not the MVP era Favre.

When Favre was winning his MVPs, he CARRIED the offense. His three year stretch during that MVP run was one of the most dominating periods a QB has ever posted. QBs didn't throw for 30 TDs back then. In 1992, when Favre began his career in Green Bay, the ONLY QB at that time to ever throw more than 40 TDs was Marino. The next closest guys were YA Tittle and George Blanda at 36 TDs. The next QB within the previous 20 years was Fouts at 33. Jim Kelly and Warren Moon had just barely eclipsed the 30 mark in the previous few years. If you did eclipse 30 TD passes, it was usually because you had some significant All-Pro caliber talent at receiver to work with. Marino had Duper and Clayton. Kelly had Andre Reed. Moon had Givins, Hill, and Jeffires.

In 1995 and 1996...with skill position talent that was modest at best, and at times just plain crap because of injury...Favre tossed 38 and 39 TD passes. He accomplished this without the talented receivers Marino had...or Fouts had...or Kelly had. Hell, in the Super Bowl year, Brooks went down to injury...Freeman busted up his arm...Favre was throwing by the end of the year to a washed up Don Beebe and washed up Andre Rison. The most receptions any individual player had in 1996 was 56. And Favre threw 39 TD passes to whoever the Packers lined up out there.

And you claim that is winning IN SPITE OF FAVRE, Patler?

To say the Packer won in spite of Favre during his MVP years is an incorrect comment in the least...and more likely just a flat out dumb lash out to demean Favre.

I don't know how old you are, but I suspect I must have spit on the image of your boyhood hero, Favre of the mid- 90s?? Otherwise, why would you be so defensive of him, and jump all over a statement that was in no way shape or form Favre bashing.

You jumped all over a single phrase of my post, in essence half of what I wrote, which did not capture the point I was making. What I really wrote was this:


MVP has always driven me a bit batty. When Favre was winning his, I often felt the Packers won in spite of Favre almost as often as they won because of Favre. Heck, in the same game they would win because of Favre in spite of Favre. Is that what an MVP should be? I sure don't know.

If you watched Favre with any sense of objectivity during that time, I believe my statement captures the essence of what made him great. In the 48 games of his three MVP seasons, he threw 42 interceptions, and many were real head-scratchers, as was always the case with him. There was bad with his good, even in his MVP years. He was great those years because he could overcome his own screw-ups and still win games. You probably do not want to hear this, but truth be told, he was fortunate to play with a defense that didn't give up a lot of points, otherwise, at times his screw-ups may have been more costly.

There were times Favre had to be the hero just to avoid being the goat, and in those three seasons he usually was able to do it.

Yes, they won because of Favre and in spite of Favre, often in the same game they won because of Favre in spite of Favre.

Is that what an MVP is? I don't know, because I don't know what criteria should define an MVP in a team sport made up of so many specialists, a team sport in which entirely different groups of players are responsible for offense, defense and "special circumstances".

[King Friday]

I don't know how old you are, but I suspect I must have spit on the image of your boyhood hero, Favre of the mid- 90s?? Otherwise, why would you be so defensive of him, and jump all over a statement that was in no way shape or form Favre bashing.

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?


If you watched Favre with any sense of objectivity during that time, I believe my statement captures the essence of what made him great. In the 48 games of his three MVP seasons, he threw 42 interceptions, and many were real head-scratchers, as was always the case with him. There was bad with his good, even in his MVP years.

There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.


He was great those years because he could overcome his own screw-ups and still win games.

No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.


You probably do not want to hear this, but truth be told, he was fortunate to play with a defense that didn't give up a lot of points, otherwise, at times his screw-ups may have been more costly.

Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

[esoxx]

It looks like Patler got King Friday'd :lol:

[Carolina_Packer]

I thought he was having a case of the Mondays!

[KYPack]

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?



There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.



No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.



Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

The Starr stuff is bullshit.

Bart had a super year in '66 and passed the Pack to the championship.

In '67, he played with big time injuries that were withheld from the press.

He played most of the year with broken ribs.

The old time Packers highly respected Bart for his gutty '67 performance.

Sometimes statistics are just a bunch of numbers, this instance is one of 'em.

& Patler is still Patler.

[King Friday]

The Starr stuff is bullshit.

Bart had a super year in '66 and passed the Pack to the championship.

In '67, he played with big time injuries that were withheld from the press.

He played most of the year with broken ribs.

The old time Packers highly respected Bart for his gutty '67 performance.

Sometimes statistics are just a bunch of numbers, this instance is one of 'em.

& Patler is still Patler.

I'm not saying Starr was horrible in 1967. He and the rest of the team had a rough season in terms of injury. Starr was probably the reason that team excelled in the postseason. His leadership pulled together the group for a final run.

You can't really pull the "injury" trump card against Favre, can you? Yeah, Favre was eating painkillers like they were gumdrops...but Favre was often playing at less than 100% too. He didn't have a HOF line in front of him and he absorbed a ton of abuse.

My point is that any QB usually suffers greatly when talent around him starts to diminish. Maybe you can attribute all of Starr's 1967 troubles to injury...but I would think at least a reasonable chunk was the loss of offensive talent around him, either due to age or injury.

Favre actually IMPROVED during his MVP years...after the loss of Sharpe...without any meaningful replacement...and then even when receivers starting dropping like flies around him in the title year. That is why he was the NFL MVP those years...and I can't really understand the notion that it is confounding as to why....that the Packers won often IN SPITE of Favre. Makes no sense to me.

Like I pointed out...the guy threw the 3rd most TD passes EVER to that point on a team where no single receiver or back caught more than 59 passes. That is crazy to even think about. He was spreading the ball out more effectively than any QB in history ever had to that point.

[woodbuck27]

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?



There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.



No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.



Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

Holy Crap !

5-6 years ago this stuff would light Packerrats up like a barn full of dry hay.

I'm so glad those days aren't so severe on us all. :???:

[Patler]

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Is a player who wins the MVP beyond reproach?
Why do you continue to focus on a single statement that is actually contrary to the overall intent of what I wrote?

You admit that you had to take the "good with the bad" with Favre. Well, the good was winning because of Favre and the bad was winning in spite of Favre. We really are not saying anything different. Yes, in many games the Packers won in spite of the bad Favre and an important factor in those wins was the good that Favre could do. As I said, they won because of Favre (the good) in spite of Favre (the bad). You really don't have to take offense just because I phrased the "good and bad" more graphically; winning because of Favre in spite of Favre.


Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

I don't agree with that at all. Robert Brooks was a good receiver. Antonio Freeman was a good receiver. Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson were very good receiving tight ends, and gave them the combination at TE many fans yearn for today. Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett were perfect fits for what Holmgren wanted. Both were very good receiving backs, and capable runners. Henderson was Kuhn x2, a much better blocker, a better receiver and probably just as good when he carried the ball.


You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?

Actually I did. I pointed out that he was fortunate to play with pretty good defenses, that did not give up a lot of points, thereby covering up for the "bad" that you got from Favre. The offense I address above, and I think he had a very solid supporting cast.




There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.

Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre




No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.

Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.




Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

You are so far off base in that one its amazing, and again are seeing only half the issue. Then and now, the players on that team have said they had no business winning it all that year, and the only reason they did was because of Bart Starr. He was beaten to crap that year, and just kept coming back. Many said he drove that team to the championship by shear will. It was that year that cemented his greatness as much as any other. The final drive in the Ice Bowl was all Starr, he would not let them lose. Starr won the Super Bowl MVP that year, and many suggested that it was for what he did to get the team there as much as it was for what he did in the game. Starr earned tremendous national respect that season.

It wasn't his best year statistically, and in that respect they may have won in spite of Starr, but they did so absolutely because of Starr.


It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

I am just amazed that you do not see the talent the Packers had in those years.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It looks like Patler got King Friday'd :lol:


bout time somebody landed a clean punch

[Harlan Huckleby]

Is a player who wins the MVP beyond reproach?
Why do you continue to focus on a single statement that is actually contrary to the overall intent of what I wrote?

You admit that you had to take the "good with the bad" with Favre. Well, the good was winning because of Favre and the bad was winning in spite of Favre. We really are not saying anything different. Yes, in many games the Packers won in spite of the bad Favre and an important factor in those wins was the good that Favre could do. As I said, they won because of Favre (the good) in spite of Favre (the bad). You really don't have to take offense just because I phrased the "good and bad" more graphically; winning because of Favre in spite of Favre.



I don't agree with that at all. Robert Brooks was a good receiver. Antonio Freeman was a good receiver. Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson were very good receiving tight ends, and gave them the combination at TE many fans yearn for today. Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett were perfect fits for what Holmgren wanted. Both were very good receiving backs, and capable runners. Henderson was Kuhn x2, a much better blocker, a better receiver and probably just as good when he carried the ball.



Actually I did. I pointed out that he was fortunate to play with pretty good defenses, that did not give up a lot of points, thereby covering up for the "bad" that you got from Favre. The offense I address above, and I think he had a very solid supporting cast.





Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre





Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.





You are so far off base in that one its amazing, and again are seeing only half the issue. Then and now, the players on that team have said they had no business winning it all that year, and the only reason they did was because of Bart Starr. He was beaten to crap that year, and just kept coming back. Many said he drove that team to the championship by shear will. It was that year that cemented his greatness as much as any other. The final drive in the Ice Bowl was all Starr, he would not let them lose. Starr won the Super Bowl MVP that year, and many suggested that it was for what he did to get the team there as much as it was for what he did in the game. Starr earned tremendous national respect that season.

It wasn't his best year statistically, and in that respect they may have won in spite of Starr, but they did so absolutely because of Starr.



I am just amazed that you do not see the talent the Packers had in those years.

TLDR;

hit him again, King

[Fritz]

Is a player who wins the MVP beyond reproach?
Why do you continue to focus on a single statement that is actually contrary to the overall intent of what I wrote?

You admit that you had to take the "good with the bad" with Favre. Well, the good was winning because of Favre and the bad was winning in spite of Favre. We really are not saying anything different. Yes, in many games the Packers won in spite of the bad Favre and an important factor in those wins was the good that Favre could do. As I said, they won because of Favre (the good) in spite of Favre (the bad). You really don't have to take offense just because I phrased the "good and bad" more graphically; winning because of Favre in spite of Favre.



I don't agree with that at all. Robert Brooks was a good receiver. Antonio Freeman was a good receiver. Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson were very good receiving tight ends, and gave them the combination at TE many fans yearn for today. Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett were perfect fits for what Holmgren wanted. Both were very good receiving backs, and capable runners. Henderson was Kuhn x2, a much better blocker, a better receiver and probably just as good when he carried the ball.



Actually I did. I pointed out that he was fortunate to play with pretty good defenses, that did not give up a lot of points, thereby covering up for the "bad" that you got from Favre. The offense I address above, and I think he had a very solid supporting cast.





Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre





Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.





You are so far off base in that one its amazing, and again are seeing only half the issue. Then and now, the players on that team have said they had no business winning it all that year, and the only reason they did was because of Bart Starr. He was beaten to crap that year, and just kept coming back. Many said he drove that team to the championship by shear will. It was that year that cemented his greatness as much as any other. The final drive in the Ice Bowl was all Starr, he would not let them lose. Starr won the Super Bowl MVP that year, and many suggested that it was for what he did to get the team there as much as it was for what he did in the game. Starr earned tremendous national respect that season.

It wasn't his best year statistically, and in that respect they may have won in spite of Starr, but they did so absolutely because of Starr.



I am just amazed that you do not see the talent the Packers had in those years.



I heard the only way Starr could get ready for those games in '67 was by doing many, many lines of blow. Then he'd shoot up some heroin afterward just to relieve the pain.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I heard the only way Starr could get ready for those games in '67 was by doing many, many lines of blow. Then he'd shoot up some heroin afterward just to relieve the pain.

That's what I do to make it through a Packer loss on this board

[woodbuck27]

I heard the only way Starr could get ready for those games in '67 was by doing many, many lines of blow. Then he'd shoot up some heroin afterward just to relieve the pain.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIwiQUZN9qvaDedXoe8IpY0eUbBe1uQ hMlwxo1-_ZWHNiY57fmsw

Now...we'll have none of that talk around here.

[pbmax]

(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.

[3irty1]

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.

[Patler]

(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.

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.

[Patler]

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.

Interesting............... I hadn't ever thought of it that way. Performance/$.

[Maxie the Taxi]

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.

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?:-|

[King Friday]

Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.

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.

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.

[King Friday]

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?:-|

Or is the CHEAPEST QB that produces highly most valuable...because his salary allows the team to procure talent elsewhere.

I guess Russell Wilson wins that debate.

[King Friday]

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.

Yet the offense WAS JUST AS GOOD...and WITH FAR LESS OVERALL TALENT. Again...goes back to why Favre earned the MVP.

[King Friday]

Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre


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.

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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Or is the CHEAPEST QB that produces highly most valuable...because his salary allows the team to procure talent elsewhere.

I guess Russell Wilson wins that debate.

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?:-)

[Patler]

Yet the offense WAS JUST AS GOOD...and WITH FAR LESS OVERALL TALENT. Again...goes back to why Favre earned the MVP.

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.

[pbmax]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[Patler]

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.

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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

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.

Computers are magnificent creatures!!!

[mraynrand]

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.

[mraynrand]

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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Rand, by your logic wouldn't it follow that Lombardi should have been the MVP?

[mraynrand]

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.

[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.

Aging Reggie White was still probably one of the top 10 defensive players in the league...OK, Favre's equal. Leroy Butler was one of the 2 or 3 best safeties of his generation. No one on the Packer offense came CLOSE to Butler's stature. White had an elite counterpart. Having 2 elite players on one side of the ball is typically a tremendous advantage.

[Maxie the Taxi]

sure, except that he's not a Player. So you have to pick the next best thing - the on field general.

I was thinking we had redefined MVP to mean Most Valuable Person. Sorry.

[King Friday]

Computers are magnificent creatures!!!

I'm surprised ESPN hasn't come up with some kind of MVP calculator yet.

[mraynrand]

Computers are magnificent creatures!!!

Fuck you, asshole.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Terminator-2-judgement-day.jpg

[woodbuck27]

I'm surprised ESPN hasn't come up with some kind of MVP calculator yet.

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/29-site-news/206-final-regular-season-stats-rankings-2014

Final Regular Season Stats & Rankings 2014

By: Brian Burke

" Sunday's numbers are now available, including advanced stat box scores, top players of the week, team stats, and season leader boards. All numbers reflect the final advanced stats and rankings for the 2014 regular season. The top MVP candidates for this season should be Bell, Watt, Rodgers. Find out why at the links below. "

GO Aaron Rodgers GO !

[Cheesehead Craig]

Just on the field Rodgers, Romo, and Brady are all a lot more valuable than two or three JJ Watts.

I'll disagree with this. You put 2 JJ Watts on the same DL with the stats he has (not including his offensive work) and you have an elite defense and that alone would get you 12 wins with an average QB and offense with the pressure and run stopping ability he has. You put 3 on the DL, forget about opponents having any offense.

[King Friday]

I'll disagree with this. You put 2 JJ Watts on the same DL with the stats he has (not including his offensive work) and you have an elite defense and that alone would get you 12 wins with an average QB and offense with the pressure and run stopping ability he has. You put 3 on the DL, forget about opponents having any offense.

I agree...if Watt had a counterpart, then Houston's defense becomes good enough to win on their own.

[pbmax]

I'll disagree with this. You put 2 JJ Watts on the same DL with the stats he has (not including his offensive work) and you have an elite defense and that alone would get you 12 wins with an average QB and offense with the pressure and run stopping ability he has. You put 3 on the DL, forget about opponents having any offense.

The 2014 Rams would like a word with you. They have four first round picks on the D line and dominate the LOS. But they are 6-10.

[denverYooper]

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.


This is closer to the truth.

Rich Eisen made this rationale for Rodgers, and rolls the RELAX comments in:


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.

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.

[King Friday]

The 2014 Rams would like a word with you. They have four first round picks on the D line and dominate the LOS. But they are 6-10.

They don't have a JJ Watt caliber player IMO...although I think your point is valid that they have enough talent to compare as a whole.

However, you missed the part about having an average QB/offense. The Rams do not have that whatsoever. That is why they are 6-10.

[pbmax]

They don't have a JJ Watt caliber player IMO...although I think your point is valid that they have enough talent to compare as a whole.

However, you missed the part about having an average QB/offense. The Rams do not have that whatsoever. That is why they are 6-10.

Yes, but both my point and your counterpoint show the shortcoming of CC's quasi metric about Watt. It is entirely dependent on the other side of the ball performing a certain way. Comparatively, the Packers were 5-3 at the bye week while the D was playing like death, and that included a game where he was limited by injury.

[Maxie the Taxi]

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.

Check out this article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1213659-nfl-and-the-least-deserving-player-in-the-pro-football-hall-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 (http://bleacherreport.com/cleveland-browns) were only 8-6. The only teams that had a strong record were Green Bay (11-3), New York Giants (http://bleacherreport.com/new-york-giants) (10-3-1), and the Philadelphia Eagles (http://bleacherreport.com/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 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1961/) 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.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Yes, but both my point and your counterpoint show the shortcoming of CC's quasi metric about Watt. It is entirely dependent on the other side of the ball performing a certain way. Comparatively, the Packers were 5-3 at the bye week while the D was playing like death, and that included a game where he was limited by injury.

My point was a contention that 2 JJ Watt's on the DL with how he played this year is an outstanding DL. You're looking at 35+ sacks from 2 players. That's far superior to the Rams DL who can't even get 2/3 that total from 4 guys.

You cannot use the Rams record to highlight that it was the defense's fault but ignore the offense which was 28th in points scored.

[mraynrand]

I was gonna mention Horning too, but all that is from secondary sources for me, since I was still an ovum at that time. But it fits - the Golden Boy - more glitz than gains; perception, glam, popularity over production. Valuable - to the league.

[mraynrand]

Hornung is the least deserving player in the NFL Hall of Fame.

He was quite famous - the glam face of the 60's Packers.

[pbmax]

My point was a contention that 2 JJ Watt's on the DL with how he played this year is an outstanding DL. You're looking at 35+ sacks from 2 players. That's far superior to the Rams DL who can't even get 2/3 that total from 4 guys.

You cannot use the Rams record to highlight that it was the defense's fault but ignore the offense which was 28th in points scored.

In response to 3irty1's point about the top QBs being more valuable than 2 or 3 Watts, you claim that two Watts would make a Defense elite.


put 2 JJ Watts on the same DL with the stats he has (not including his offensive work) and you have an elite defense

My point is that two Watt's don't make a defense elite and then you STILL need help from the offense to have a winning record. This all supports 3irty1's point.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I was gonna mention Horning too, but all that is from secondary sources for me, since I was still an ovum at that time. But it fits - the Golden Boy - more glitz than gains; perception, glam, popularity over production. Valuable - to the league.

Until he was caught gambling. :sad:

I, of course, saw all the Glory Years Packer games (except for the ones blacked out...then it was listening to Ted Moore on the radio).

Thinking back, I have to say that Hornung was a key member of that team. THE key member? I dunno. Who knows? All I know is that he ran with the ball, he caught passes, he threw passes, did the placekicking and had an incredible nose for the end zone. And no matter what anyone says, he WAS clutch.

On the other hand, I'd be hard-pressed to name one player on those championship teams that WAS an MVP. Starr? Jim Taylor? Hornung? Nitschke? Adderley? Willie Wood? Dave Robinson? Losing any one of those guys for an extended period of time would have set the team back. If I was forced to put my finger on one guy, I'd probably choose Nitschke. He was the heart and soul of that team and offenses just had no answer for him. In fact, the Packers had no answer for him.

When Starr was hurt, there was Zeke Bratkowski. When Hornung went out, there were Elijah Pitts and Tom Moore. But if Nitschke went out, there was just no replacement for him. I don't think young guys understand just how good he was. Best LB in the history of the game, and that includes Lawrence Taylor.

[mraynrand]

Until he was caught gambling. :sad:

I'm not even sure that's a crime anymore. There's been a lot of changes in the law.

http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/7716004/20948786/4/flash_player/0/1/fletch_1985_police_chase.jpg?v=4

[KYPack]

He was quite famous - the glam face of the 60's Packers.

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.

[denverYooper]

Well, Rodgers blew away the QB field in All Pro voting.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000452986/article/2014-allpro-teams

Quarterback
Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay, 44; Tony Romo, Dallas, 3; Tom Brady, New England, 2; Andrew Luck, Indianapolis, 1.

Kuhn was also voted to the AP All-Pro Team.

Murray and Dez Bryant from the Cowboys made the team... Jordy was 3rd in the voting.

Sitton was a close 3rd at guard, behind Yanda and Frederick.

[woodbuck27]

Football Outsiders has Dallas as the 22nd Defense. Maybe Patler has a point about Romo. :)

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/tools/vizualizations/position-leaders

See where Aaron Rodgers is on this graph. See where Tony Romo is on the same graph?

Where's Peyton Manning and Tom Brady?

Where's Ben Roethlisberger placed?

Any surprizes there?

I see this fact in the 2014 Season and compared to all NFL QB's:

Aaron Rodgers is way out in front or as measured here (at least 22.73 % better) than any other NFL QB.

[Cheesehead Craig]

In response to 3irty1's point about the top QBs being more valuable than 2 or 3 Watts, you claim that two Watts would make a Defense elite.



My point is that two Watt's don't make a defense elite and then you STILL need help from the offense to have a winning record. This all supports 3irty1's point.

Well MY point is that you're a weenie head. :taunt:

[woodbuck27]

Looking at Football Outsiders analysis of the season for DE's It's very clear that JJ Watt dominates at his position:

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/tools/vizualizations/position-leaders

[vince]

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/tools/vizualizations/position-leaders

See where Aaron Rodgers is on this graph. See where Tony Romo is on the same graph?

Where's Peyton Manning and Tom Brady?

Where's Ben Roethlisberger placed?

Any surprizes there?

I see this fact in the 2014 Season and compared to all NFL QB's:

Aaron Rodgers is way out in front or as measured here (at least 22.73 % better) than any other NFL QB.
Yep. And if you filter the players by ALL you can see where Watt falls on the scale as well. That's about the best evidence there is as to who the MVP is this year. It's a QB driven game. Watt can run away with the DPOY award this year. He deserves it. Rodgers deserves the MVP hands down.

[woodbuck27]

Yep. And if you filter the players by ALL you can see where Watt falls on the scale as well. That's about the best evidence there is as to who the MVP is this year. It's a QB driven game. Watt can run away with the DPOY award this year. He deserves it. Rodgers deserves the MVP hands down.

You've got it Vince.

That's very convincing to us but what about those buying into the JJ Watt chatter!?

I doubt their looking to be objective in terms of analysis.

[RashanGary]

The way the NFL game is played, I'd give it to the third best QB every year over the best player at another position. The entire pace and flow of an offense is set by the QB. Pace and flow matter. It's a league dominated by the pass and the QB makes every pass. It's the most important position. If you take every player in the league and put them in a draft, QB goes first. It's luck or Rodgers #1 and #2. For me it's AR hands down and that has nothing to do with the packers. That has to do with value as it relates to winning football games in the NFL. Most impressive player...:. JJ Watt. Value to winning, Aaron Rodgers. Case closed.

[mraynrand]

Yep. And if you filter the players by ALL you can see where Watt falls on the scale as well. That's about the best evidence there is as to who the MVP is this year. It's a QB driven game. Watt can run away with the DPOY award this year. He deserves it. Rodgers deserves the MVP hands down.

Watt is valuable in that he can sometimes impact the most important player on the field - the QB. If your QB's got nothing, you are going to lose, no matter who you have on defense. Ask Arizona. Ask Cleveland. Ask Buddy Ryan (LOL).

[vince]

Watt was far more "valuable" this year when he played against the worst/most inexperienced QB's and OL's in the league. 10 of his 20.5 sacks and 3 of his 4 forced fumbles against Ten and Jax.

He's the most disruptive defensive player in the league - but he's not the MVP.

Romo's closer to Rodgers this year but he's not really close either. Romo's been slightly more efficient than Rodgers but only once did he eclipse 300 yards passing this year - against Watt's Texans interestingly enough. Rodgers went over 300 7 times. His stats would have been even better had he not blown teams right off the field before halftime so often.

Romo - 34 TD's against 9 INT's
Rodgers - 38 TDs and 5 INTs

Add the signature wins on top of the blowouts and historical stretch in Nov. and there's no one in the ballpark.

[denverYooper]

Watt is valuable in that he can sometimes impact the most important player on the field - the QB. If your QB's got nothing, you are going to lose, no matter who you have on defense. Ask Arizona. Ask Cleveland. Ask Buddy Ryan (LOL).

That Browns-Colts game was fun to watch. Cleveland's defense was all over Luck and playing as hard and as well as I've seen a defense play this year. They kept getting hung out to dry by Hoyer and I was just fascinated to find out if they could continue giving the ball back to Luck and keep getting the same results. It didn't end well.

You put Wilson at QB there and the Browns win that game by 30.

[Pugger]

The 2014 Rams would like a word with you. They have four first round picks on the D line and dominate the LOS. But they are 6-10.

Without a QB you just don't win. AZ got most of their wins with Palmer (7-0) and Stanton but once these 2 guys were lost they were basically screwed. I suspect had Palmer not got hurt AZ might be the NFCW champas and the #1 seed instead of Seattle. Because this is a QB driven league the best QB in the playoffs will win the MVP. I have stated this before but in 2009 Brees had better stats than Manning but the Saints didn't win their division so PM won it much to the consternation of NO fans.