Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

the mvp race


CR91

Recommended Posts

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 wasn't his QB for most of last year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

he set a few in Minnesota

 

He was total forgotten in Oakland into a black hole of irrelevancy.. then went to the Pats, broke Rice's TD record and played in a SB... and suddenly was relevant again and demanding top money.. then he gets traded to Minnesota and disappears, then is traded to the Titans and disappears even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

lets not forget about the offensive line getting coordinated around week 4, the development of Lafell and so on . . . a lot of things have come together to help Brady . . . the oline has been a big help and giving Brady protection and if I recall we only had one sack in the last five games, with that one against GB being the one . . .  

 

Gronk is certainly a very big help . . . but we have had success without him . . . are our SB chances diminished if he is out, surely they are, but as for winning games during the regular season, we have had success without . . . 

 

yes there is always a chicken and the egg argument of who makes who better and it not an exact science and all have great teammate that help elevate their play . . . some are name Wayne, Harrison, Thomas, Nelson, Welker and some are named Gronk and Moss . . . so its a qualification on each candidacy as opposed to only one candidacy being affected . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 . . .

You make a compelling case that NE has faced a tougher schedule than the Packers Yehoodi & considering how your team resurrected itself after the KC Chiefs pounding earlier this year; Brady has played well. No argument there. 

 

In your previous post you mentioned "the development of Lafell and so on", it's not like he was a rookie WR. Okay, I will grant you that it takes some time to master a new playbook, figure out Tom's preferences, & earn his trust. I will give you that. 

 

At the end of the day, I'm just glad to see another NFL player besides Peyton Manning get awarded the MVP once in awhile. I like to see such a prestigious honor make the rounds a little bit. So if Rogers or Brady gets it this year, I'm cool with it. 

 

Just remember the MVP is a tree ornament next to this:  :lombardi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 . . .

Yeah, no one has brought up strength of schedule and strength of victory but this season is an awful lot like 2007 when the Pats play and dominated winning teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yea I meant from some on this board.

Manning didn't need the players around him to "get better" because he had the most offensive talent around him in the league to start the season lol..

He didn't "carry" his team, they were all playing lights out which is what happens when you have that kind of talent.

Having less talent and inconsistencies, addressing those while suffering 2 devestating losses and righting the ship to me are major components of leadership and MVP qualities

Rodgers is without a doubt the MVP to me right now, but I'd put Brady ahead of Manning and Luck.

Luck throws too many picks and makes too many bad decisions still to be considered the most valuable player in the league, and Manning's performance has actually gotten slightly worse over the year while the team really has been winning despite him and his poor performances at times

Murray I think still has to be considered, just watching that guy run. .. He's something special.. he has incredible patience and vision.. it doesn't look like he's moving all that fast as he let's his blocks develop infront of him, but then he makes his choice and hits the hole fast and hard... he had amazing body control and center of gravity, just bouncing off people and weaving his way for huge chunks of yardage after contact

We're lucky as fans of the nfl to see so many great performances this season. Like last year was a boring MVP race because none outside of Manning was having a year that really stood out.

I thought he'd be the second unanimous MVP but it didn't happen. I wonder if/when it will happen again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check Moss's rookie season. Any why hasnt Brady neared 50 TDs since Moss left?.

Hitting 50+ TDs is not a common thing, obviously stated seeings how Marino was the only person to do it until Manning and Brady came along, and they were only able to do it because of the talent they had on offense

You think Manning would have hit 50 without Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison and Dallas Clark?

Or hit 55 without D Thomas, Welker, Decker and J Thomas?

You need weapons on offense to score those kinds of points to go along with an elite QB.

Kyle Orton, Rivers, Ryan, Roethlisberger and those types couldn't do what Manning or Brady did, and Manning/Brady couldn't have done it without some very talented players at the skill positions and a good offensive line

And I've also been on record saying that I felt 2010 was more impressive for Brady anyways. People are so enamored with passing Tds, but that season he went for like 34 tds and only 4 picks on the year was even better than the air it out slingfest in 2007, it was the third highest scoring offense in history with 2 rookie tight ends and Wes Welker.

Impressive stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes there is always a chicken and the egg argument of who makes who better and it not an exact science and all have great teammate that help elevate their play . . . some are name Wayne, Harrison, Thomas, Nelson, Welker and some are named Gronk and Moss . . . so its a qualification on each candidacy as opposed to only one candidacy being affected . . .

Thats the most frustrating part about debates here, is that everyone will point to a person on the Pats offense and say that's why Brady is doing good, but they'll refuse to acknowledge the tremendous wealth of talent that surrounds the other players that they compare him to.

It's always "Moss made Brady great" "Welker makes Brady great" "Gronk makes Brady great "

But you NEVER hear

"Wayne and hilton make Luck great"

"Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne make Manning great"

"D Thomas, Welker, Decker/Sanders aND J Thomas make Manning great"

It's a double standard here every time Brady is in the conversation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitting 50+ TDs is not a common thing, obviously stated seeings how Marino was the only person to do it until Manning and Brady came along, and they were only able to do it because of the talent they had on offense

You think Manning would have hit 50 without Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison and Dallas Clark?

Or hit 55 without D Thomas, Welker, Decker and J Thomas?

You need weapons on offense to score those kinds of points to go along with an elite QB.

Kyle Orton, Rivers, Ryan, Roethlisberger and those types couldn't do what Manning or Brady did, and Manning/Brady couldn't have done it without some very talented players at the skill positions and a good offensive line

And I've also been on record saying that I felt 2010 was more impressive for Brady anyways. People are so enamored with passing Tds, but that season he went for like 34 tds and only 4 picks on the year was even better than the air it out slingfest in 2007, it was the third highest scoring offense in history with 2 rookie tight ends and Wes Welker.

Impressive stuff.

Translation, Brady needed Moss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitting 50+ TDs is not a common thing, obviously stated seeings how Marino was the only person to do it until Manning and Brady came along, and they were only able to do it because of the talent they had on offense

You think Manning would have hit 50 without Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison and Dallas Clark?

Or hit 55 without D Thomas, Welker, Decker and J Thomas?

You need weapons on offense to score those kinds of points to go along with an elite QB.

Kyle Orton, Rivers, Ryan, Roethlisberger and those types couldn't do what Manning or Brady did, and Manning/Brady couldn't have done it without some very talented players at the skill positions and a good offensive line

And I've also been on record saying that I felt 2010 was more impressive for Brady anyways. People are so enamored with passing Tds, but that season he went for like 34 tds and only 4 picks on the year was even better than the air it out slingfest in 2007, it was the third highest scoring offense in history with 2 rookie tight ends and Wes Welker.

Impressive stuff.

the funny thing about all the talented players in Denver is, none of them were considered great before Manning got there. What did Sanders do before going to Denver? What has Decker done this year? What did J Thomas do before manning was the qb? D Thomas wasn't considered an elite wr before 2012. A great qb can make guys great who weren't considerd so before hand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodgers was actually off early in that game and settled for field goals too often. I agree that he will be MVP, but me think his performance in that game has been exaggerated.

 

Fair point. But the Pats have been tough to throw on in the red zone... and I think it's fair to say he had a TD pass flat-out dropped late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets not forget about the offensive line getting coordinated around week 4, the development of Lafell and so on . . . a lot of things have come together to help Brady . . . the oline has been a big help and giving Brady protection and if I recall we only had one sack in the last five games, with that one against GB being the one . . .  

 

Gronk is certainly a very big help . . . but we have had success without him . . . are our SB chances diminished if he is out, surely they are, but as for winning games during the regular season, we have had success without . . . 

 

yes there is always a chicken and the egg argument of who makes who better and it not an exact science and all have great teammate that help elevate their play . . . some are name Wayne, Harrison, Thomas, Nelson, Welker and some are named Gronk and Moss . . . so its a qualification on each candidacy as opposed to only one candidacy being affected . . .

 

This post is probably better directed at your fellow Pats fans, some of whom are arguing that Brady "made" Moss or Gronkowski. I never said anyone made anyone, not in this thread or any other.

 

Fair point on the offensive line. It's an exaggeration to say that the only change was Gronk. My point was just that Brady's resurgence to high level QB play was reliant on the team around him getting better (most notably, Gronkowski getting going), and that undermines his candidacy for MVP. Doesn't nullify it, by any means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Gronk angle...

 

His return to full health was a major part of the Patriots turning things around after week 4. As others have pointed out, there were definitely other factors, like stability with personnel on the O-line, the emergence of LaFell as a viable outside target, and Brady simply playing better at his position too. So it's hard to pinpoint one thing.

 

I will say this:

 

Without Gronk, the Patriots' offense would go from excellent to average.

 

Without Brady, the Patriots' offense would go from excellent to (probably) below average, based solely on not having an experienced backup. 

 

Without either of them, stick a fork in 'em.  ;)

 

You guys know how MVP voting works. If all things hold Rodgers has it wrapped up. If he stumbles a little and Brady doesn't, then it's a two-man race at this point. I'm not saying neither Manning nor Luck are deserving - I'm not giving my opinion about who I feel should win it, but rather who I think will win it, based on history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitting 50+ TDs is not a common thing, obviously stated seeings how Marino was the only person to do it until Manning and Brady came along, and they were only able to do it because of the talent they had on offense

You think Manning would have hit 50 without Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison and Dallas Clark?

Or hit 55 without D Thomas, Welker, Decker and J Thomas?

You need weapons on offense to score those kinds of points to go along with an elite QB.

Kyle Orton, Rivers, Ryan, Roethlisberger and those types couldn't do what Manning or Brady did, and Manning/Brady couldn't have done it without some very talented players at the skill positions and a good offensive line

And I've also been on record saying that I felt 2010 was more impressive for Brady anyways. People are so enamored with passing Tds, but that season he went for like 34 tds and only 4 picks on the year was even better than the air it out slingfest in 2007, it was the third highest scoring offense in history with 2 rookie tight ends and Wes Welker.

Impressive stuff.

 

Let's talk about 2010. I absolutely think it was Brady's best season, and he deserved MVP.

 

But I can talk about why Manning had it tougher all day long. No offensive line, no running game, every WR/TE/RB except Wayne got hurt (Blair White had a couple of multiple TD games...), the defense was terrible and had a bunch of guys on IR. As a matter of fact, I think the Colts set a record for IR players that season. Yet, the Colts still won 10 games, and aside from a three week stretch where Manning threw 11 interceptions, he was more efficient than the previous season when he won MVP and the Colts went to the Super Bowl. He set a career high in completions and yards that year, also. And the very next season, basically the same Colts team only won 2 games without him. 

 

I can talk about all that until I'm blue in the face, and give Manning credit for holding a pretty pitiful roster together and getting them to the playoffs. But the fact remains that he didn't deserve MVP that year. Not even close. And there were other players aside from Brady that were more deserving than Manning that year. It doesn't mean Manning is any less valuable to his team. 

 

No one is talking about 50 TDs or what makes a QB elite or who has the best weapons, etc. We're not ranking QBs, either. The discussion is about the 2014 NFL MVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sore looser.. lmao

no, it's just your premise is too silly for to waste my time. if you wanna say that the qb is a much bigger factor in the passing game than a receiver, fine, but there are special receivers and Gronk is one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had 3200 yards and a 66% completion rating and only threw 5 picks.. rushed for 826 yards and 7 touchdowns.. that was the year garcon had all those yards.. if those arent great stats.. your crazy

i watched watched him play. he passing skills were always inflated...i said it then and he hasn't done anything to disprove me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, it's just your premise is too silly for to waste my time. if you wanna say that the qb is a much bigger factor in the passing game than a receiver, fine, but there are special receivers and Gronk is one of those.

If you dont read my post then you wont understand my point. Special receivers are special because they 9 times out of 10 they have a special qb. My post goes into depth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i watched watched him play. he passing skills were always inflated...i said it then and he hasn't done anything to disprove me.

Hasnt done anything but put great numbers up his rookie year.. other than that id have to agree.. im not saying hes good by any means just saying he did have a good year when garcon lead the league in yards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you dont read my post then you wont understand my point. Special receivers are special because they 9 times out of 10 they have a special qb. My post goes into depth

i agree for the most part, but Gronk is one of those 1%ers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I mean, there's definitely a question of Brady being more accurate. Their accuracy% are basically the exact same. And Luck takes waaay more deep shots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Let's talk about efficiency:

 

Luck has the 3rd highest YPA of all starters

4th highest TD %

3rd IN ANY/A

3rd in deep accuracy

4th in passer rating

9th best INT%

10th in accuracy% (Brady is 9th; .1% higher even though Luck throws deep 2.6% more often)

 

He also has 213 rushing yards and 2 TDs on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he'd be the second unanimous MVP but it didn't happen. I wonder if/when it will happen again

As long as someone from NE gets to vote, there wont be unanimous MVP outside NE.

 

You do remember Manning received all first except the one voter from NE right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, there's definitely a question of Brady being more accurate. Their accuracy% are basically the exact same. And Luck takes waaay more deep shots.

The stats don't reflect how Luck needs refinement with leading receivers, throws that are behind receivers, short, etc. Brady throws some in the ground sometimes, and doesn't connect on deep balls, but the intermediate throws and timing throws that great QBs thrive on, Brady is money, and Luck has some work to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stats don't reflect how Luck needs refinement with leading receivers, throws that are behind receivers, short, etc. Brady throws some in the ground sometimes, and doesn't connect on deep balls, but the intermediate throws and timing throws that great QBs thrive on, Brady is money, and Luck has some work to do.

 

That's ball placement. I don't consider them the same, but w/e. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as someone from NE gets to vote, there wont be unanimous MVP outside NE.

You do remember Manning received all first except the one voter from NE right.

Yeah, that was dirty. I don't care about unanimous MVP, but that guy master-trolled the whole system. He's trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as someone from NE gets to vote, there wont be unanimous MVP outside NE.

 

You do remember Manning received all first except the one voter from NE right.

 

Yeah, that was dirty. I don't care about unanimous MVP, but that guy master-trolled the whole system. He's trash.

 

 

It wasn't a New England writer. It was Jim Miller, who now does Sirius radio and I believe the pre/post game shows for the Bears. Miller was a backup here for one season. He's a Chicago guy, not a Boston writer. 

 

Same thing happened in 2007, by the way. One guy voted for Favre. 

 

It's not a big deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a New England writer. It was Jim Miller, who now does Sirius radio and I believe the pre/post game shows for the Bears. Miller was a backup here for one season. He's a Chicago guy, not a Boston writer. 

 

Same thing happened in 2007, by the way. One guy voted for Favre. 

 

It's not a big deal. 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Gronk angle...

 

His return to full health was a major part of the Patriots turning things around after week 4. As others have pointed out, there were definitely other factors, like stability with personnel on the O-line, the emergence of LaFell as a viable outside target, and Brady simply playing better at his position too. So it's hard to pinpoint one thing.

 

I will say this:

 

Without Gronk, the Patriots' offense would go from excellent to average.

 

Without Brady, the Patriots' offense would go from excellent to (probably) below average, based solely on not having an experienced backup. 

 

Without either of them, stick a fork in 'em.  ;)

 

Yes, I agree 100% with what I bolded in your reply GP. However, I still say your most lethal offensive weapon is WR Julian Edelman because he's small, catches everything like velco, is easy to lose in DB traffic, & he's a stud on special teams. Gronk doesn't scare me, but Edelman gives me down & distance nightmares man. He's like death by a thousand paper cuts. 

 

Sorry to go off script there buddy. Even as a kid, I often colored outside the lines & I still do apparently. LOL! 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...