Predictions for MVP of the 2015 regular season

[Gavin]

Peyton

[Lawrence Owen]

I have always wondered given this slant toward the QB position why the league does not have a most valuable QB award and a most valuable non-QB award. I also think they should have both an AFC MVP and an NFC MVP the way baseball does.

They do have offensive and defensive players of the year for both conferences.  I think that is what those awards are generally for.

[amfootball]

They do have offensive and defensive players of the year for both conferences.  I think that is what those awards are generally for.

Yes, very good point. I think the title "MVP" has more significance though. I would still like to see a QB MVP and non QB MVP as the QB position itself is the most valuable in all of team sports.

[Superman]

I have always wondered given this slant toward the QB position why the league does not have a most valuable QB award and a most valuable non-QB award. I also think they should have both an AFC MVP and an NFC MVP the way baseball does.

 

I don't see it as necessary. If you want to know who the most valuable player in the league is, why not keep it the way it is. Three times in the last 10 years, the award has gone to a non-QB. If you want to determine something else -- most outstanding, most dominant -- then change the name/criteria. But MVP is MVP, and in the NFL, that's most likely a QB. I don't see why it's wrong to acknowledge that, or why we should try to change it.

 

As for MLB, the primary reason they have two awards is because they have always been two leagues, and up until recently there was no interleague play. Now, since 1973, one league has the DH and another doesn't, so they even have different rules. There's actually justification for having two separate MVPs. I don't think that justification exists in the NFL, and there's been no historical bias toward one conference or the other for MVP voting. The only reason the AFC has more MVPs in the recent past is because Brady and Manning have been the best QBs in the league and have generally been on some of the best teams in the league for the past decade-plus; between them, they have 7 of the last 12. Before that, it was Favre and a bunch of other NFC guys. 

[Yehoodi]

I don't see it as necessary. If you want to know who the most valuable player in the league is, why not keep it the way it is. Three times in the last 10 years, the award has gone to a non-QB. If you want to determine something else -- most outstanding, most dominant -- then change the name/criteria. But MVP is MVP, and in the NFL, that's most likely a QB. I don't see why it's wrong to acknowledge that, or why we should try to change it.

 

As for MLB, the primary reason they have two awards is because they have always been two leagues, and up until recently there was no interleague play. Now, since 1973, one league has the DH and another doesn't, so they even have different rules. There's actually justification for having two separate MVPs. I don't think that justification exists in the NFL, and there's been no historical bias toward one conference or the other for MVP voting. The only reason the AFC has more MVPs in the recent past is because Brady and Manning have been the best QBs in the league and have generally been on some of the best teams in the league for the past decade-plus; between them, they have 7 of the last 12. Before that, it was Favre and a bunch of other NFC guys. 

 

I hear you but AM does have a good point.  With the QB getting a great deal of praise, they more often than not will get the MVP award unless a person at the other positions have an all worldly year.    In baseball there is the Cy Young award going to the pitchers.   And yes the pitchers are eligible for the MVP at times a fielder will get the award as opposed to a pitchers when it is close.  Pitchers have won the MVPs awards, but with the separate Cy Young award, one fines that fielders will get more opportunities to win the MVP when it is close.   Whereas in football the tie will always favor the QB cause "he is more valuable to the team" then an outside linebacker.

 

So there is some separation and separate award for a more key player in the team as we see in baseball, perhaps football might want to come up with something similar.

[amfootball]

I don't see it as necessary. If you want to know who the most valuable player in the league is, why not keep it the way it is. Three times in the last 10 years, the award has gone to a non-QB. If you want to determine something else -- most outstanding, most dominant -- then change the name/criteria. But MVP is MVP, and in the NFL, that's most likely a QB. I don't see why it's wrong to acknowledge that, or why we should try to change it.

 

As for MLB, the primary reason they have two awards is because they have always been two leagues, and up until recently there was no interleague play. Now, since 1973, one league has the DH and another doesn't, so they even have different rules. There's actually justification for having two separate MVPs. I don't think that justification exists in the NFL, and there's been no historical bias toward one conference or the other for MVP voting. The only reason the AFC has more MVPs in the recent past is because Brady and Manning have been the best QBs in the league and have generally been on some of the best teams in the league for the past decade-plus; between them, they have 7 of the last 12. Before that, it was Favre and a bunch of other NFC guys. 

Yehoodi pretty much made my point.   With the CY young in baseball, it would be good if football did the same thing with QBs.

[Superman]

I hear you but AM does have a good point.  With the QB getting a great deal of praise, they more often than not will get the MVP award unless a person at the other positions have an all worldly year.    In baseball there is the Cy Young award going to the pitchers.   And yes the pitchers are eligible for the MVP at times a fielder will get the award as opposed to a pitchers when it is close.  Pitchers have won the MVPs awards, but with the separate Cy Young award, one fines that fielders will get more opportunities to win the MVP when it is close.   Whereas in football the tie will always favor the QB cause "he is more valuable to the team" then an outside linebacker.

 

So there is some separation and separate award for a more key player in the team as we see in baseball, perhaps football might want to come up with something similar.

 

Pitchers rarely get MVP because they don't play every day, so their "value" is limited compared to a position player. Most Valuable Player should measure just that, value. It takes a transcendent performance for a pitcher to get MVP, and we just saw that last year. 

 

The Cy Young award determines the best pitchers, not the most valuable pitcher. The best. Completely different standard. Pitchers don't get locked out of MVP voting because there's a Cy Young award. 

 

If you want a Best Player award, Most Outstanding, Most Dominant, whatever, then let's have that award. Let's not change MVP just because people don't like that QBs always win it. QBs are the most valuable players, most often.

 

If there's a tie, I disagree that it would go to the QB. If a player at a different position actually had an equal argument, I think people would favor the other player, not the QB, because his performance/production would likely be so far above what anyone would expect from that position in order for his value to even rival a QB. I said earlier, I don't think Watt was as valuable as Rodgers last season -- great season, no doubt -- but he got 13 votes just because of novelty / making a statement. "When will I get another chance to vote for a DL for MVP? Better write in Watt while I can..." If there's really a case to be made, I think the other player would get the benefit of the doubt, not the QB. And I'm fine with that. Like I said, anyone who rivals a QB in value has to have a transcendent performance. 

[Superman]

The NFL used to have a Player of the Year award. Bring that back. It's entirely subjective, but based on what the player does on the field/for his team. Best, most dominant, most outstanding, whatever... That would have been JJ Watt last year, for sure. But don't change the meaning of MVP.

[Lawrence Owen]

Honestly, I think college football does it right with how they hand out awards:

 

• Chuck Bednarik Award (defensive player)
• Fred Biletnikoff Award (wide receiver)
• Frank Broyles Award (assistant coach)
• Butkus Award (linebacker)
• Walter Camp Award (player of the year)
• Disney Spirit Award (inspirational individual or team)
• Draddy Trophy ("academic Heisman")
• Lou Groza Award (placekicker)
• Ray Guy Award (punter)
• Heisman Trophy (outstanding player)
• Lombardi Award (lineman or linebacker)

• John Mackey Award (tight end)
• Maxwell Award (best player)
• Bronko Nagurski Trophy (defensive player)
• Davey O'Brien Award (quarterback)
• Outland Trophy (lineman)
• Dave Rimington Trophy (center)
• Eddie Robinson Award (FCS head coach)
• Jim Thorpe Award (defensive back)
• Doak Walker Award (running back)

[Yehoodi]

Pitchers rarely get MVP because they don't play every day, so their "value" is limited compared to a position player. Most Valuable Player should measure just that, value. It takes a transcendent performance for a pitcher to get MVP, and we just saw that last year. 

 

The Cy Young award determines the best pitchers, not the most valuable pitcher. The best. Completely different standard. Pitchers don't get locked out of MVP voting because there's a Cy Young award. 

 

If you want a Best Player award, Most Outstanding, Most Dominant, whatever, then let's have that award. Let's not change MVP just because people don't like that QBs always win it. QBs are the most valuable players, most often.

 

If there's a tie, I disagree that it would go to the QB. If a player at a different position actually had an equal argument, I think people would favor the other player, not the QB, because his performance/production would likely be so far above what anyone would expect from that position in order for his value to even rival a QB. I said earlier, I don't think Watt was as valuable as Rodgers last season -- great season, no doubt -- but he got 13 votes just because of novelty / making a statement. "When will I get another chance to vote for a DL for MVP? Better write in Watt while I can..." If there's really a case to be made, I think the other player would get the benefit of the doubt, not the QB. And I'm fine with that. Like I said, anyone who rivals a QB in value has to have a transcendent performance. 

 

I see you are not a fan of baseball.  Contrary to your position, pitchers are extremely valuable, perhaps not as valuable as a QB, but if there was a second place in teams sports it would be pitchers imo. I don't care if they play every 5th game, great aces can be "stoppers" and can stop a slump and can assure a team a win when needed.   Indeed the greats will win 20+ games in some years and if one wins say 23 games that will very likely is 25% of the teams total win total maybe more.  And if a single player is predominately responsible for 25% of a teams wins, that is impressive and something I do not think one can say about a position player.

 

Furthermore, although they only "play" every 4th-5th game, they play essentially half the game.  Like a QB in football who has his hands on the ball for about say 45% of the game (with the other offense 45% and ST 10%) and pitcher that pitches a complete game has his hands on the ball for half the game, and if they go 7 or 8 innings the time is not too far off a QB contribution to a game.  

 

In addition as we look at contribution over the entire season we can look at things in the matter of at bats and batter faced.  True a position player may play ever game but his contribution to the team effort may only be 4-5 at bats per game or 20-25 at bats over a 5 game stretch.   Whereas a pitcher will have his hands on the ball and pitch to say 4 batters per inning and will be 24 batters in 6 innings and 28 batters in 7 innings.  So over that 5 game stretch a position player will contribute to the offense 20-25 at bats and a pitcher will contribute to the defense 24-28 at bats defended.  True a position player will play in the field for all of the 5 games, but are not always in the play on defense.  But certainly pitcher is not one that just contribute to 1/5th of the games, they are not place kickers.

 

Finally, we can also see the value of a pitcher when we look at the year salaries and that old saying "money talks and that other things walks".  Seeing that we live in a capitalized society and we can get a good gauge as to what front offices think and the value of a player based on their yearly salary.

 

Of the top 20 NFL players paid in 2014, 12 are QBs (60%)

Of the top 20 MLB players paid in 2014, 8 are pitchers (40%), the numbers are about the same 8/15 (53%) and 13/30 (43%) when you expand it.

 

So bottom line money talks and folks who are valuable to team get paid and pitchers are in the ballpark with QBs but do not get the love the QBs get from sports writers who vote for the MVP.  Again if they were just place kickers they would be paid accordingly, but they are not.  

 

Indeed in the last 30 years 32 MVP awards have been handed out and 20 of them have been handed to QBs (about 68%), QBs represent 60% top 20 paid players and have taken away 68% of the awards. sounds about right. 

 

In those same 30 years of baseball, of the 60 MVPs awards handed out, only a mere 4 pitchers have received the award, so 4/60 or 6.66% of the awards.  (btw 1/9 is 11.1%)

 

Just to do a quick NHL point, of the past 8 MVP awards 7 have been won by 4 of the top 6 paid players in the NHL.  And if we go back and look the past winners most would agree that the Lafleurs, Gretzys, Messiers, Lemieuxs, Jagrs were all among the top paid players in their primes.  My guess would be one would find the same correlation with the NBA. 

 

No its not a direct linear comparison in the sports of NFL, NHL and NBA, but the folks that are consider valuable by the front office and can command high salaries more often than not will receive the same opinion from the MVPs voters.

 

Diverging from this common theme and logic are the MVPs voters in baseball.   Why because there is the Cy Young they can hand to the pitchers.  Every time there is a close race between a pitcher and a position player,  and some times when the pitcher is better, the position player will get the mvp and the pitcher with get the Cy Young.  Pedro for the Red Soxs got snubbed this way in '99 and '00.   Baseball is funny that way.  If you don't believe me just listen to any sports talk radio program when they are taking about the MVP in baseball, and the story is the same, the pitchers get the Cy Young and the others guys get the MVPs 

 

And in my best Ted Wells impersonation  . . . "the significant deflation in the correlation between what someone is deemed valuable as a player in what he can command on the open market and what writers think are valuable as a player in the sport of baseball can only be explained by improper human intervention; and that it is more probable than not that the MLB voters snub pitchers"

 

Sorry for long post but you got going me a bit.   .

 

EDIT:  And again my original point was trying to bring out something that I believe and that is, fair or not, pitchers get the Cy Young, its kind of badge of honor after all, and although it seems unfair, it is a way another sport kind of segregates certain players, fair or not, into a certain cubby hole and the rest are free to have another award.  If the NFL had the best QB award and treated it like a Cy Young, it would free up the MVP for others players.   That's was my original thought on hopping on AM's point and I know I got a little verbous above.  

[Superman]

 

Honestly, I think college football does it right with how they hand out awards:

 

• Chuck Bednarik Award (defensive player)
• Fred Biletnikoff Award (wide receiver)
• Frank Broyles Award (assistant coach)
• Butkus Award (linebacker)
• Walter Camp Award (player of the year)
• Disney Spirit Award (inspirational individual or team)
• Draddy Trophy ("academic Heisman")
• Lou Groza Award (placekicker)
• Ray Guy Award (punter)
• Heisman Trophy (outstanding player)
• Lombardi Award (lineman or linebacker)

• John Mackey Award (tight end)
• Maxwell Award (best player)
• Bronko Nagurski Trophy (defensive player)
• Davey O'Brien Award (quarterback)
• Outland Trophy (lineman)
• Dave Rimington Trophy (center)
• Eddie Robinson Award (FCS head coach)
• Jim Thorpe Award (defensive back)
• Doak Walker Award (running back)

 

 

And no one remembers who won any of them... except Heisman, of course.

[Gavin]

And no one remembers who won any of them... except Heisman, of course.

Which is a shame

[Superman]

I see you are not a fan of baseball.  Contrary to your position, pitchers are extremely valuable

 

Two wrong ideas right off the bat. I am a baseball fan, though it's not my favorite sport. And I never said pitchers aren't extremely valuable. You spent most of your post arguing about the value of a pitcher, and it's entirely off the mark.

 

I will address one of your arguments about a pitchers value relative to a QBs: MLB doesn't have a strict salary cap; NFL does. So any salary comparison of any player in baseball vs an NFL player is kind of pointless. And in baseball, pretty much anyone can be the highest paid player. In football, it's going to be a QB, with little exception. The 7 highest paid players in the NFL are QBs, as are 16 of the top 20; compared with only 10 of the top 20 baseball players being pitchers.

 

And really, this is the wrong year for you to be arguing this point, as a pitcher just won an MVP in baseball last season (and it happened four years ago also). And he won it because he so clearly deserved it. Aside from you being a Red Sox fan, I don't understand how Pedro was snubbed. He got plenty of votes for MVP, just not enough to beat other players who had great years themselves. He won Cy Young both years, going away, because he was the best pitcher in the AL. That's entirely different from being the most valuable player.

 

Which brings us full circle -- most valuable means most valuable, not best, not most dominant, not most outstanding... most valuable. Why try to distinguish between who is most valuable at a particular position and who is most valuable overall? MLB doesn't do this with the Cy Young award; it's a different criteria entirely, not tied to value at all. And because the MLB season is so long, and it's such an individualized sport, you sometimes have Cy Youngs and MVPs on bad teams, which is pretty well unheard of in the NFL. Most valuable in baseball is much harder to quantify than it is in football, and since it's subjective, a truly transcendent performance from a pitcher can be deemed worthy of MVP. 

 

There's really nothing wrong with the way MVP is determined in the NFL. I'd rather see them just get rid of it entirely than try to alter the meaning of it by separating the truly MVP players from the rest of the league out of a sense of "fairness." Better yet, if you want to award outstanding performances from other positions, just create another award that does so. Don't adulterate what the MVP has always been.

[Superman]

Which is a shame

 

It's too many awards. I like that the conferences have their own awards, but there's no reason for all those awards throughout D1. 

[Gavin]

It's too many awards. I like that the conferences have their own awards, but there's no reason for all those awards throughout D1. 

I like it because I think other players and coaches deserve some recognition, What I don't get is why have a Heisman award and a Walter Camp award, Seems to me both awards symbolize the same thing

[Defjamz26]

It should be either Luck, Rodgers, or Matt Ryan. Tino had a shot too. I thought he had a shot at it this time. So much focus was put on Murray, but Romo played some amazing football with a bad back and all.

[Yehoodi]

Two wrong ideas right off the bat. I am a baseball fan, though it's not my favorite sport. And I never said pitchers aren't extremely valuable. You spent most of your post arguing about the value of a pitcher, and it's entirely off the mark.

 

I will address one of your arguments about a pitchers value relative to a QBs: MLB doesn't have a strict salary cap; NFL does. So any salary comparison of any player in baseball vs an NFL player is kind of pointless. And in baseball, pretty much anyone can be the highest paid player. In football, it's going to be a QB, with little exception. The 7 highest paid players in the NFL are QBs, as are 16 of the top 20; compared with only 10 of the top 20 baseball players being pitchers.

 

And really, this is the wrong year for you to be arguing this point, as a pitcher just won an MVP in baseball last season (and it happened four years ago also). And he won it because he so clearly deserved it. Aside from you being a Red Sox fan, I don't understand how Pedro was snubbed. He got plenty of votes for MVP, just not enough to beat other players who had great years themselves. He won Cy Young both years, going away, because he was the best pitcher in the AL. That's entirely different from being the most valuable player.

 

Which brings us full circle -- most valuable means most valuable, not best, not most dominant, not most outstanding... most valuable. Why try to distinguish between who is most valuable at a particular position and who is most valuable overall? MLB doesn't do this with the Cy Young award; it's a different criteria entirely, not tied to value at all. And because the MLB season is so long, and it's such an individualized sport, you sometimes have Cy Youngs and MVPs on bad teams, which is pretty well unheard of in the NFL. Most valuable in baseball is much harder to quantify than it is in football, and since it's subjective, a truly transcendent performance from a pitcher can be deemed worthy of MVP. 

 

There's really nothing wrong with the way MVP is determined in the NFL. I'd rather see them just get rid of it entirely than try to alter the meaning of it by separating the truly MVP players from the rest of the league out of a sense of "fairness." Better yet, if you want to award outstanding performances from other positions, just create another award that does so. Don't adulterate what the MVP has always been.

 

Value is value regardless of how you want to spin it, and it is part of the award; specifically the middle name.  And if someone is valuable to a team and can help the team win, he has value and he will be paid in money accordingly.   It does not matter which sport it is or if there is or is not a salary cap, or for that matter lower salary, like women's basketball.  Bottom line those who demonstrate that they can provide a high level of value to the team will get paid to provide such value, and will be appropriately near the top of the salaries of their respective sports.  And again money talks and that other thing walks.  

 

And it is no surprise that out of the top say 15-30 paid athletes in their respective sports, one of those will rise up and win the MVP award simply because somebody in the group will have a good enough year to demonstrate that he or she is the most valuable player in the league.  They have the base talent as reflected in their pay and one of them will have an above average year for them to win the MVP award.  Surely there are occasions that a player outside of this hierarchy might win an MVP award but it is more the exception. 

 

So as I indicated we see this correlation in the sports of hockey, men's basketball, and football.  But do not see this with respect to baseball and the pitchers, but yet do see this correlation with other positional players in the sport of baseball.  Funny isn't it that only pitchers are the ones are on the outside looking in?

 

I only brought Pedro as he has monster years in 1999, 2000, but the same could be said for Zito in 2002, Randy Johnson in 1995, Smotlz in 96, Guidry in 1978, to name a few; these guys had the same problem as others, voters aren't going to give them the love so long as the Cy Young award is around, these guys are going to be on the outside looking in on MVP award.  Bottom line, because there is an Cy Young award MLB MVP voters will not award the MVP as often as they should to pitchers.  And like I said you will here this same rumblings by sports host every year a pitcher is in the hunt for the mvp.

 

The salary to who usually wins the MVP is clear enough evidence for me (for those who do not follow baseball or need hard facts of the snub), but if you still can not wrap you head around it, you can look no farther than the inception of the Cy Young award which came out in 1956.  From 1931 to 1955, 50 MVPs were handed out and not unsurprisingly 11 of those 50 went to pitchers (22%), and also they are the ones who won the most of any player position with 11 going to collectively the three outfield positions.    These numbers are expected given the fact that are deemed among most valued players on the teams rosters, my point above.

 

Interestingly, after the inception Cy Young and the 120 or so MVPs handled out pitchers were only award 11 of those or 9% and dropping the pitchers from the top sport to third from the bottom in MVP awards per position, leading only catchers and 2B, the later of which really do not challenge for the MVP.  Sorry but I do not see that as a coincidence, especially when I have heard and experienced otherwise in the last 40 years or so.

 

And no I do not exonerate the MVP voters just cause they handled out the award twice to pitchers in the last four years, that does not change the last 95 or so years since the inception of the award and how the voting of the same change in 1956 when the Cy Young came out.  

[Superman]

...

 

Goodness, man.

 

It's not the Valuable Award. It's the Most Valuable Award. Let's not focus on the second word at the expense of the first, which is a huge qualifier. Pitchers are super valuable; that doesn't make a pitcher most valuable. 

 

You can dismiss the salary cap, but that's nonsense. The hard cap in the NFL (not to mention the larger roster size) restricts max value of contracts for even the best players in the league, including QBs. The absence of a strict cap in MLB means that any comparison of salaries at any positions is pretty pointless. That's not hard to see, unless you don't want to see it.

 

Your entire complaint about pitchers not getting MVP is based on subjective reasoning. However, history -- recent history -- proves that pitchers aren't shut out from MVP consideration, even though there's a separate award specifically for pitchers. Not only do pitchers win MVP -- twice in the last four years, even -- but they get votes all the time.

 

And then the fact that you're complaining about pitchers not getting MVP consideration while at the same time arguing that it would make sense to create a similar structure in the NFL is even more backward. 'It's not fair that they do it this way in baseball, but I think they should do it that way in football also, just because.' ???

 

Exonerate? Goodness, man.

 

All of this is entirely off topic, unsurprisingly. Point is that QBs most often win MVP because most often a QB is MVP. There's no reason to change that, and in fact, it wouldn't make sense to do so. If people would like to acknowledge Best Player, Most Outstanding Player, Most Dominant Player, whatever, then there should be a different award with different criteria. MVP is MVP. 

[SteelCityColt]

Goodness, man.

 

 

Arguing semantics with a Pats fan... that seems familiar lately  

 

BTW I agree with you, it's the award for the Most Valuable Player not the best player and by the way football is set up currently more often than not it's going to be a QB, there's no escaping that. It makes any non QB winner a true outstanding achievement. I mean you do have OPOY and DPOY which I think are fine for adjudging the "best" player but again a QB is going to quite often win OPOY as they also tend to be the best players in the game. 

[Yehoodi]

Goodness, man.

 

It's not the Valuable Award. It's the Most Valuable Award. Let's not focus on the second word at the expense of the first, which is a huge qualifier. Pitchers are super valuable; that doesn't make a pitcher most valuable. 

 

You can dismiss the salary cap, but that's nonsense. The hard cap in the NFL (not to mention the larger roster size) restricts max value of contracts for even the best players in the league, including QBs. The absence of a strict cap in MLB means that any comparison of salaries at any positions is pretty pointless. That's not hard to see, unless you don't want to see it.

 

Your entire complaint about pitchers not getting MVP is based on subjective reasoning. However, history -- recent history -- proves that pitchers aren't shut out from MVP consideration, even though there's a separate award specifically for pitchers. Not only do pitchers win MVP -- twice in the last four years, even -- but they get votes all the time.

 

And then the fact that you're complaining about pitchers not getting MVP consideration while at the same time arguing that it would make sense to create a similar structure in the NFL is even more backward. 'It's not fair that they do it this way in baseball, but I think they should do it that way in football also, just because.' ???

 

Exonerate? Goodness, man.

 

All of this is entirely off topic, unsurprisingly. Point is that QBs most often win MVP because most often a QB is MVP. There's no reason to change that, and in fact, it wouldn't make sense to do so. If people would like to acknowledge Best Player, Most Outstanding Player, Most Dominant Player, whatever, then there should be a different award with different criteria. MVP is MVP. 

 

Oh dear Supes . . . 

 

I ONLY chimed into this thread as AM was talking about a way to have QBs in the sport of football to have their own award thereby possibly freeing up some votes/opportunity for others in the sport to get a chance at an MVP award, fair or not.   I read her post and immediately thought about the Cy Young award in baseball as that award, contrary to your thinking, does that exact thing imo; specifically; as the MVP voters in that sport have the Cy Young award to fall back on to give to the pitchers they will necessarily require the same to be that much more extra special if they are also going to get the MVP award too.   Something I do not see happening to players in say hockey and the non-MVP awards like the Norris, Vezina, Selke and so on.  Folks who win those awards will also win the MVP, well not have their campaign qualified as they won the other awards and have to do something a little more than other players. 

 

But with the Cy Young it is different imo as I have seen this, heard this, and experienced this; and as such, I thought others were of the same experience thereby making my short post (#45) on the point to be self explanatory.   The Cy Young award kind of has its own badge of honor, so from legacy standpoint, pitchers can point to that as "being a two time Cy Young award winner" and not really need the MVP honors as much when invariably folks have their Brady v. Manning debates about great pitchers the Cy Young numbers are thrown in the discussion and have sufficient weight to demonstrate the resume of the particular pitcher

 

Now if you are of another opinion regarding if the Cy Young qualifies one MVP candidacy, fair enough, we can differ there.  I am surprise as a fan of baseball you have never heard commentators talk about this concept.  As you appears you haven't heard this directly I felt the need to demonstrate it with external evidence, talented folks get paid well regardless of the company and it is these same folks that have the skill to win MVP honors and thus there should be similar correlations among companies, and the fact that pitchers winning has decreased since in Cy Young was started.  if we differ, fair enough.     

 

Now with that being said if the NFL were to institute another award, say the "Golden Arm Award", that was solely for the QBs and it establishes itself over time as being a quality award that one can qualify a QB resume, it may not be a bad thing if it would be its own award and open up others to get the MVP.  Surely the QB would get snubbed sometimes when things are close, but like pitchers, they would still get the MVP when they have years like Brady/Manning 2004, 2007 or 2013.   So yah there would be a loss for some QBs in some years and yes it would be too bad, but it would give others a chance to win the MVP, and although snubbed that particular year, the QB would still have the "Golden Arm Award" on their resume.   

[Superman]

Arguing semantics with a Pats fan... that seems familiar lately

 

BTW I agree with you, it's the award for the Most Valuable Player not the best player and by the way football is set up currently more often than not it's going to be a QB, there's no escaping that. It makes any non QB winner a true outstanding achievement. I mean you do have OPOY and DPOY which I think are fine for adjudging the "best" player but again a QB is going to quite often win OPOY as they also tend to be the best players in the game. 

 

I think plenty of the time whoever wins MVP would win Best Player or whatever you want to call it. But times like last year, Rodgers would have won MVP, but Watt would have won the other award, if I were a voter. I can't separate "most valuable" from the criteria for MVP, but Watt was a monster, was entirely dominant, made plays on both sides of the ball, and easily solidified his status as the best DL the game has seen in a long time. But he won DPOY, so it's kind of like you said. There's already an award set up for that acknowledgment.

[Superman]

Now with that being said if the NFL were to institute another award, say the "Golden Arm Award", that was solely for the QBs and it establishes itself over time as being a quality award that one can qualify a QB resume, it may not be a bad thing if it would be its own award and open up others to get the MVP.  Surely the QB would get snubbed sometimes when things are close, but like pitchers, they would still get the MVP when they have years like Brady/Manning 2004, 2007 or 2013.   So yah there would be a loss for some QBs in some years and yes it would be too bad, but it would give others a chance to win the MVP, and although snubbed that particular year, the QB would still have the "Golden Arm Award" on their resume.   

 

More likely, the QB who wins the Golden Arm award would also win the MVP pretty much every year, as QBs are still most often the most valuable players in the game. Unless you lock QBs out from winning MVP, which makes no sense, given the fact that they are most often most valuable.