Charles Woodson MVP Talk...

[Little Whiskey]

I'd like to add the most stat increasing change the NFL has added.

Adding Games.

[Smidgeon]

I'd like to add the most stat increasing change the NFL has added.

Adding Games.

1978 was the first season with 16 games. It was also the season that new rules were put in place giving WRs more cushion on routes. However, it was a delayed effect as it wasn't until 1980 that you really started noticing statistical increases across the board.

Conversely, when the NFL adopted a renewed emphasis on no contact after 5 yards in 2004, Payton Manning threw for 49 touchdowns that same year. It went from one QB with more than 30 TDs the previous year with 2 QBs throwing for greater than 4000 yards in 2003 to 4 QBs throwing more than 30 TDs and 5 QBs throwing more than 4000 yards.

[gbgary]

CHUCK!!

[mraynrand]

The football purist loves defense.

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

[sharpe1027]

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

I think that still says more about the team depth than the individual.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

I think that still says more about the team depth than the individual.

I don't think so. I think it has to do with the fact that QB is by far the most important position. You could pick one of the best backups in the NFL, and I'd still say the dropoff from Rodgers to that guy would be greater than Woodson to any of our backup corners. Our defense would suffer without Chuck, but an injury to a great QB is going to kill you. For proof, see Al Harris. Chuck is better, but you can compensate for injuries at almost every position--except QB.

[Smidgeon]

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

I think that still says more about the team depth than the individual.

I don't think so. I think it has to do with the fact that QB is by far the most important position. You could pick one of the best backups in the NFL, and I'd still say the dropoff from Rodgers to that guy would be greater than Woodson to any of our backup corners. Our defense would suffer without Chuck, but an injury to a great QB is going to kill you. For proof, see Al Harris. Chuck is better, but you can compensate for injuries at almost every position--except QB.

I don't disagree, but it's getting harder for me to reward a QB for simply being ahead of the curve in stats. Personally, I would put Manning above Brees in the MVP race because Manning seems to have pulled out more ridiculous wins than Brees has. To me, MVP isn't "what kind of stats do you have", but "what wins have you single handedly handed to your team". QBs all over the league are putting up amazing numbers. A small handful are putting up even more amazing numbers. The numbers shouldn't be as impressive because it isn't one or two putting up amazing numbers, it's five or six.

[Guiness]

Good thread.

It's just so slanted towards QB...because let's face it, it's near impossible to replace that player, who is so central to everything that happens on O. Hostetler aside, I guess. It's the reality of the specialist league that the NFL is. Only sport where the individual positions are so non-interchangeable. Aside from the occasional WR who might be ok as an emergency 3rd QB, a QB can't play anywhere else, and no one else can play at QB.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

The football purist loves defense.

The football purist should vote for MVP. Still, ask yourself this: Would the Packers suffer more from losing Woodson or from losing Rodgers? (Given the injury sit. maybe it's fair to say that in your estimation assume that at least one of Lee, Blackmon, or Harris isn't injured)

Sadly, I'd put most sports writers in the average fan category.

edit: and to answer your question Rodgers. As much as the ex-lineman in me wants to shout from the roof tops that every position in football is equal, it simply isn't. The higher up you go on the football ladder the more important a great QB becomes to winning.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think so. I think it has to do with the fact that QB is by far the most important position. You could pick one of the best backups in the NFL, and I'd still say the dropoff from Rodgers to that guy would be greater than Woodson to any of our backup corners. Our defense would suffer without Chuck, but an injury to a great QB is going to kill you. For proof, see Al Harris. Chuck is better, but you can compensate for injuries at almost every position--except QB.

First off, we have a backup DB that has significant experience and would likely be starting on most teams in the league, the Al Harris example says more about T. Will, than about Harris.

This is a good discussion and you have a valid point, however, how do you explain the M. Cassels? I think the reality is that many backup QBs step in and do just fine. IMHO, QBs tend to get way more credit and more blame than they deserve. You don't need a world beater at QB to win.

It just seems to me that QBs are more of a product of the system than the other way around. Look at QBs that have moved. Many suddenly become much worse or much better, did they suddenly forget how to play, or did the just originally get more blame/credit than they deserved?

[Smidgeon]

I started thinking about this after reading PFT's recent post quoting Chicago's D-Coordinator raving about Woodson's play this year:

Theoretically, should the MVP be the most important player (i.e. the QB), the most impactful player (i.e. the one who single-handedly wins games), or the player who is playing so far above his peers that in that given year he could go to any team and make that team much better because he's performing so far above others at his position?

According to PFT, this is what Turner said about Woodson: "I don't remember the last time if ever that I've seen someone have the year that he's having. He's unbelievable. He's all over the field. He's playing corner, he's playing nickel, he's playing strong safety. He's going head-to-head on tight ends. He's making tackles, he's causing fumbles, he's intercepting balls. He is all over the place and it's unbelievable to watch."

Is there any team that Woodson wouldn't automatically make that much better? Is there any team that has anyone playing as well as him? Conversely, what's the difference Brees to Manning? Or Manning to Favre? Or Favre to Rivers? Or Rivers to Rodgers?

I guess my point here (mostly because I'm still fleshing it out in my own mind) is that the MVP should be going to the player who could make any team better. If I could even remotely argue that there are a small handful of teams that wouldn't want an MVP candidate because their player is playing just as well, then is that candidate really an MVP candidate?

This is a theoretical question, rather than a practical question because practically the award will continue to go to QBs and RBs because people love points. But should these positions continue to win the award?

[TennesseePackerBacker]

This is a theoretical question, rather than a practical question because practically the award will continue to go to QBs and RBs because people love points. But should these positions continue to win the award?

You bring up an excellent point. Woodson would make an immediate impact on all 32 teams. The same cannot be said for the other candidates. IMO other positions should begin to get more credit, but I'm no sports writer or "expert". How about punter for MVP? Shane Lechler is the one of the most unknown "weapons" in the NFL . Seriously though, maybe one day the media will pull their collective heads out of their asses and see other players make huge impacts that aren't huge impact players.

Stat lines are decieving because no matter how it is used it can be slanted towards whoever is making the arguement. Politicians do it all the time...

[Smidgeon]

This is a theoretical question, rather than a practical question because practically the award will continue to go to QBs and RBs because people love points. But should these positions continue to win the award?

You bring up an excellent point. Woodson would make an immediate impact on all 32 teams. The same cannot be said for the other candidates. IMO other positions should begin to get more credit, but I'm no sports writer or "expert". How about punter for MVP? Shane Lechler is the one of the most unknown "weapons" in the NFL . Seriously though, maybe one day the media will pull their collective heads out of their asses and see other players make huge impacts that aren't huge impact players.

Stat lines are decieving because no matter how it is used it can be slanted towards whoever is making the arguement. Politicians do it all the time...

I think stat lines are almost perfect for determining OPOY or DPOY. But MVP? That feels more like an award designed for intangibles. Sure, stats play a role, but a minor one.