Peyton MVP for 5th time

[Gramz]

To me, MVP is MVP. Doesn't matter how many votes you get, if you win, you win.

 

If this clown had made a real argument as to why he thinks Brady was the true MVP, then that would be one thing. Very debatable, but at least in keeping with the spirit of the award and the voting process. But to base his vote on him not wanting one player -- who was obviously deserving -- to win unanimously, that's just nonsense. Everyone else did their job, and he couldn't be bothered to.

[Moose Of Woe]

Second, regarding the unanimity issue . . . its happens, this why it is so rare . . . yes I understand there are many Peyton fans here even though we are on a colts forum . . . but a little outside perspective might be helpful . . . in 2007 Brady had an historic season just like Peyton in 2013 and he only won 49 or 50 votes and Favre got one vote . . . check out Favre's numbers in 2007 . . . so it happens, historic season and one does not run the table . . .

If someone wants to make a case for Brady that's fine. I think doing more with less is a poor argument. Brady did not do more with less. He was nowhere close to Peyton's productivity this season. He had less to work with, but he sure as heck didn't do more. He did less with less.

 

The problem with Jim's "case" for Brady is that he literally said he thought Manning deserved the award, but he didn't want Manning to win unanimously. Therefore he voted for Brady. 

 

If that doesn't reek of bitterness and destroy whatever  credibility someone has I don't know what could.

[Superman]

First off, congrats to Peyton on winning a 5th MVP . . .

Second, regarding the unanimity issue . . . its happens, this why it is so rare . . . yes I understand there are many Peyton fans here even though we are on a colts forum . . . but a little outside perspective might be helpful . . . in 2007 Brady had an historic season just like Peyton in 2013 and he only won 49 or 50 votes and Favre got one vote . . . check out Favre's numbers in 2007 . . . so it happens, historic season and one does not run the table . . .

Also, the award is most valuable player not most valuable points . . . true many fans will immediately look to stats and records and blindly award the award . . . not to say it is a bad method but one needs to understand that the award is for value to the team and more specially that can be manifested in the principle of how well would they have done but for him and so on . . .

the fact remains is that the Pats, without many of its skilled positions players from years prior, and a 7th round college QB as their top WR managed to go 12-4 and secure the 2nd seed and btw the way, wink wink, on the way had a 24 point historic you will find in the HOF record book/website http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/comebacks.aspx come from behind victory against the other candidate for MVP . . . so a little head to head comparison just saying . . . in addition although we had a few close wins we also had losses that we very close with three of them we were in the game and had a potential to win on the last play of the game . . . with only other lose being the NYJ only time in the season called pushing (yah the penalty missed in the KC-SD game) on a FGA game in OT when the kick was missed otherwise giving us the ball on the 40 yard line or so . . .

So in sum congrats to Peyton, good for him . . . MVP is not an exact science and subject to opinion . . . and when a QB, without many of his weapons, goes 12-4 and close to 15-1 and beats the other guy head to head in historical fashion and gets his team to the 2nd seed is saying something . . . just saying . . .

And if it makes you feel any better check out Favre 2007 stats . . .

and btw good luck to Peyton tomorrow, it should be a fun game . . .

Who do you think should have won?

[Yehoodi]

If someone wants to make a case for Brady that's fine. Personally I think doing less with less is a poor argument, but at least it's an argument.

 

The problem with Jim's "case" for Brady is that he literally said he thought Manning deserved it, but he didn't want Manning to win unanimously. Therefore he voted for Brady. 

 

If that doesn't reek of bitterness and destroy whatever  credibility someone has I don't know what could.

 

I have not heard or seen his "case" . . . and did read some of the posters earlier mentioned what you said . . . I did a quick Google search briefly prior to drafting my first post but could not find it and figure the quote will come out in the wash in the next few days . . .

 

the scuttlebutt from the Favre thing was that the voter did not like the pats (plus that little Spygate thingie)  and had the same argument as you mentioned Jim had . . . sry don't have a link, and won't bet my life that this is true, my brother told me . . . but sometimes this can happen, maybe it pay back for what happened to Brady in 2007, don't let him be unanimous . . .  

 

I do think there is a case for Brady stealing a vote . . . in three games the Pats were one end of game play away from the #1 seed . . . and I know you all love Peyton . . . but if the other candidate is close enough to be one play away not one but three times from making Peyton's team the # 2 seed it does have some value . . . meaning if the Pats are the #1 seed and Broncos #2 seed with the former beating the latter it would be not too far of a stretch to have the head of the former get a small amount of love . . . perhaps this voter felt the need to do so . . .

 

true in fact that was not the case, but if it was some might feel a tad different, and if you are very close, some may put a little value on it . . .

 

either way Peyton got a MVP for each finger on the hand now and tomorrow gonna be fun for Peyton fans . . .

 

I will be interest    

[Yehoodi]

Who do you think should have won?

 

For the reasons I stated in regards to his merit to this team my vote would of gone to Brady . . . true I have a bias but all voters do . . . btw, I just came here to present my case as to why in a pool of 50, one lone voice might have a difference of opinion, I don't want to take anything away from Manning, just trying to present a case   . . . but I can clearly understand why voter have Manning wining it . . . but on the same side of things historical season don't always get 50 people to agree . . .  sorry but I can find a link to voting results for 1984, but most objective people here would look at that year as potentially being the best overall and my guess is that Marino may not have garnered 49 votes, but he may have . . .

 

Not so sure if I would of gone so far with a payback for 2007 and Favre . . . but to frank, it would of help me to slip my finger to the Brady voting toggle . . .  

 

49 out of 50 is still a smack down no matter how one spins it . . . not sure how many 49s there are but I got to think there are only a very few, perhaps only two 2007 and 2013 . . . so that is enough to put a stamp on the 2013 season for Peyton . . . not to mention a AFC ring in his pocket and tomorrow to boot . . .

[Moose Of Woe]

Tom Curran, one of the biggest Pats homers on the planet was going to vote for Brady as well. He was talked out of it...by Tom Brady.

https://twitter.com/tomecurran/status/429801405906685952

 

So pretty much the only people who would vote Brady root for, or have ties to, the Patriots. Great objectivity. At least Scott Zolak didn't get a vote. He's about ten times worse than Curran.

 

Back to the more with less nonsense. Want to see what a real, non blinders example of more with less is? Or close enough to it? Phillip Rivers. SD's offense was just as bad as NE's yet Rivers BALLED all year long. Forget MVP - Brady doesn't even win the pathetically weak argument homers are making for him.

 

Brady gets some cool points for telling his media buddy to take off the blinders. I still can't stand his tantrums, but he's a great QB and nothing but respectful toward his peers.

[Yehoodi]

Tom Curran, one of the biggest Pats homers on the planet was going to vote for Brady as well. He was talked out of it...by Tom Brady.

https://twitter.com/tomecurran/status/429801405906685952

 

So pretty much the only people who would vote Brady root for, or have ties to, the Patriots. Great objectivity. At least Scott Zolak didn't get a vote. He's about ten times worse than Curran.

 

Brady gets some cool points for telling his media buddy to take off the blinders. I still can't stand his tantrums, but he's a great QB and nothing but respectful toward his peers.

 

Hey I voted for Brady  . . . what does that make me . . .

[Blue Horseshoe]

Hey I voted for Brady  . . . what does that make me . . .

 

Someone who roots for, or has ties to, the Patriots

[Moose Of Woe]

Hey I voted for Brady  . . . what does that make me . . .

I think your argument is terrible and it's really, really reaching for a way to make a case for Brady when he clear as day doesn't have one. In this case, poor objectivity/being a homer.

 

Don't mistake that for being the stereotypical insufferable Pats/Brady fan like Scott Zolak who bash/discredit Peyton whenever possible and endlessly gloat.

Frankly I think you're alright and one of the better posters on here. You're just trying to make a case for your guy, but there's really no case to be made for him this season.

 

I edited my above post in that Phillip Rivers is the closest one to win the "more with less" argument this season. Even then, his numbers were nowhere near Peyton's either.  Rivers still did less with less, but he did it better than Brady this season.

[Blue Horseshoe]

I honestly do not understand how the 19th rated quarterback is worthy of an MVP vote.

[Moose Of Woe]

I honestly do not understand how the 19th rated quarterback is worthy of an MVP vote.

That's an easy answer. He isn't.

 

It's only possible in:

 

[shecolt]

How do people get NFL Hall=of=Fame votes?

 

How do you qualify to be a voter

 

I'm doing this from memory of an article I read some time ago.  So my memory may be fuzzy or things have changed.  But, this I what I recall:

 

The AP used to have 3 voters per NFL franchise.

 

But, sometime in the late 90's; it was reduced to 50.

 

Those 50 are a mixture of those whose main job is to cover the NFL on a national basis via radio, TV, the internet, or in print. In the case of Miller, he is a host on a Sirius NFL channel. 

 

Some of those 50 do also cover a team which I remember was questioned by a few at the time when Manning and McNair shared the MVP because one of those who voted for McNair covered the Titans, but there wasn't a voter who covered the Colts.

[Superman]

For the reasons I stated in regards to his merit to this team my vote would of gone to Brady . . . true I have a bias but all voters do . . . btw, I just came here to present my case as to why in a pool of 50, one lone voice might have a difference of opinion, I don't want to take anything away from Manning, just trying to present a case   . . . but I can clearly understand why voter have Manning wining it . . . but on the same side of things historical season don't always get 50 people to agree . . .  sorry but I can find a link to voting results for 1984, but most objective people here would look at that year as potentially being the best overall and my guess is that Marino may not have garnered 49 votes, but he may have . . .

 

Not so sure if I would of gone so far with a payback for 2007 and Favre . . . but to frank, it would of help me to slip my finger to the Brady voting toggle . . .  

 

49 out of 50 is still a smack down no matter how one spins it . . . not sure how many 49s there are but I got to think there are only a very few, perhaps only two 2007 and 2013 . . . so that is enough to put a stamp on the 2013 season for Peyton . . . not to mention a AFC ring in his pocket and tomorrow to boot . . .

 

I don't care about unanimous voting. Doesn't matter. What's an affront to football fans is the fact that this guy voted for Brady for reasons having nothing to do with football. 

 

We could dissect Brady's candidacy six ways to Sunday. I personally don't see how he's worthy this season, but at least you make an effort to make a case for him. My problem is the basis of the vote. 

[Superman]

I think your argument is terrible and it's really, really reaching for a way to make a case for Brady when he clear as day doesn't have one. In this case, poor objectivity/being a homer.

 

Don't mistake that for being the stereotypical insufferable Pats/Brady fan like Scott Zolak who bash/discredit Peyton whenever possible and endlessly gloat.

Frankly I think you're alright and one of the better posters on here. You're just trying to make a case for your guy, but there's really no case to be made for him this season.

 

I edited my above post in that Phillip Rivers is the closest one to win the "more with less" argument this season. Even then, his numbers were nowhere near Peyton's either.  Rivers still did less with less, but he did it better than Brady this season.

 

Heck, Andrew Luck did less with much less.

[Moose Of Woe]

Heck, Andrew Luck did less with much less.

Don't worry. We'll get an O-line.

 

Someday.

 

Hopefully we start by getting rid of that waste of space sateleite dish.

[Superman]

Don't worry. We'll get an O-line.

 

Someday.

 

Hopefully we start by getting rid of that waste of space sateleite dish.

 

Yikes.

[Superman]

I'm doing this from memory of an article I read some time ago.  So my memory may be fuzzy or things have changed.  But, this I what I recall:

 

The AP used to have 3 voters per NFL franchise.

 

But, sometime in the late 90's; it was reduced to 50.

 

Those 50 are a mixture of those whose main job is to cover the NFL on a national basis via radio, TV, the internet, or in print. In the case of Miller, he is a host on a Sirius NFL channel. 

 

Some of those 50 do also cover a team which I remember was questioned by a few at the time when Manning and McNair shared the MVP because one of those who voted for McNair covered the Titans, but there wasn't a voter who covered the Colts.

 

So they give Sirius NFL a vote, and Sirius gets to choose what person makes the vote, right? Maybe they defaulted to this guy because he used to be in the NFL. That's really terrible, though.

[southwest1]

One prestigious award down; One more to go. Nice job 18 & thank you to all my NE friends for their congratulatory words on Peyton's behalf. 

[southwest1]

Hey I voted for Brady  . . . what does that make me . . .

I have no problem with that Yehoodi. Stick to your convictions that's why I respect you. Unless you voted for Tony Romo, then you & I need to have a serious conversation. Just Kidding! 

[shecolt]

So they give Sirius NFL a vote, and Sirius gets to choose what person makes the vote, right? Maybe they defaulted to this guy because he used to be in the NFL. That's really terrible, though.

 

I only get Sirius radio when it's free and even then, I usually stick to ESPN. So, I have no clue why Sirius picked this guy over any other hosts. 

 

I also would have no problem with him voting for Brady if it was because he thought Brady was more deserving.  But, this not wanting Manning to have the unanimous vote is hogwash.

 

BTW, Miller is getting some backlash on FB with posts such as:

 

Sorry Pat, but I will no longer listen to your show (I listen daily) your co-host Jim Miller has proven he is NOT an expert but just a fan with silly opinions that was given a microphone because once upon a time he was a marginal QB.

Just sad.....

 

Who is Jim Miller? Never heard of this *. Obviously just trying to get attention with this irresponsible use of a vote. His voting right should be revokes. Won't listen to NFL radio again until he has been removed from his spot.

 

Jim Miller should have his MVP voting rights revoked. The guy seriously voted for Tom Brady with the Historic year Peyton Manning had. There is not a chance he could ever justify that.

 

[southwest1]

I have seen some people post comments on here that Peyton Manning is the clear cut choice for MVP [which he undoubtedly is] & that to select another name is wasting a vote. I do not agree with the second part of that sentence. If a person is a sports writer or NFL analyst who has been given a vote they can exercise that vote whatever way they wish. Do foolish grudges come into play by reporters who feel slighted by an athlete? Sure there are, but that is irrelevant. 

 

If you have an MVP or NFL HOF vote, that person is free to accept or decline whatever pool of names is placed before them. They are on the committee & can exercise whatever judgement they so desire just like an elected politician does for their constituency. 

 

For those individuals who disagree with a voter's track record, I would add that these committee posts are not lifetime positions like the US Supreme Court. If they were, you'd have a legitimate argument against permanent no votes by certain people on these panels, but since these committee posts are not permanent, there is no credibility to that line of reasoning IMO. 

 

I will also add that I want more former players on these selection committees particularly defensive players. 

[Superman]

I only get Sirius radio when it's free and even then, I usually stick to ESPN. So, I have no clue why Sirius picked this guy over any other hosts. 

 

I also would have no problem with him voting for Brady if it was because he thought Brady was more deserving.  But, this not wanting Manning to have the unanimous vote is hogwash.

 

BTW, Miller is getting some backlash on FB with posts such as:

 

Sorry Pat, but I will no longer listen to your show (I listen daily) your co-host Jim Miller has proven he is NOT an expert but just a fan with silly opinions that was given a microphone because once upon a time he was a marginal QB.

Just sad.....

 

Who is Jim Miller? Never heard of this *. Obviously just trying to get attention with this irresponsible use of a vote. His voting right should be revokes. Won't listen to NFL radio again until he has been removed from his spot.

 

Jim Miller should have his MVP voting rights revoked. The guy seriously voted for Tom Brady with the Historic year Peyton Manning had. There is not a chance he could ever justify that.

 

 

The only part of this post I disagree with is the quote you posted, particularly the part in bold. It's a stretch to even call him "marginal."

[Superman]

I have seen some people post comments on here that Peyton Manning is the clear cut choice for MVP [which he undoubtedly is] & that do select another name is wasting a vote. I do not agree with the second part of that sentence. If a person is a sports writer or NFL analyst who has been given a vote they can exercise that vote whatever way they wish. Do foolish grudges come into play by reporters who feel slighted by an athlete? Sure there are, but that is irrelevant. 

 

If you have an MVP or NFL HOF vote, that person is free to accept or decline whatever pool of names is placed before them. They are on the committee & can exercise whatever judgement they so desire just like an elected politician does for their constituency. 

 

I will add that I want more former players on these selection committees particularly defensive players. 

 

Yeah, you can vote for whomever you want. There are obviously no real criteria, aside from some baseline qualifications. But when you admit "Player X deserves it, but I'm not going to vote for him because I don't want him to win it unanimously," you're spitting on both the award and your privilege of voting on the award. And on the fans.

[Narcosys]

To me, MVP is MVP. Doesn't matter how many votes you get, if you win, you win.

 

If this clown had made a real argument as to why he thinks Brady was the true MVP, then that would be one thing. Very debatable, but at least in keeping with the spirit of the award and the voting process. But to base his vote on him not wanting one player -- who was obviously deserving -- to win unanimously, that's just nonsense. Everyone else did their job, and he couldn't be bothered to.

It matters because now all those Brady homers will still be "ONLY UNANIMOUS MVP!"  Of course now that argument is tainted with Miller admitting he didnt want a unanimous MVP.  Course he was ok with brady getting it.  Thats two unanimous non-boston mvp's he has stopped.

[Moose Of Woe]

The only part of this post I disagree with is the quote you posted, particularly the part in bold. It's a stretch to even call him "marginal."

[Moose Of Woe]

It matters because now all those Brady homers will still be "ONLY UNANIMOUS MVP!" 

And everyone outside of New England can continue to laugh them out of the building.

[Superman]

It matters because now all those Brady homers will still be "ONLY UNANIMOUS MVP!"  Of course now that argument is tainted with Miller admitting he didnt want a unanimous MVP.  Course he was ok with brady getting it.  Thats two unanimous non-boston mvp's he has stopped.

 

That didn't matter before, and it still doesn't. Not to me, at least. I've always shrugged at that line of reasoning. MVP is MVP. The way the votes break down doesn't really mean anything. It's like arguing that your team gained more yards, when all anyone cares about is who won.

 

Being honest, every MVP isn't made equal. I think Manning's 2008 MVP is kind of weak, because the field was weak. Easily the least impressive MVP campaign of Manning's career. Had he won unanimously that season, it would be very meh-worthy. Chad Pennington got 4 votes that year. It sort of defaulted to Manning (he was clearly more deserving than anyone else, but it wasn't a special season by him.) But winning 39.5 votes in a more competitive year in 2009 (Brees, with great numbers and a 13-0 start, Favre's resurgence and a lot of media attention) would have been more impressive, IMO, than a unanimous win in 2008. 

 

What this Miller clown did this year is dishonorable, at the very least.

[Shane Bond]

I haven't seen his reasoning but if he came out and said the only reason he didn't vote was to stop from being unanimous, thats pretty immature.

 

If you are given one of the 50 votes in the entire country, it should go to deserving people.

[southwest1]

Yeah, you can vote for whomever you want. There are obviously no real criteria, aside from some baseline qualifications. But when you admit "Player X deserves it, but I'm not going to vote for him because I don't want him to win it unanimously," you're spitting on both the award and your privilege of voting on the award. And on the fans.

The intent of the fan is a difficult desire to play God with though. When the Academy Of Motion Pictures determines which actors or films win an Oscar, do they routinely seek feedback from select audience groups? No. The Academy might look at profit margins & ticket sales both domestically & abroad to ascertain which movies struck an emotional cord with their viewers the most, but for a popularity contest the Academy leaves that stuff to say "The Peoples Choice Awards." 

 

My point is this: There are other mysterious panels in this world that we know little to nothing about & tight privacy rules about conduct or how new selection people are chosen does have it's benefits namely not being corrupted by outside pressures that might taint or unduly influence their own independent voice or belief as to why an athlete is or is not MVP worthy in the end. 

 

I would like to know what rules are in place for removal of a voter & how new candidates are ultimately chosen to replace the ones who have stepped down. 

[southwest1]

I haven't seen his reasoning but if he came out and said the only reason he didn't vote was to stop from being unanimous, thats pretty immature.

 

If you are given one of the 50 votes in the entire country, it should go to deserving people.

People are free to express their anger over why specific NFL candidates continue to get bypassed or declined. I have no problem with that at all Shane. I may detest the Dallas Cowboys but that still doesn't change the fact that Charles Haley deserves a yellow jacket IMO. I can separate team hatred from remarkable individual achievements on a football field. 

 

I agree 100% clearly some voters are unfairly biased toward certain athletes. How do we fix & rectify it? Simple by getting more former NFL players on the MVP & HOF selection committees like I said earlier. 

 

I remember a TV segment I saw on NFL Network once where reporters were asked to step onto a football & execute certain drills & positions at a practice. Most of them were out of shape, but once practice was over a couple of them said that they had a newfound appreciation for how hard it was to do what they did as athletes on a daily basis. Why can't we demand that reporters do some drills at certain positions to fully understand how difficult it is to execute a flawless play?, which might change some MVP & HOF votes from no to yes. Sounds great to me.

[Narcosys]

I honestly do not understand how the 19th rated quarterback is worthy of an MVP vote.

19th rated by who?

[shecolt]

People are free to express their anger over why specific NFL candidates continue to get bypassed or declined. I have no problem with that at all Shane. I may detest the Dallas Cowboys but that still doesn't change the fact that Charles Haley deserves a yellow jacket IMO. I can separate team hatred from remarkable individual achievements on a football field. 

 

I agree 100% clearly some voters are unfairly biased toward certain athletes. How do we fix & rectify it? Simple by getting more former NFL players on the MVP & HOF selection committees like I said earlier. 

 

I remember a TV segment I saw on NFL Network once where reporters were asked to step onto a football & execute certain drills & positions at a practice. Most of them were out of shape, but once practice was over a couple of them said that they had a newfound appreciation for how hard it was to do what they did as athletes on a daily basis. Why can't we demand that reporters do some drills at certain positions to fully understand how difficult it is to execute a flawless play?, which might change some MVP & HOF votes from no to yes. Sounds great to me.

 

Why would getting more former NFL players on the MVP selection committee rectify any bias when the problem that I and others are having is that Jim Miller (who is a former NFL player) supposedly voted for Brady just because he didn't want Manning to get the unanimous vote?

[MAC]

First off, congrats to Peyton on winning a 5th MVP . . .

 

Second, regarding the unanimity issue . . . its happens, this why it is so rare . . . yes I understand there are many Peyton fans here even though we are on a colts forum . . . but a little outside perspective might be helpful . . . in 2007 Brady had an historic season just like Peyton in 2013 and he only won 49 or 50 votes and Favre got one vote . . . check out Favre's numbers in 2007 . . . so it happens, historic season and one does not run the table . . .

 

Also, the award is most valuable player not most valuable points  . . . true many fans will immediately look to stats and records and blindly award the award . . . not to say it is a bad method but one needs to understand that the award is for value to the team and more specially that can be manifested in the principle of how well would they have done but for him and so on . . .  

 

the fact remains is that the Pats, without many of its skilled positions players from years prior, and a 7th round college QB as their top WR managed to go 12-4 and secure the 2nd seed and btw the way, wink wink, on the way had a 24 point historic you will find in the HOF record book/website  http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/comebacks.aspx    come from behind victory against the other candidate for MVP . . . so a little head to head comparison just saying . . . in addition although we had a few close wins we also had losses that we very close with three of them we were in the game and had a potential to win on the last play of the game . . . with only other lose being the NYJ only time in the season called pushing (yah the penalty missed in the KC-SD game)  on a FGA game in OT when the kick was missed otherwise giving us the ball on the 40 yard line or so . . .

 

So in sum congrats to Peyton, good for him . . . MVP is not an exact science and subject to opinion . . . and when a QB, without many of his weapons, goes 12-4 and close to 15-1 and beats the other guy head to head in historical fashion and gets his team to the 2nd seed is saying something  . . . just saying . . .

 

And if it makes you feel any better check out Favre 2007 stats . . .

 

and btw good luck to Peyton tomorrow, it should be a fun game . . .

I understand the concept of why you prefer Brady this year It's the ONLY thing that prevented Peyton from winning the MVP award LAST year. (By the way, Manning was also one vote short of unanimity in 2004. Some knucklehead voted for Vick). However this year there are some problems with this line of thinking. Look at it this way.............

 

In 2010 the Colts were in a similar - if not worse - situation with injuries. It took them awhile to figure things out, had a mid-season blip when the injuries were at their worst, and then finished with four wins to make the playoffs. Peyton's stats in total weren't bad (he had 4,700 yards - his all-time high to that point, Brady only had 3,900) but there was surely a price to be paid for the turnover at the skill positions. Brady had a great year for sure - his interception total of four was remarkable - but it was far from "one of the best ever".

 

The thing is, the Colts were ALL about Peyton by that point. The SB run in 2009 had largely been a function of Peyton pulling off one miracle after another (as he won the MVP award) and 2010 was much the same - he just had less to work with and his neck was already starting to limit him. His pass attempts were way UP in response to their problems. The oline was so bad that he had NO time to pass and no running game, yet the defense was so flawed that he HAD to pass constantly. People like to act as if without Peyton the Colts could never win a game, and they point to 2011 as evidence. Personally I doubt that that would be true of the Colts from 2003-2007, but it darn well was true of the 2010 team. They made the playoffs ONLY because of Peyton putting the team on his back and playing out of his mind with his back constantly against the wall.  

 

Yet Brady won the MVP award unanimously - the only time that that has ever happened.

 

So why exactly wasn't the same logic extended to Peyton in 2010 as was extended to Brady this year? Brady didn't do "more with less" this year, he did incredibly LESS with less. Peyton wasn't along for the ride - he did "more with more". Why should he be punished for having skilled teammates? Despite his arm strength (worsened for much of the season thanks to an ankle injury - including during the Pats game you cite) he took his mental game up yet another notch and put on a season for the ages. Did anyone say that about Brady's 2010? They aren't in the same ballpark.

 

So was Brady's 2013 season SO impressive that it overcame Peyton's accomplishments? All I read for much of the season was that BB had reinvented the defense and running game, ASKING less of the passing game because of the lack of skill players. Brady in turn often played flat out POORLY early on. How many games did they actually win BECAUSE of him? He had three games with less than 50% passes completed, five with less than 200 yards passing. What happened to working the entire off season with young receivers to get on the same page? I remember pictures from one early game where it looked like the frustration was making him ill. MVP? I was under the impression that he was so below his norm that people were writing articles expressing concern that he was declining! I don't think that he was even close to being the second best candidate.

 

Summary: Manning's 2013 season was vastly superior to Brady's 2010 season.

                 Manning's 2010 season was vastly superior to Brady's 2013 season.

 

Yet Brady wins the 2010 award unanimously, while a former Patriot who got a SB ring as Brady's backup, in his first year of voting, decides to prevent Manning from receiving a unanimous vote this year.

 

Do you honestly not see a problem with this? What it primarily demonstrates is that whatever voter covered the Colts in 2010 has significantly more character than the irrational/biased/ rear-kissing/selfish/ :cuss: referenced above. By the way, I'm confident that BRADY has a lot more character than that - just look at that tweet from another Boston writer. I would be willing to bet that he's embarrassed by the way this went down, and hopefully he'll reach out and  the guy.

[MAC]

19th rated by who?

Well he was 17th in passer rating, 6th in yards, 11th in TDs, 23rd in completion percentage, 22nd in yards per attempt, etc, etc.

 

Otherwise he had a spectacular year.

[Narcosys]

Well he was 17th in passer rating, 6th in yards, 11th in TDs, 23rd in completion percentage, 22nd in yards per attempt, etc, etc.

 

Otherwise he had a spectacular year.

Oh for that year.  Ok.  I was thinking someone meant overall.

[braveheartcolt]

Brady's annual pro-bowl snub makes Jim Miller's antics almost angelic.

[Narcosys]

For the reasons I stated in regards to his merit to this team my vote would of gone to Brady . . . true I have a bias but all voters do . . . btw, I just came here to present my case as to why in a pool of 50, one lone voice might have a difference of opinion, I don't want to take anything away from Manning, just trying to present a case . . . but I can clearly understand why voter have Manning wining it . . . but on the same side of things historical season don't always get 50 people to agree . . . sorry but I can find a link to voting results for 1984, but most objective people here would look at that year as potentially being the best overall and my guess is that Marino may not have garnered 49 votes, but he may have . . .

Not so sure if I would of gone so far with a payback for 2007 and Favre . . . but to frank, it would of help me to slip my finger to the Brady voting toggle . . .

49 out of 50 is still a smack down no matter how one spins it . . . not sure how many 49s there are but I got to think there are only a very few, perhaps only two 2007 and 2013 . . . so that is enough to put a stamp on the 2013 season for Peyton . . . not to mention a AFC ring in his pocket and tomorrow to boot . . .

i dont think a "League" MVP is defined by how important they are to a team. If the roles and teams were switched, would you vote manning? I think its a more league wide value and not a team value.

[Andy]

Some selfish * voted for Brady... terrible, should have been a unanimous decision.

 

If he wins the Super Bowl tomorrow, on top of winning the MVP and OPOY, I think we'll have our new GOAT.

[braveheartcolt]

Some selfish * voted for Brady... terrible, should have been a unanimous decision.

If he wins the Super Bowl tomorrow, on top of winning the MVP and OPOY, I think we'll have our new GOAT.

No we won't. There is no such thing. He may not even be greatest of his time.

It's just a stupid label and people need to stop using it.

[JerodMayo51]

Lame... The most dominant season a qb has ever had. He should be stripped of his vote like lebatard was..

 

 

Brady didn't win unanimously in his record setting year either.  There were other players that had great years, but some don't vote 100% based on stats that are put up.  People also recognize that Manning had one of the most talented offenses in NFL history surrounding him as well, it was not all Peyton Manning.