Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

the mvp race

CR91

By CR91
in NFL General

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

Rodgers didn't struggle as much or for as long as Brady did. Nor did his improved play coincide with the return of big time teammates or improved defense. He really only had one substandard game. There weren't rumors in Week 6 that he'd be benched or traded. Packers fans weren't calling for the start of the Matt Flynn era.

He's also been better -- more productive, more efficient, and more explosive -- than Brady, all season long.

So no, Rodgers is at the top of my list, as a matter of fact.

Who's at the top of yours?

The Packers were 2-2, actually 1-2 to start the season getting blown out by Seattle and then only 7 vs Detroit. He was bad and his defense was bad, same as Brady. He did not have the worst Oline in the league either with moving parts every week for the first month.

 

The call for Brady being benched had more to do with his age and a potential decline as a reason for his poor play. Rodgers' bad play was assumed to be his teammates not playing well around him especially his defense which turned out to the case and also the case for Brady as well.

 

I agree that Rodgers has played better but Brady has been second right behind him and Brady certainly played the position the best for a 5 week period from week 5-9. So I would have Rodgers as 1 despite his poor start and Brady at 2 despite his poor start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Fair enough but I still don't quite follow. Manning started the season with a stable of studs and got off to a fast start, they all played together for awhile so they obviously were all playing at a high level

Brady didn't have that luxury, he had to do more with less and work with his lesser cast of talent to get better.

That's what leaders do, theY work their butt off and help get the team to a better place.

I don't understand how that could be considered a knock, just like i don't understand how you'd consider Manning more of an MVP just because he had a more talented cast of pro bowlers to get out to a fast start.

The Broncos have gotten worse if anything, so how is that considered a good thing but the QB leading the team that has steadily improved is considered a knock

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJD42 Walk On

MJD42

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

The Packers were 2-2, actually 1-2 to start the season getting blown out by Seattle and then only 7 vs Detroit. He was bad and his defense was bad, same as Brady. He did not have the worst Oline in the league either with moving parts every week for the first month.

The call for Brady being benched had more to do with his age and a potential decline as a reason for his poor play. Rodgers' bad play was assumed to be his teammates not playing well around him especially his defense which turned out to the case and also the case for Brady as well.

I agree that Rodgers has played better but Brady has been second right behind him and Brady certainly played the position the best for a 5 week period from week 5-9. So I would have Rodgers as 1 despite his poor start and Brady at 2 despite his poor start.

None of what you said in the first part of this post means that Rodgers was bad.

I'm pretty much over it, though. All hail Brady! He's the MVP every year!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

None of what you said in the first part of this post means that Rodgers was bad.

I'm pretty much over it, though. All hail Brady! He's the MVP every year!!!

Does it bother you that much that Brady is being considered for MVP this year? That most have him second behind Rodgers? We all have our opinions. You obviously think he somewhere around 4. That is fine. But why you would think Pats fans would not defend his candidacy especially in the face of your argument about how it is more his team getting better around him when you are mainly the one up here touting how football is the ultimate team sport and that wins are a function of team but now all of a sudden for MVP when Brady is in the convo, it is somehow a negative that his team improving has directly effected his candidacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Does it bother you that much that Brady is being considered for MVP this year? That most have him second behind Rodgers? We all have our opinions. You obviously think he somewhere around 4. That is fine. But why you would think Pats fans would not defend his candidacy especially in the face of your argument about how it is more his team getting better around him when you are mainly the one up here touting how football is the ultimate team sport and that wins are a function of team but now all of a sudden for MVP when Brady is in the convo, it is somehow a negative that his team improving has directly effected his candidacy?

No, it doesn't bother me at all. Why would it? I have no beef with Brady. You're just being overly defensive.

And if you really want to play the classic hits, we can, but MVP has nothing to do with what wins championships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Manning no way over Brady. Not this year. And Luck has too many turnovers to be at #2.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJD42 Walk On

MJD42

Posted
Posted

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wesd2890 Walk On

wesd2890

Posted
Posted

Josh Gordon

Brian hoyer is a good qb.. yeah he has had a ruff couple weeks but not as bad as people make him out to be.. hes completing close to 60% of his passes and is on pace to throw for a little under 4000 yards. Not bad for someone in their first full year.. people bad mouth hoyer alot because they wanna see manziel play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Brian hoyer is a good qb.. yeah he has had a ruff couple weeks but not as bad as people make him out to be.. hes completing close to 60% of his passes and is on pace to throw for a little under 4000 yards. Not bad for someone in their first full year.. people bad mouth hoyer alot because they wanna see manziel play.

Hoyer hardly played last year when Gordon led the league in receiving yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wesd2890 Walk On

wesd2890

Posted
Posted

Hoyer hardly played last year when Gordon led the league in receiving yards.

He played 4 games i believe.. but for a receiver to average 19ypc and 117 yards per game he must have a decent qb throwing to him. Also a large part of him doing so well last year was the amount of targets.. he averaged 11.4 targets a game. Which is unheard of

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

He played 4 games i believe.. but for a receiver to average 19ypc and 117 yards per game he must have a decent qb throwing to him. Also a large part of him doing so well last year was the amount of targets.. he averaged 11.4 targets a game. Which is unheard of

Jason Campbell and Brandon Weeden. Not good QBs. Kind of debunks your argument. I don't know how much room foe debate there really is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

Hey man.. at the end of the day a good qb makes great receivers.. there isnt a great receiver on a team with a bad qb

Sure, a great QB makes a receiver better, but to say Brady "makes' a freak like Gronk is just wrong. Did Brady make Randy Moss? No..he simply utilized him better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJD42 Walk On

MJD42

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

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.

Fumbles:

Luck 6

Brady 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wesd2890 Walk On

wesd2890

Posted
Posted

Sure, a great QB makes a receiver better, but to say Brady "makes' a freak like Gronk is just wrong. Did Brady make Randy Moss? No..he simply utilized him better.

Qbs make receivers.. randy moss wasnt known for the person he is today until he went to the pats.. randy moss was known because of his diva like attitude and freakish size. Not until he had a good qb(brady) that he exploded with great play..

Every receiver knows that a qb makes them. You look at any great wide receiver in the history of the nfl and next to them youll see a great qb. You have receivers who play with great qbs then go to a new team and dont play good because they dont have a good qb..... mike wallace was great with ben now not so much.. vincent jackson.. greg Jennings.. Pierre garcon.. eric decker.. fact of the matter is, it doesnt matter if your the best receiver ever.. if you dont have a qb to hit your hands consistently, your not gonna be puttin up great numbers. Dwayne bowe, good receiver has a chance to be great but doesnt have a good qb. Tevon austin.. Michael crabtree.. percy harvin.. golden tate(starting to see him do well now that he has a qb).. you could pretty much say every wr on the giants lmao.. you get the point.. football is a team sport but it all starts at the qb position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jvan1973 Ring of Honor

jvan1973

Posted
Posted

Qbs make receivers.. randy moss wasnt known for the person he is today until he went to the pats.. randy moss was known because of his diva like attitude and freakish size. Not until he had a good qb(brady) that he exploded with great play..

Every receiver knows that a qb makes them. You look at any great wide receiver in the history of the nfl and next to them youll see a great qb. You have receivers who play with great qbs then go to a new team and dont play good because they dont have a good qb..... mike wallace was great with ben now not so much.. vincent jackson.. greg Jennings.. Pierre garcon.. eric decker.. fact of the matter is, it doesnt matter if your the best receiver ever.. if you dont have a qb to hit your hands consistently, your not gonna be puttin up great numbers. Dwayne bowe, good receiver has a chance to be great but doesnt have a good qb. Tevon austin.. Michael crabtree.. percy harvin.. golden tate(starting to see him do well now that he has a qb).. you could pretty much say every wr on the giants lmao.. you get the point.. football is a team sport but it all starts at the qb position.

Pierre led the league in receiving a couple years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BOTT Walk On

BOTT

Posted
Posted

Qbs make receivers.. randy moss wasnt known for the person he is today until he went to the pats.. randy moss was known because of his diva like attitude and freakish size. Not until he had a good qb(brady) that he exploded with great play..

Every receiver knows that a qb makes them. You look at any great wide receiver in the history of the nfl and next to them youll see a great qb. You have receivers who play with great qbs then go to a new team and dont play good because they dont have a good qb..... mike wallace was great with ben now not so much.. vincent jackson.. greg Jennings.. Pierre garcon.. eric decker.. fact of the matter is, it doesnt matter if your the best receiver ever.. if you dont have a qb to hit your hands consistently, your not gonna be puttin up great numbers. Dwayne bowe, good receiver has a chance to be great but doesnt have a good qb. Tevon austin.. Michael crabtree.. percy harvin.. golden tate(starting to see him do well now that he has a qb).. you could pretty much say every wr on the giants lmao.. you get the point.. football is a team sport but it all starts at the qb position.

TL;DR for this subject

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...