MJD42
-
Posts
453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MJD42
-
-
14-20, zero TDs (streak over) and two picks. Something is up with Manning. It is good that they found a run game.
-
Kaep singlehandedly won the 2013 Packer playoff game by running on the last drive. That game is just overshadowed by the 2012 playoff game because of all the garbage time read option yards. You can run the quarterback without running the read option. It seems like people have lost sight of that though.
The Packers defense was horrible that game. Kaep broke contain a lot in that game and ran wild against a bad defense. That is not the norm in the NFL and very tough to game plan to run a QB like that. And the read option was not sustainable either as they learned last year. In the end, a QB has to be able to drop back and throw. He is not a RB and if they try to play him like that they won't win much and he will get injured.
-
Translation: it is not RG3's fault
Gotta admit, I enjoyed the part where you used "unprofessional and childish" in a Redskins thread to describe someone other than Robert or Snyder...plot twist. Aside from that bit of entertainment, I couldn't disagree more. Bob might not be the only problem but he is one of the biggest problems. The reasons behind him barely playing are A) he is often injured B) he is terrible. How many games is he owed before a judgement on his play can be made? He had an entire preseason this year..so that excuse is off the table.
So you don't fault the coaching staff whatsoever for RGs regression? He looked pretty good his first year under a different coaching staff and a better team as well.
-
And Jim defended why he picked Brady pretty articulately. I don't agree with him but he had his reasons. He was not trying to sabotage a unanimous vote given he did not know how the other 49 were going to vote.
The one vote from Favre in 2007 was a writer from GB, right?
Miller felt Brady was more valuable to his team than Manning. He said Manning was offensive player of the year but not more valuable than Brady to his team. Hard to not see his point if we are talking about a player's value to his team vs the guy who puts up the most stats/records. I am not defending his selection but his reasoning based on the definition of the award has merit.
-
Again, if I'm ranking QBs, Luck is behind those guys. But I think he's more of an MVP this season than Manning and Brady.
I was talking about this year not career-wise.
-
Tried to cheat and get away with it......got caught...admitted it and took the blame.
That's today's NFL
Did you forget Mathis and Welker? Most athletes don't admit it or take blame.
-
for me I still have to lean towards Brady . . . had the Pats won against GB, Brady would of lucked up the MVP if the pats went 3-1 in December and ending up at 13-3 and could have gone 14-2 . . .yes a head to head game is important but does not trump the rest of the season . . . its a body of work and there are 15 other games . . .
Wins imo are important in the MVP race, and some have mentioned this point . . . included in the wins is the body of work and who one has played . . . yes one can only play who is on your schedule and on one level is it not their fault who they play . . . but we still must look at who they play and how the team performed to get an overall idea of the impact of the player on the team and the team on the league . . . a 13-3 team might look great but if they are 12-1 against loosing teams and 1-2 against winning teams they do not look as good . . .
For me the pats and Brady have faced stiffer competition that the Packers and have faired better in the circumstances . . . the Packers have played 5 teams with winning records (Sea, Phi (with Sanchez), NE (5 pt win), Mia (3 pt win), Det) and are 3-2 (0.600). .. the pats have faced three more for a total of 8 games, and that is 8 games out of 12 . . . their record is 5-3 (0.625) . . .
Each team had a bad loss and a close loss . . . but the Pats have played in more games, have more wins with all of the wins being solid wins with the closest game being away against Buffalo for a 37-22, a 15 point win being the closest one, can not say the same for the Packers performance in wins . . . and just as important the pats have played more division leaders and presently have beaten all three division leaders in the AFC (and for what it is worth beat Detroit at the time they were leading the division) . . . The packers beat Phila with Sanchez under center at home, and have a 3 point win against Mia . . .
When it comes to big boy games the Pats have played in more of them, have won more of them, and have won them much more easily than the Packers . . . yes the Packers won the head to head game, but it was a very close game with a one of a few handful of plays having going in a different direction the result might of been different, something that can not be said for the pats wins, again three of which are against all three AFC division leaders . . . a single head to head win does not trump the rest of the season and much less than one that came down to the wire and was a 5 point differential
So when it comes to taking care of business on ones schedule, Brady and the pats have performed better than the Packers . . .and Brady, like Rodgers, is largely responsible for this wins . . . for me when one beats all division leaders in the AFC and the closest overall win is a 15 point margin (22 points for the division leaders), that is showing you that one can get the job done with plenty to spare when playing playoff caliber teams, something that Rodgers and the Packers have simply not done . . .
for what it is worth 3 of the 4 remaining teams on the pats schedule have winning records and they could go 8-3 against winning teams this year . . the packers have two more teams left . . . so there is a very good chance the pats will face 11 games out 16 against winning teams, a rare situation in the sport . . .
So for me its Brady . . . played better competition and won more handily . . .
Really good points. Winning and competition play heavily and I tend to agree that Brady would be ahead of Rodgers had they beaten GB. Still, 4 games to go so the race is not over yet. Let's see how both teams finish as like you say, the Pats schedule has been much more difficult and they have dominated in many of their wins ....
-
You're willing to bet? Most of Luck's picks come on tips. I'm not complaining, but he doesn't have trouble getting the ball between safeties and linebackers. His issue is more with not leading guys away from the defender, which leads to tips.
On Brady's deep passes, he hasn't been a deep passing threat since 2007. And it's not just Hilton that Luck goes downfield to.
No question Brady is more accurate and more refined. But we're not scouting and grading QBs. We're talking about MVP. And it is difficult to quantify, which is why there's no criteria or formula for voting.
More anticipation and timing then. He is in year 3 and certainly having a great year. But I would not put him over Rodgers or Brady at this point and probably not over Manning either. But as you say no real criteria either. So just opinions.
-
-
IDK, but That doesn't matter.....just luck of the bounce
Luck has 11 fumbles, 5 lost this season.
Brady has 6 fumbles, 3 lost.
-
Fumbles:
Luck 6
Brady 5
How many lost fumbles?
-
You're not talking about efficiency, you're talking about raw numbers. You can't measure efficiency without knowing how often a player has the ball.
Luck's efficiency numbers are better than Brady's in every area other than interception percentage. And then we could talk about average depth of target and efficiency/production down the field, but I know you guys hate when I point out how Brady doesn't make plays down the field. And then I could talk about how the Colts passing game accounts for a much higher percentage of offense than the Patriots, which essentially shows how much the Pats and Brady benefit from having a productive rushing attack. Not a knock on Brady, but a highlight of Luck's candidacy (he carries the offense every week, despite poor line play and injuries, whereas Brady's struggles are being explained by poor line play and injuries).
Brady is still a better QB, mostly because of how adept he is at recognizing pressures and coverages. But I think Luck has been more valuable to the Colts this year than Brady has been to the Pats. So yeah, I have Luck ahead of Brady for MVP.
Good points but let me ask, where has Luck's interceptions come? I am willing to bet most of them have been on either short or intermediate throws where he has to get the ball over the LBs but in front of the safeties. My point being that throwing deep is hardly a measure of a QBs greatness. Jeff George pretty much made his living chucking it. And Luck's fumbles, are they all truly from his poor Oline or his penchant for holding the ball too long?
When you say Brady is better because he recognizes coverages and pressures better that pretty much ends the discussion. He is also more accurate too. You may have forgotten that Brady lost his best RB early in the season and he has no one close to TY Hilton on the outside to chuck those deep balls to. A QB's production is as much a reflection of the team and game plan around him.
You may indeed by right that Luck may be more valuable to his team than Brady this year. I think those things are hard to quantify when you are talking about two of the top QBs in the game. If either was missing suffice to say that neither team would be in contention.
-
I disagree with both points, and I don't know how one can determine what "too many turnovers" is for MVP. Especially without considering how much Luck has the ball in his hands.
Immaterial, though.
Because efficiency matters. MVP is not about how often one has the ball in his hands but how one plays with the ball in his hands.
-
Now you want to argue about second place? Luck and Manning, in that order, IMO.
Manning no way over Brady. Not this year. And Luck has too many turnovers to be at #2.
-
Brady didn't do more with less. He did less with less. And despite having turned it back on, he's still doing less with less, in comparison to Rodgers, specifically.
I'm not knocking him. I just don't think he's the MVP this season. He's been outperformed by other really good players, none of whom were considered to be rapidly declining two months ago.
Brady is a great player, a great leader, and the primary reason the Pats can contend this year. He's great. He's not the MVP, though.
Besides Rodgers, who else do you have ahead of Brady?
-
Still just scratching my head that improving and overcoming adversity are looked at as negatives when it comes to MVP candidacy
There not looked at as negatives which is why both Rodgers and Brady are 1 and 2 in most people lists because both did overcome adversity early in the season and have propelled to their teams to the top spots in their conferences through their MVP like play after overcoming the adversity.
-
Terrible season for the Ravens in terms of off-field stuff ...
-
I still say that. Without Gronk that team is very different especially in meaningful games.
As I said, if Gronk is injured tomorrow, that team is not going to SB.
That was true last year more so but then again the AFCCG swung when Talib went out. The team this year can defend and defend better than last year. Gronk is a key piece and second to Brady on the offense but this team will go as far as the defense is able to defend the pass.
-
Teams who win the turnover battle win the game roughly 80% of the time. Teams who win the point battle are undefeated.
Lol only half serious with that one. I get what you're saying but I don't agree that sacrificing points for less turnovers would win more games in january. I suppose it comes down to how many turnovers you can avoid and how many points you have to sacrifice to avoid them. Also, how good is your defense, running game, etc, etc. In the end, points are the only absolute in the equation so I'll take as many as I can get.
As far as Wilson goes, he manages the game well and he's had some success but I think his ability to play conservative is predicated on the existence of that smothering defense and the running game. In a lot of cases that formula works in the playoffs and I've got no problem admitting it but I don't see it as a possibility for this team right now.
lol. I like that quote. I will have to remember that.
I think with everything there is a balance. Not having turnovers but not leading scoring drives is not going to work obviously but if I had my choice between my QB throwing 2 TDs and no picks vs 4 TDs and 2 picks. I would take option one every time.
Wilson is kind of a rare QB. He does not put up high volume stats but he makes plays all over the field with his arm and legs. He does takes risks with his play but they are calculated and rarely does he make a terrible decision. I agree that much of that is predicated on having a great defense to fall back on and Lynch.
-
SD is warm weather.
That is the good thing. The Pats will be able to pass more.
-
Need further evidence?
Not a shot at you, but you can probably see why I'd be weary of the "Colts fans complain" meme, right?
I would hope that you do not take the posts of "some" posters as representative of the Patriots fan base as a whole. In general our fan base respects the Colts and the rivalry the teams have had over the years.
-
I don't understand why you would sacrifice TDs (guaranteed points) for less INTs (which may lead to points but often are no worse than a bad punt ). I suppose I could understand if the number of INTs is relatively close to equaling the number of TD's but even then I question the logic. Also, INT totals are one of those "volume stats" you mentioned. If you look at interception percentage, Luck's is at 2.24% this season which is extremely good.
I'm all for minimizing INTs but why would you sacrifice points to do so? Especially when the INTs aren't occurring at an unreasonable rate.
Because turnovers are the one statistic that most correlate to wins and losses. You can get away in the regular season with having a lot because the competition is not as good as the post-season. Luck's two turnovers vs the Redskins did not hurt because it is the Redskins and he was able to put up TDs on them for the win. If he does that against Denver or NE in Jan than it is lights out.
And yes I would gladly sacrifice points for no turnovers. That is how Wilson has been so successful in Seattle and why in part they won it all last year.
-
Just when I thought you were coming around , you come up with a bomb like that. The guy executed a play fake a few times and turned around and found like two defenders 1/4 inch away . He was blasted and a few fumbles. Gosh big deal. On his way to 5000 yards and 40 TD's with a very acceptable int %. So you come up with he had 5 fumbles so he's just like all the other 3rd year QB's and "same as rookie year." Here's a news flash for you ... Andrew Luck is a top 5 NFL QB today. Right now... even with the 5 fumbles
To each their own, but I would rather have less TDs if that meant less INTs especially in the post-season. Volume stats are great but they don't often correlate to rings.
-
I became a very skeptical bitter Pats fan ever since their two Super Bowl losses. Especially after the 2007 loss that really got to me. And all the post season losses since 2005. It's like the Pats tease you, they go 12-4 or 13-3 and lose in the post season. I've gotten my hopes dashed 8 times by the Pats (2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013).
I won't be a believer till they actually win a Super Bowl again.
Why sets your hopes so high and have them crushed? It's not worth it. So I take a step back and be more skeptical and cautious.
So your basis for feeling good about the team is if they win the Super Bowl?
If you really believe your last sentence then I suggest you stop watching pro sports altogether.
New England (- 3 1/2) @ San Diego (12-7-14)
in NFL General
Posted
This is the type of game the Patriots have lost over the past 3 years in the post-season. A game where its offense was shut down and the D and STs had to carry the day. This type of victory is encouraging because this is what it will take to win in the post-season where the offense will not put 30+ every game. The defense made plays all over the field, all night. It was a clinic. That is championship style football. Great to see.