the mvp race

[Shane Bond]

No one is disagreeing with that but that is not what you said. You said he was MVP of the team. He is not. It all starts with #12 and then the defense.

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.

[MJD42]

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.

[Shane Bond]

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.

Ok, that is your opinion.

[Valpo2004]

Barring a meltdown or injury I think Rodgers is getting it after beating the Pats.

[Nadine]

I've removed some posts from this thread

stop bickering

[JerodMayo51]

I think Rodgers has it hands down. He's been playing out of his mind this year and has no weakness in his game. Without Rodgers, that Packers team would be in shambles

[wesd2890]

Take Gronk out and see how Pats offense plays.

Lol.. you could say that for just about every qb in the league.. luck should be mvp.. without him offense would be awful, with the colts lack of a running game, theres no way hassleback could compensate the way luck does.. colts defense is mediocre at BEST, so theyre not winning games. If luck went down with a injury this team would be back to 2-14.. patriots have gone many games without gronk and done very well.. like last year they made the playoffs and did great.. colts team without luck.. and theres no way the colts make playoffs

[RockThatBlue]

Manning replaces luck... luck has no chance for mvp

You're wrong because he does have a chance.

That said Rogers probably wins it unless he has a bad few games.

[Superman]

ok. They sure win a lot when their MVP is not on the field ...

Are we talking about this year? Because all the talk this year has been about how, once Gronk got healthy and got going, the Pats were a different team. No?

Obviously, Gronk isn't the MVP, and isn't the Pats MVP, but considering how reliant the team can be on him, it kind of undermines Brady's candidacy.

[wesd2890]

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.

Idk how people say brady is number 2 to gronk.. that just sounds stupid.. brady throwing gronk the ball is what makes gronk.. you take brady of the field and put some average qb in and gronk wouldnt be anything.. fact of the matter is.. brady makes gronk.. gronk dont make brady

[JerodMayo51]

Are we talking about this year? Because all the talk this year has been about how, once Gronk got healthy and got going, the Pats were a different team. No?

Obviously, Gronk isn't the MVP, and isn't the Pats MVP, but considering how reliant the team can be on him, it kind of undermines Brady's candidacy.

The same can be said of Luck being reliant on Wayne and hilton, or Manning being reliant on D. Thomas (and his slew of other weapons)

Utilizing your weapons on offense doesn't undermine the QB.

Look at Welker when he was on the Pats, that was the only weapon Brady had at WR and he had 100+ receptions every single year. He goes off to Denver and his production drops because there are more weapons to spread the ball out to.

Gronk playing well and helping the offense doesn't undermine anyone.. He's a serious weapon and is utilized as such

[Superman]

The same can be said of Luck being reliant on Wayne and hilton, or Manning being reliant on D. Thomas (and his slew of other weapons)

Utilizing your weapons on offense doesn't undermine the QB.

Look at Welker when he was on the Pats, that was the only weapon Brady had at WR and he had 100+ receptions every single year. He goes off to Denver and his production drops because there are more weapons to spread the ball out to.

Gronk playing well and helping the offense doesn't undermine anyone.. He's a serious weapon and is utilized as such

What does this have to do with what I said?

[JerodMayo51]

What does this have to do with what I said?

You said that Gronk's impact to the offense undermines Brady's candidacy, which I think is false because every good QB has a weapon or two that impact their offenses greatly.

Brady went 8-2 last year with no Gronk and still had a top 10 offense with nearly 100% turnover at the WR and TE positions and had to make it work with THREE rookie WRs

What he was able to do with a bare cupboard was nothing short of astounding, and once he got Gronk back he did even better, which is to be expected when your offense gets their biggest weapon back

[Shane Bond]

Lol.. you could say that for just about every qb in the league.. luck should be mvp.. without him offense would be awful, with the colts lack of a running game, theres no way hassleback could compensate the way luck does.. colts defense is mediocre at BEST, so theyre not winning games. If luck went down with a injury this team would be back to 2-14.. patriots have gone many games without gronk and done very well.. like last year they made the playoffs and did great.. colts team without luck.. and theres no way the colts make playoffs

which is why he is special because he is not a QB and yet very valuable

[JerodMayo51]

which is why he is special because he is not a QB and yet very valuable

Very valuable yes, but not more valuable than the top QBs

[Shane Bond]

Very valuable yes, but not more valuable than the top QBs

Discussion is who is most valuable in NE and he is to me.

[amfootball]

Are we talking about this year? Because all the talk this year has been about how, once Gronk got healthy and got going, the Pats were a different team. No?

Obviously, Gronk isn't the MVP, and isn't the Pats MVP, but considering how reliant the team can be on him, it kind of undermines Brady's candidacy.

No. Gronk getting healthy also coincided with the line playing better which is the biggest key and Brady getting in sync with Wright who was a late addition. The defense also began playing better after losing Mayo early and then a couple of trades so new guys getting assimilated. It all pretty much came together at the same time and of course Gronk getting well was a part of it.

 

Nothing undermines Brady's candidacy. He was not playing well to start the year and the results showed. Now he is playing at an MVP level and that is what will be needed for this team to make a run at the ring. It begins with 12 and then I would put Revis next and then Gronk.

[JerodMayo51]

Discussion is who is most valuable in NE and he is to me.

Hey if that's your opinion then cool man, but I think most would agree that if Brady went down last year instead of Gronk, the team would not have gone 8-2 through that stretch and made it to the AFCCG.

You think Mallet and Gronk could have taken 3 rookie WRs all the way?

[Superman]

You said that Gronk's impact to the offense undermines Brady's candidacy, which I think is false because every good QB has a weapon or two that impact their offenses greatly.

Brady went 8-2 last year with no Gronk and still had a top 10 offense with nearly 100% turnover at the WR and TE positions and had to make it work with THREE rookie WRs

What he was able to do with a bare cupboard was nothing short of astounding, and once he got Gronk back he did even better, which is to be expected when your offense gets their biggest weapon back

Nope. I said that all this talk about how Gronk's presence has made them a top tier team this year supportd his MVP candidacy. And that undermines Brady's candidacy.

Understand, Gronk is obviously not their MVP. Brady is. But there's a huge difference in Brady's play -- from "is he done?" to "Brady's back!" -- and the only difference is Gronk.

And the 2014 MVP has nothing to do with 2013.

[amfootball]

Nope. I said that all this talk about how Gronk's presence has made them a top tier team this year supportd his MVP candidacy. And that undermines Brady's candidacy.

Understand, Gronk is obviously not their MVP. Brady is. But there's a huge difference in Brady's play -- from "is he done?" to "Brady's back!" -- and the only difference is Gronk.

And the 2014 MVP has nothing to do with 2013.

No the biggest difference was the Oline playing better. And Lafells and Edelman as well as Gronk and now the last few weeks Wright. The Pats offense always takes time to evolve every season.

[JerodMayo51]

But there's a huge difference in Brady's play -- from "is he done?" to "Brady's back!" -- and the only difference is Gronk.

It's not just Gronk, it was also the offensive line where they were moving guys around and tried 5 different line combinations before finally getting it right, as well as LaFell getting in sync with Brady

But yea, Gronk greatly improves their redzone efficiency, no doubt about that. But there was more to their improved performance than just him getting healthy

Heck, I wouldn't be shedding tears if they gave the award to Gronk.. He's fabulous and it would be awesome to see another position get some love

But I think the motives of a lot of people suggesting Gronk is the MVP is more to try and continue to undermine/devalue Brady by crediting the offensive success to someone else than it is because they actually believe it

Same thing happened in 2007, it was all because of Moss and any * with a football could just toss it up into quadruple coverage and pass for 50+ tds with ease.

The players all keep changing, all except for 1, and they continue to be a top offense every single year

It's all a moot point anyways because unless Rodghas gets a serious injury, the award is his to lose

[Superman]

No. Gronk getting healthy also coincided with the line playing better which is the biggest key and Brady getting in sync with Wright who was a late addition. The defense also began playing better after losing Mayo early and then a couple of trades so new guys getting assimilated. It all pretty much came together at the same time and of course Gronk getting well was a part of it.

Nothing undermines Brady's candidacy. He was not playing well to start the year and the results showed. Now he is playing at an MVP level and that is what will be needed for this team to make a run at the ring. It begins with 12 and then I would put Revis next and then Gronk.

Your entire post undermines Brady's candidacy, IMO. There arr other players who are performing, week in and week out, despite flaws on their team. Brady wasn't on that list through six weeks.

You mentioned poor line play and defensive deficiencies. The Colts have both, yet Andrew Luck has produced consistently all season. His team hasn't been slowly getting better around him. Same for Rodgers and Manning. All these teams have about the same record.

Don't get me wrong. Brady is clearly the Pats MVP, and they won't go anywhere without him. (See my argument against Watt earlier on. I'm not sure he can claim to be MVP when his team doesn't win or lose based on how he plays, and isn't winning a lot of games.) I just think his candidacy for league MVP has more flaws this season than others.

To me, it's Rodgers, at this point. That might change over the next month. But they struggled without him last year, and now they look like a top five team, and he's having a great year.

[BOTT]

Idk how people say brady is number 2 to gronk.. that just sounds stupid.. brady throwing gronk the ball is what makes gronk.. you take brady of the field and put some average qb in and gronk wouldnt be anything.. fact of the matter is.. brady makes gronk.. gronk dont make brady

That's just silly.

[amfootball]

Your entire post undermines Brady's candidacy, IMO. There arr other players who are performing, week in and week out, despite flaws on their team. Brady wasn't on that list through six weeks.

You mentioned poor line play and defensive deficiencies. The Colts have both, yet Andrew Luck has produced consistently all season. His team hasn't been slowly getting better around him. Same for Rodgers and Manning. All these teams have about the same record.

Don't get me wrong. Brady is clearly the Pats MVP, and they won't go anywhere without him. (See my argument against Watt earlier on. I'm not sure he can claim to be MVP when his team doesn't win or lose based on how he plays, and isn't winning a lot of games.) I just think his candidacy for league MVP has more flaws this season than others.

To me, it's Rodgers, at this point. That might change over the next month. But they struggled without him last year, and now they look like a top five team, and he's having a great year.

I think you missed the point. The Pats winning has everything to do with BRADY playing at an MVP level the last 8 weeks. The other parts coming together has made their victories more dominant but nonetheless the winning never stopped which has always been the case with Brady at the helm for almost 14 years now.

 

And in terms of Luck, Manning and Rodgers - -none of them had the WORST ranked offensive line the first month of the season.

[Superman]

It's not just Gronk, it was also the offensive line where they were moving guys around and tried 5 different line combinations before finally getting it right, as well as LaFell getting in sync with Brady

But yea, Gronk greatly improves their redzone efficiency, no doubt about that. But there was more to their improved performance than just him getting healthy

Heck, I wouldn't be shedding tears if they gave the award to Gronk.. He's fabulous and it would be awesome to see another position get some love

But I think the motives of a lot of people suggesting Gronk is the MVP is more to try and continue to undermine/devalue Brady by crediting the offensive success to someone else than it is because they actually believe it

Same thing happened in 2007, it was all because of Moss and any * with a football could just toss it up into quadruple coverage and pass for 50+ tds with ease.

The players all keep changing, all except for 1, and they continue to be a top offense every single year

It's all a moot point anyways because unless Rodghas gets a serious injury, the award is his to lose

I'm not trying to undercut Brady. I didn't in 2007, either. To be honest, that feels like a deflection, but that's not relevant.

I just think that his struggles while his team straightened out are a significant blow to his candidacy. When people say "yeah, the line was struggling, and Gronk wasn't ready, and the defense wasn't playing well, no wonder Brady wasn't producing," it's an acknowledgement of a greater level of reliance than other candidates have. And let's not forget how weak Brady's early season performances were. We're not just talking about some losses. His play wasn't very good, to the point that Jimmy Garappolo was being mentioned (which was always silly, but still.)

[JerodMayo51]

You mentioned poor line play and defensive deficiencies. The Colts have both, yet Andrew Luck has produced consistently all season. His team hasn't been slowly getting better around him. Same for Rodgers and Manning. All these teams have about the same record.

Using that argument there is no way you could consider Manning then either. .. he has way more talent around him than Brady does, so by your argument that would undermine him.

There also isn't a lot of room for improvement when your offense is loaded to the brim with skill weapons and a talented line.. the Pats were playing 3 rookies along the offensive line, Gronk was still not healthy and LaFell had no chemistry with Brady as a 1st year guy

Obviously they started to get better, because a QB needs the people around him to succeed, regardless of team or system

Luck has a hall of fame in Wayne, an extremely talented burner in Hilton, a 1st round TE talent in Fleener, a touchdown machine in Allen and a RB who was picked in the top 5

He's not working with peanuts out there, he has weapons around him, but unfortunately doesn't have much help in the line

Rodgers had Jordy Nelson who's arguably the best WR in the league right now, Randall Cobb who's an incredible speedster, and Eddie Lacy who's one of the best backs in the league

His offensive line is solid as well..

So why don't you think it undermines them having talented players contribute, but you do think so for Brady?

[amfootball]

I'm not trying to undercut Brady. I didn't in 2007, either. To be honest, that feels like a deflection, but that's not relevant.

I just think that his struggles while his team straightened out are a significant blow to his candidacy. When people say "yeah, the line was struggling, and Gronk wasn't ready, and the defense wasn't playing well, no wonder Brady wasn't producing," it's an acknowledgement of a greater level of reliance than other candidates have. And let's not forget how weak Brady's early season performances were. We're not just talking about some losses. His play wasn't very good, to the point that Jimmy Garappolo was being mentioned (which was always silly, but still.)

Rodgers struggled early on this season as well to the point that he had to tell everyone to r-e-l-a-x. His team came together around him similar to Brady and now he is the top candidate for MVP. It is always a team effort with these things not sure why you are trying to extrapolate that out. I am pretty sure Colts fans were reminding us how well the defense was playing prior to the Pats game and your top notch STs so Luck has had his help too.

[Superman]

I think you missed the point. The Pats winning has everything to do with BRADY playing at an MVP level the last 8 weeks. The other parts coming together has made their victories more dominant but nonetheless the winning never stopped which has always been the case with Brady at the helm for almost 14 years now.

And in terms of Luck, Manning and Rodgers - -none of them had the WORST ranked offensive line the first month of the season.

Are we talking about the 2014 MVP, or about how great Brady is and has been throughout his career? Those are separate conversations.

[amfootball]

Are we talking about the 2014 MVP, or about how great Brady is and has been throughout his career? Those are separate conversations.

You tell me. You are the one that said you think this year is different from his other seasons in terms of his MVP candidacy. I obviously disagree.

[Shane Bond]

How comfortable does any Pats fans would feel playing Denver without Gronk this year?.

The answer to this will say it.

[Superman]

Using that argument there is no way you could consider Manning then either. .. he has way more talent around him than Brady does, so by your argument that would undermine him.

There also isn't a lot of room for improvement when your offense is loaded to the brim with skill weapons and a talented line.. the Pats were playing 3 rookies along the offensive line, Gronk was still not healthy and LaFell had no chemistry with Brady as a 1st year guy

Obviously they started to get better, because a QB needs the people around him to succeed, regardless of team or system

Luck has a hall of fame in Wayne, an extremely talented burner in Hilton, a 1st round TE talent in Fleener, a touchdown machine in Allen and a RB who was picked in the top 5

He's not working with peanuts out there, he has weapons around him, but unfortunately doesn't have much help in the line

Rodgers had Jordy Nelson who's arguably the best WR in the league right now, Randall Cobb who's an incredible speedster, and Eddie Lacy who's one of the best backs in the league

His offensive line is solid as well..

So why don't you think it undermines them having talented players contribute, but you do think so for Brady?

To answer your question, it's because those players didn't struggle to produce for the first six weeks of the season.

Setting aside all of the other points of contention in that post, that's really it. Brady didn't perform well. We can talk about why, but that's the bottom line. It wasn't until the team started making adjustments that he got back on track. By Brady standards, he was BAD early this season. In comparison to other top QBs, he was bad.

The MVP produces, he makes his teammates better (doesn't wait for them to make him better), and his team wins a lot of games because of it. I don't think that describes Brady this season. If I had to vote 1-5, he'd be in there somewhere, probably 4th, but not at the top.

[amfootball]

To answer your question, it's because those players didn't struggle to produce for the first six weeks of the season.

Setting aside all of the other points of contention in that post, that's really it. Brady didn't perform well. We can talk about why, but that's the bottom line. It wasn't until the team started making adjustments that he got back on track. By Brady standards, he was BAD early this season. In comparison to other top QBs, he was bad.

The MVP produces, he makes his teammates better (doesn't wait for them to make him better), and his team wins a lot of games because of it. I don't think that describes Brady this season. If I had to vote 1-5, he'd be in there somewhere, probably 4th, but not at the top.

That also describes Rogers as well who began the season poorly and came on strong once his team starting producing around him. So is he outside your top 3 as well?

[Fx Stryker]

That also describes Rogers as well who began the season poorly and came on strong once his team starting producing around him. So is he outside your top 3 as well?

 

No it doesn't. Rodgers wasn't bad, but he wasn't great. He was okay.

 

Brady was bad. He was benched bad. The Pats, and Brady were blown out by the Dolphins and Chiefs and barely beat the Raiders.

 

Rodgers wasn't blown out this season.

 

Also let's not forget Rodgers just outplayed Brady.

[JerodMayo51]

To answer your question, it's because those players didn't struggle to produce for the first six weeks of the season.

Setting aside all of the other points of contention in that post, that's really it. Brady didn't perform well. We can talk about why, but that's the bottom line. It wasn't until the team started making adjustments that he got back on track. By Brady standards, he was BAD early this season. In comparison to other top QBs, he was bad.

The MVP produces, he makes his teammates better (doesn't wait for them to make him better), and his team wins a lot of games because of it. I don't think that describes Brady this season. If I had to vote 1-5, he'd be in there somewhere, probably 4th, but not at the top.

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

[amfootball]

No it doesn't. Rodgers wasn't bad, but he wasn't great. He was okay.

 

Brady was bad. He was benched bad.

Rodgers was not bad? He would not even throw at Sherman in the Packs loss to Seattle and then just 7 vs Detroit. Brady had his stinkers vs Miami in the second half and KC but that has been it. Both were 2-2 to start the season and both had fan bases that were agitated and wondering what was going on hence Rodgers r-e-l-a-x statement.

[Superman]

You tell me. You are the one that said you think this year is different from his other seasons in terms of his MVP candidacy. I obviously disagree.

?

What does his performance in any other season have to do with his MVP candidacy this year?

[JerodMayo51]

Still just scratching my head that improving and overcoming adversity are looked at as negatives when it comes to MVP candidacy

[amfootball]

?

What does his performance in any other season have to do with his MVP candidacy this year?

It doesn't. You were the one that said you saw this season different from his other MVP worthy seasons. I disagree.

[MJD42]

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.

[Superman]

That also describes Rogers as well who began the season poorly and came on strong once his team starting producing around him. So is he outside your top 3 as well?

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?