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

[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

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.

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.