the mvp race

[Moose Of Woe]

Really, you posted this? . . . what basis do you take this from? . . . pulling it out of a hat . . .

 

 

Well, for one, we've seen the Patriots without Brady before and they were a far cry from bad.

 

Sure it was a while ago, but I'd argue this team NE has now is easily better than that one. Record be damned. For one, they have a secondary worth its salt. That alone makes it more well rounded. The D is miles better and the special teams are a notch up from back then, too. (Although they've always been solid, they've made a lot of plays this year.)

[Moose Of Woe]

so Brady and the pats have had a tougher schedule won more games and more handily against the cream of the NFL

 

I've been saying for, like, 8 weeks that the Pats are the best team in the league by a mile. Yes, they've beat tougher teams than GB has overall.

 

It it makes you feel any better, Brady will probably get SB MVP since I don't see anybody actually stopping them. A few teams have nothing more than a slight chance.

[sportsworld33]

LOL, the Packers receivers dropped like 7 passes yesterday. Brady played like a bum for two and a half quarters, then threw a couple of TDs once they had already started to pull away. Brady is moving up the list, but it's still Rodgers.

Also, games like yesterday show why JJ Watt isn't going to win MVP. Two sacks, constant disruption, held an explosive offense to just 17 points, and they still never had a chance to win because they don't have a QB. For any non-QB to win, their team has to get on their back and win games. The Vikings won 10 games with Christian Ponder, and it's because after Percy Harvin got hurt, AP went hog and carried his team to the playoffs. Watt is amazing, and if MVP voting was like Heisman voting, he'd get recognition, and maybe even steal it, but he's not winning MVP.

 

That can be said with the Browns last week against the Colts too.  But the Browns had a chance,

[sportsworld33]

Well, for one, we've seen the Patriots without Brady before and they were a far cry from bad.

 

Sure it was a while ago, but I'd argue this team NE has now is easily better than that one. Record be damned. For one, they have a secondary worth its salt. That alone makes it more well rounded.

 

That was the 2008 season.  In 2007 they went 18-1, one of the greatest teams in the history of the NFL.  So their downfall wouldn't have been that big without their starting QB.  The Pats also had a good backup QB ready to fill the role for one season before anyone had any film on him.  

 

The 2011 Colts were not as good or complete as the 2008 Pats.

[Moose Of Woe]

That was the 2008 season.  In 2007 they went 18-1, one of the greatest teams in the history of the NFL.  So their downfall wouldn't have been that big without their starting QB.  The Pats also had a good backup QB ready to fill the role for one season before anyone had any film on him.  

 

The 2011 Colts were not as good or complete as the 2008 Pats.

And again, record be damned, I'd argue this Patriot team is better than that one. It is by far a more complete team that can win in all 3 phases of the game. 2008/2007 could not.

 

What do the Colts have to do with it? I don't think Peyton is even close to being the MVP this season. I figured he would be when it began, but he's declined pretty significantly.

 

Matt Cassel was not a good backup. He's a  frickin' terrible QB who  got drummed out of K.C.  He played like hot garbage aside from one fair season getting carried by their defense.

[sportsworld33]

MYTH: "The Pats would be winning the division every season without Brady and make the playoffs every season."

[Moose Of Woe]

MYTH: "The Pats would be winning the division every season without Brady and make the playoffs every season."

You overestimate the AFC East.

 

The Pats would, more often than not, win the division every season without Brady provided they had a mediocre at worst QB. With a terrible one they lost 5 games on a worse team than they have now.

The big difference is NE wouldn't run away with the division like it usually does. They'd drop ~3 games without him at least.

[amfootball]

And again, record be damned, I'd argue this Patriot team is better than that one. It is by far a more complete team that can win in all 3 phases of the game. 2008/2007 could not.

 

What do the Colts have to do with it? I don't think Peyton is even close to being the MVP this season. I figured he would be when it began, but he's declined pretty significantly.

 

Matt Cassel is not a good backup. He is frickin' terrible.

That 2007 team was pretty special all around. I like this 2014 team a lot but they are nowhere close offensively to that team and are not quite as good defensively either. STs are better though. For my money the 2004 was the most complete. Great pass game, great run game with Dillon, suffocating defense and solid STs. Just no weakness anywhere.

[sportsworld33]

And again, record be damned, I'd argue this Patriot team is better than that one. It is by far a more complete team that can win in all 3 phases of the game. 2008/2007 could not.

 

What do the Colts have to do with it? I don't think Peyton is even close to being the MVP this season. I figured he would be when it began, but he's declined pretty significantly.

 

Matt Cassel is not a good backup. He is frickin' terrible.

 

I personally like this Pats' D on this 2014 team better than the '07 Defense.  The '07 D was on it's last legs, was slow, had trouble stopping the run and couldn't get off the field on 3rd down.  Now I know some one will post stats comparing the '07 Pats' D vs the '14 Pats' D and I wouldn't be surprised if the '07 Pats' D was ranked higher but it's really not as good as the '14 D.  The secondary now is better and more complete from top to bottom.  They got multiple legit corners and safety's   Their LB's are faster.  Collins, Hightower, Ninkovich, are all faster than what Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau were in '07.

[Moose Of Woe]

That 2007 team was pretty special all around. I like this 2014 team a lot but they are nowhere close offensively to that team and are not quite as good defensively either. STs are better though. For my money the 2004 was the most complete. Great pass game, great run game with Dillon, suffocating defense and solid STs. Just no weakness anywhere.

2004 is certainly the best team NE has ever had...2003 is a very close second.

 

This Patriot team is more akin' to 2001 but with a better offense. A team that could get the job done whereas 2007 could not. Yes 2007 was a monster offense, but I still think the D and special teams they have now more than make up for it. I can see there being a grey line with the D, though.

[Moose Of Woe]

I personally like this Pats' D on this 2014 team better than the '07 Defense.  The '07 D was on it's last legs, was slow, had trouble stopping the run and couldn't get off the field on 3rd down.  Now I know some one will post stats comparing the '07 Pats' D vs the '14 Pats' D and I wouldn't be surprised if the '07 Pats' D was ranked higher but it's really not as good as the '14 D.  The secondary now is better and more complete from top to bottom.  They got multiple legit corners and safety's   Their LB's are faster.  Collins, Hightower, Ninkovich, are all faster than what Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau were in '07.

Yeah..pretty much everything you said is why I'd say this defense is better than '07. (And the team as whole even though the offense, while still very good, isn't ludicrous.)

[dw49]

That's quite a tornado of logic, IMO. I disagree with plenty of it, but no matter. End of the day, I don't think Brady's MVP candidacy is as strong as you do.

 

Agree and also 7 drops is utterly insane. I remember our playoff loss to Balt had I think 4 or 5 and it totally destroyed our offense that game. 

[chandcole]

Click below to see the map of NFL Fandoms.  Click link in map to vote for the BILLS and your least favoite team.

Favorite Team... Least Favorite Team

[Yehoodi]

That's quite a tornado of logic, IMO. I disagree with plenty of it, but no matter. End of the day, I don't think Brady's MVP candidacy is as strong as you do.

 

I just felt the need to explain myself, and at times I find it easier to simply write what I think then the write what I think and spend the time to redraft, although sometimes I do draft outside the forum and redraft and cut and paste . . .

 

I guess we are going to have to disagree with my points, fair enough . . . but I will stand by the point that it takes two to tango and sometimes your teammate helps (catches) and sometimes he does not (drops) and the same goes for your opponent does the same on each count . . . I will view all of them and the season in a continuum and not necessary single out one thing when I know I got the opposite benefit or determent a game or two earlier . . . things even out in the wash if you will . . .

 

As for the merits of my opinion I will stick to it . . . I am not a fan of stats per se and will look to wins as important also, and more specifically who you play and when . . . is the opponent a tomato can or division leader, does the team hold down a QBs "stats" or are they are sieve allowing a middle of the road QB 400 yards in his sleep . . . and so on . . .

 

And as I mentioned Pats have played tougher competition and handle them better . . . and if I recall you in a earlier post indicated that wins are important to a MVP candidacy . . . and with that said the extension of this is the ability to garner these wins against tougher competition as the same is more difficult to accomplish . . . surely your teammates help out on the matter but so does other players teammates . . . . sometimes Gronk drops a pass that could of led to a game winning TD when it in his hands, sometimes Devin McCourty takes a bad angle and allows Nelson to score a TD, then sometimes your D gets a pick 6 or a Collins blocks a FG and Arrington scores a TD on ST or Edelman breaks a big play for a TD at a critical time or run back a punt for a TD . . . and so on . . . so yah I would love to come in talk about how frustrating it was that Brady's teammates "hurt" his chances in GB and say that was the end to things but that is not how it is as he has teammates help out in other games . . . 

 

So we'll have to disagree fair enough . . . to date Brady and the pats are holding the #1 seed in the AFC and are 6-2 against winning teams post 40+ points against most of them, meanwhile Rodgers and the Packers are 2-3 against winning teams, got to play the NFC South, are presently the 6th seed in the NFC and trailing in the division to the Detroit Lions who have not won the division since I think the Bush I administration and are coached by a coach that a certain fan base thought was below average . . .

 

surely there are two more games to go and the race could change, GB could beat Detroit in Lambeau, and the Pats could cough up the #1 seed like last year . .. but that is in in future and as it stands now has not happen yet . . . so for me at this point it time its still Brady, surely that could change, but we are not their yet . . . so I will stick with my man Brady with the two respective resumes to date . . . 

 

sorry long winded again . . .    

[Yehoodi]

The point is the bad game is the exception, not the norm. Usually he plays good to great and the NE game was par for the course.

 

I hear yah, sure he can have a bad game and a 7 drop performance will not likely happen again for a long long time . . . and yes it is an exception . . . but sometimes you can overcome it if the opponent is bad, like Luck's great comeback against Cleveland, what a game that was . . . but then at times the opponent does not allow you back in the game and you lose . . . and yes there have been times when Brady has had a bad game and bailed out as the opponent and/or opponent coach, or his own teammates . . . I do think over the long haul of a 16 games season the tougher the schedule one has to deal with the more likely one will see loses . . . and GB picked the wrong team to have a bad game . . . and you margin of error is less with a tougher schedule and one of the reason why I am more impressed with a similar record with a tougher schedule as one has performed and accomplished with a smaller margin of error . . .

 

but yes I do see you point about it being a single anomaly . . .

 

[hey I got that post in in just over a paragraph]

[Moose Of Woe]

I hear yah, sure he can have a bad game and a 7 drop performance will not likely happen again for a long long time . . . and yes it is an exception . . . but sometimes you can overcome it if the opponent is bad, like Luck's great comeback against Cleveland, what a game that was . . . but then at times the opponent does not allow you back in the game and you lose . . . and yes there have been times when Brady has had a bad game and bailed out as the opponent and/or opponent coach, or his own teammates . . . I do think over the long haul of a 16 games season the tougher the schedule one has to deal with the more likely one will see loses . . . and GB picked the wrong team to have a bad game . . . and you margin of error is less with a tougher schedule and one of the reason why I am more impressed with a similar record with a tougher schedule as one has performed and accomplished with a smaller margin of error . . .

 

but yes I do see you point about it being a single anomaly . . .

 

[hey I got that post in in just over a paragraph]

Nothing wrong with writing out your thoughts in coherent paragraphs lol. (Even if that was one run on sentence!)       Some people see more than two sentences and think it constitutes a rant/TL/DR. Those types are not worth talking to, honestly. I always recommend the Dr. Seuss forums for them.

 

Your paragraphs don't frighten me, but the Patriots do.

[Yehoodi]

Well, for one, we've seen the Patriots without Brady before and they were a far cry from bad.

 

Sure it was a while ago, but I'd argue this team NE has now is easily better than that one. Record be damned. For one, they have a secondary worth its salt. That alone makes it more well rounded. The D is miles better and the special teams are a notch up from back then, too. (Although they've always been solid, they've made a lot of plays this year.)

 

yes we did well in 2008 with Cassel . . . I have always maintain and will continue that the difference between a great QB and a solid back up is only a few wins . . . so was not surprise he and the pats went 11-5 . . . we did have a week schedule which help, I believe we played the two western divisions . . . and for what it is worth Cassel did go 10-5 with KC two years later

 

I do agree that the present day Pats team is very solid, finally we are getting enough playmakers on D to, in the aggregate, make it a solid unit front to back . . . I think when you have only a few playmakers it can be tough . . .

 

Perhaps they are overall better that the Packers, but I would mentioned that the packers offense does have playmakers and not sure I would say that side of the ball is weaker than the pats . . .

 

But even if we were to say for the sake of argument the Pats team was better, you still have the fact that in signature wins Brady and the pats are winning handily and by 3 TDs most of the time and Packers win by less than a touchdown . . .so even if one were to state that his team is better, Brady is doing a lot more with just more than Rodgers . . .

[Yehoodi]

I've been saying for, like, 8 weeks that the Pats are the best team in the league by a mile. Yes, they've beat tougher teams than GB has overall.

 

It it makes you feel any better, Brady will probably get SB MVP since I don't see anybody actually stopping them. A few teams have nothing more than a slight chance.

 

I hope so, be nice to win another title . . . we will have to wait and see . . . yes the pats have been good, finally the D is filling out like and is a solid part of the team, which is a relief . . .

[southwest1]

Watt, hands down. Or hands up perhaps! Brady is not in the running, nor is Luck, and nor should they be.

Your hands down/hands up line on JJ was hysterical BHC! 

[amfootball]

I just felt the need to explain myself, and at times I find it easier to simply write what I think then the write what I think and spend the time to redraft, although sometimes I do draft outside the forum and redraft and cut and paste . . .

 

I guess we are going to have to disagree with my points, fair enough . . . but I will stand by the point that it takes two to tango and sometimes your teammate helps (catches) and sometimes he does not (drops) and the same goes for your opponent does the same on each count . . . I will view all of them and the season in a continuum and not necessary single out one thing when I know I got the opposite benefit or determent a game or two earlier . . . things even out in the wash if you will . . .

 

As for the merits of my opinion I will stick to it . . . I am not a fan of stats per se and will look to wins as important also, and more specifically who you play and when . . . is the opponent a tomato can or division leader, does the team hold down a QBs "stats" or are they are sieve allowing a middle of the road QB 400 yards in his sleep . . . and so on . . .

 

And as I mentioned Pats have played tougher competition and handle them better . . . and if I recall you in a earlier post indicated that wins are important to a MVP candidacy . . . and with that said the extension of this is the ability to garner these wins against tougher competition as the same is more difficult to accomplish . . . surely your teammates help out on the matter but so does other players teammates . . . . sometimes Gronk drops a pass that could of led to a game winning TD when it in his hands, sometimes Devin McCourty takes a bad angle and allows Nelson to score a TD, then sometimes your D gets a pick 6 or a Collins blocks a FG and Arrington scores a TD on ST or Edelman breaks a big play for a TD at a critical time or run back a punt for a TD . . . and so on . . . so yah I would love to come in talk about how frustrating it was that Brady's teammates "hurt" his chances in GB and say that was the end to things but that is not how it is as he has teammates help out in other games . . . 

 

So we'll have to disagree fair enough . . . to date Brady and the pats are holding the #1 seed in the AFC and are 6-2 against winning teams post 40+ points against most of them, meanwhile Rodgers and the Packers are 2-3 against winning teams, got to play the NFC South, are presently the 6th seed in the NFC and trailing in the division to the Detroit Lions who have not won the division since I think the Bush I administration and are coached by a coach that a certain fan base thought was below average . . .

 

surely there are two more games to go and the race could change, GB could beat Detroit in Lambeau, and the Pats could cough up the #1 seed like last year . .. but that is in in future and as it stands now has not happen yet . . . so for me at this point it time its still Brady, surely that could change, but we are not their yet . . . so I will stick with my man Brady with the two respective resumes to date . . . 

 

sorry long winded again . . .    

Such solid points here. Strength of schedule and strength of victory do matter greatly in this discussion. Thanks for taking the time to write them out. I always appreciate your posts and the take you take to make your points which are always well reasoned and balanced.

[sweetsurrender]

I just felt the need to explain myself, and at times I find it easier to simply write what I think then the write what I think and spend the time to redraft, although sometimes I do draft outside the forum and redraft and cut and paste . . .

 

I guess we are going to have to disagree with my points, fair enough . . . but I will stand by the point that it takes two to tango and sometimes your teammate helps (catches) and sometimes he does not (drops) and the same goes for your opponent does the same on each count . . . I will view all of them and the season in a continuum and not necessary single out one thing when I know I got the opposite benefit or determent a game or two earlier . . . things even out in the wash if you will . . .

 

As for the merits of my opinion I will stick to it . . . I am not a fan of stats per se and will look to wins as important also, and more specifically who you play and when . . . is the opponent a tomato can or division leader, does the team hold down a QBs "stats" or are they are sieve allowing a middle of the road QB 400 yards in his sleep . . . and so on . . .

 

And as I mentioned Pats have played tougher competition and handle them better . . . and if I recall you in a earlier post indicated that wins are important to a MVP candidacy . . . and with that said the extension of this is the ability to garner these wins against tougher competition as the same is more difficult to accomplish . . . surely your teammates help out on the matter but so does other players teammates . . . . sometimes Gronk drops a pass that could of led to a game winning TD when it in his hands, sometimes Devin McCourty takes a bad angle and allows Nelson to score a TD, then sometimes your D gets a pick 6 or a Collins blocks a FG and Arrington scores a TD on ST or Edelman breaks a big play for a TD at a critical time or run back a punt for a TD . . . and so on . . . so yah I would love to come in talk about how frustrating it was that Brady's teammates "hurt" his chances in GB and say that was the end to things but that is not how it is as he has teammates help out in other games . . . 

 

So we'll have to disagree fair enough . . . to date Brady and the pats are holding the #1 seed in the AFC and are 6-2 against winning teams post 40+ points against most of them, meanwhile Rodgers and the Packers are 2-3 against winning teams, got to play the NFC South, are presently the 6th seed in the NFC and trailing in the division to the Detroit Lions who have not won the division since I think the Bush I administration and are coached by a coach that a certain fan base thought was below average . . .

 

surely there are two more games to go and the race could change, GB could beat Detroit in Lambeau, and the Pats could cough up the #1 seed like last year . .. but that is in in future and as it stands now has not happen yet . . . so for me at this point it time its still Brady, surely that could change, but we are not their yet . . . so I will stick with my man Brady with the two respective resumes to date . . . 

 

sorry long winded again . . .    

Great stuff. Hard to argue against the points you raise ... I agree that the last two games will decide it. If GB ends up being a WC and the Pats secure the best record in football then I think Brady gets it.

[MJD42]

I have been saying all season that GB is overrated. When you look at then you see a team that has dominated the dregs of the league at home - Vikings, Panthers, Bears, Eagles (with Sanchez at QB) and then has been plain awful on the road vs Detroit, Seattle, Saints, Bills. 

 

They played maybe their best game of the year vs the Patriots which made people believe they were a great team but since have come back down again with an abysmal performance vs the Falcons and an even worse one vs the Bills.

 

They have struggled historically at Tampa Bay, a place where Rodgers has never won and has awful stats. They could easily lose on Sunday and also vs Detroit even though that is at Lambeau. 

[Yehoodi]

Great stuff. Hard to argue against the points you raise ... I agree that the last two games will decide it. If GB ends up being a WC and the Pats secure the best record in football then I think Brady gets it.

 

yah the last games are going to be key . . . Rodgers can certainly help his case if he wins the last two games . . . and we must not forget about Murray with the Cowboys . . .I know he broke a bone in his hand but if he is able to play and get 300ish yards in the last two games and the Cowboys win the division and/or get a bye, he has a shot at being the MVP . . .