This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Record or no, Brees meant more to his team than anyone else to any other team. Brees is the obvious MVP.
Because he spearheaded the most effective offense in NFL history?
Att Cmp Pct Yards Y/Att TD Int Rating125 155 80.6% 833 5.4 1 8 72.3I don't see how Brees meant more to his team than Brady, I'm not saying Brady is the MVP but that line of thinking is just wrong.
Rodgers had a PHENOMENAL year. 9% TD rate is beyond insane. And as you noted, he only turned the ball over 1.8% of his touches.But it's not like Brees was a turnover machine. Had had 14 ints and 1 fumble, for 2.2% turnover rate.
The reason I think Stafford and Brady won't get it.63.5% compared to the numbers Rodgers and Brees put up.I could see a co-MVP between Brees and Rodgers though.Brees for the yardage, TD and completion % numbers.Rodgers for TDs/INT, rating, and a yards per attempt that just destroyed the competition.
All year long we heard about how the Packers were toast if Rodgers didn't play lights out every single week, and the one week he had a down game they lost, if you're going make the "who means the most to his team" argument I think there is just as much a case for Rodgers as anybody.
Rodgers did not play last week, his team went 15-1, he had the best TD:Int ratio by a mile , best QB rating and he didn't need a 400 yard 5 TD week 17 to pad his stats. Without last week against Carolina would this be a conversation?
I agree that Brady and Stafford don't have a chance. However, I think they were just as valuable to their teams as Brees and Rodgers. When Stafford had the splint and glove on, he struggled a bit and threw 9 INTs in a 3 game span. Without the splint and glove, he had just 7 INTs in the remaining 13 games. He led three comebacks of 17+ points, most by a QB since 1950.
The Packers went 15-1 ...Rodgers was a more efficient QB , you can't upgrade Brees over Rodgers because he threw 150 more passes than him. Imagine what Rodger's numbers would be if he had the same number of attempts. What do you think the Packer's Record would be if Matt Flynn started all 17 games?
I have never liked this aspect of the MVP debate and I've always wished they would change the name of the award back to "Most Outstanding Player" or whatever it used to be. I would rather debate/compare what candidate players actually achived on the field than debate what backup players might or might not have done in some hypothetical alternate universe. Brees and Rodgers did some work. Compare it. That's what it's about in my mind.
Those don't count, it's Most Valuable Passer, not Most Valuable Player.
Rodger's all the way big boy Yards/Play TDs/Play TOs/PlayRodgers 7.83 8.03% 1.00%Brees 7.70 6.70% 2.14%Brady 7.54 6.12% 2.04%Stafford 6.74 5.69% 2.36%I wouldn't. Sure Calvin set career numbers in receptions, yards, and TDs. With Stafford playing as well as he did, the Lions top 3 WRs and top 2 TEs all set personal records of some sort. Pettigrew set a Lions franchise record for receptions and yards by a TE. Burleson set a career high in receptions. Scheffler set a career record for TD receptions, and rookie Titus Young scored 6x in the final 8 games of the season.
Stats don't factor too high in my equation. Simply put, take Calvin off the field and the Lions would not be close to playoff contention. Same can probably be said for Stafford, but less so IMO. Calvin makes everyone's job much easier.
Rodgers team scored more points (not to mention they weren't out there padding stats late).I always thought scoring points was the best way to judge an offense.
So did Tom Brady, Stafford nearly did, and Rodgers would have as well if the Packers cared about padding stats as much as the Saints do. We could do the same thing for pretty much every player, cherry pick stats that make that player's season look impressive and disregard the facts, but that wouldn't make much sense would it?
Then why did Det in the 4 years prior to this, with Calvin, only amass 15 wins? The only season in which Stafford stayed on the field the entire season, they win 10 games and get into the playoffs for the first time in an eternity. Calvin may be a better player in comparison with his peers (meaning he is probably the best WR in the NFL today and clearly Stafford is not the best QB in the NFL today albeit a very good one). However, the importance of a QB to his team vs. the importance of a WR is drastic in the NFL and there's not nearly enough of a talent gap for Calvin to make up that difference in value to the Lions. Calvin is the best WR in football and Stafford is probably a top 5 or 6 QB. As was mentioned earlier, Stafford played his worst football of the year while nursing an injured hand and it clearly impacted him. It also impacted Johnson. All that aside, Stafford has no business being in the MVP conversation IMO. It's a shame because he did have a terrific season. Rogers and Brees simply had better, much better. The only real tragedy for Stafford is that he was snubbed from the Pro Bowl for E. Manning. That is total BS on just about every level. The MVP is Rogers. I can appreciate Brees' season but he was not nearly as efficient as Rogers.
The Packers were in position to be able to sit him because of his play.How should that cost him the MVP? Because he did in 15 games what most others could not do in 16?Brees also finished with how many more passing attempts than Rodgers?
The Saints offense gained 13.66 yards per point. Its very good but nowhere near the best in NFL history. They racked up a ton of yards, but other teams converted them into points more efficiently.
Rogers had a QB rating of 122 this year, 12 points better than Brees. That 122 is the best QB rating I could find in history going back at least 25 years. He also won 14 our of 15 games and gave his team the best record in the NFL. I don't see how the choice isn't clear. It's Rogers.
But you don't have to say "what if". Rodgers' numbers in 15 games were more impressive than Brees' were in 16, unless passing yards are the only thing you're looking at for the MVP.Rodgers had:More total TDs (passing + rushing)Less than half the interceptionsMore winsMore yards per attemptMore rushing yardsBrees had a remarkable season to be sure, but he was not as efficient or consistent as Rodgers was. Rodgers was the best.
If you truly think this year's Saints offense was "nowhere near the best in NFL history" you aren't paying attention. The NFL record book says otherwise.
This argument is an interesting one to me. It seems to me that the head to head win really does not give Rodgers the MVP nod (particularly because Brees played as well in that game as Rodgers statistically speaking) but rather shows that Rodgers has a better supporting cast. I really think the better argument for Rodgers this year is that he may have had the best QB season in the history of the league from an efficiency perspective. But winning head to head does not seem like a logical argument to me, but then again I am not a voter so whether I see it as logical or not really has no bearing.
It is close I agree. But once again the deciding factor is Brees played in all 16 games and in turn finishes with better overall numbers. Rodgers may have some impressive efficiency numbers but in the end I think Brees numbers are better in whole than Rodgers.I have had this argument before with stats guys. What is better? Having a better completion percentage and using the clock to take up time and get down the field to get the same result or getting the higher yards per attempt. I mean in a crucial 3rd or 4th down situation do I want the guy with a better completion percentage or the guy with the better yards per attempt?Brees 71% to Rodgers 68.3% seems to balance the difference in Rodgers 9.2 ypa to Brees 8.3.Brees 47 total TD's, 1 lost fumble, and 5562 total yards is amazing.vs Rodgers 4900 total yards, 48 tds, 4 lost fumbles seems to look better to me as well.Rodgers also took 12 more sacks than Brees.Brees had 15 total turn overs vs Rodgers 10. Marginal to me.Wins Brees 13, vs Rodgers 14 is marginal as well. Not enough to make up the 600 less total yards that Brees ended up with.I mean in perspective a 4000 yard season by a QB is/was a very good year. But a 3400 yard season is very average. 600 yards less is huge to me.Once again although Rodgers is better in some categories, overall I think Brees wins.
I don't think anybody denies that Rodgers has better numbers in meaningful categories. Neither do I think that the MVP is solely a statistical award.The biggest thing working in Brees favor right now is that I think people are finally starting to wise up that they have virtually ignored his accomplishments over the last 6 years. The MVP voters know they botched it in 09 by giving it to Manning and Brees has never really been given his just due.I still think Rodgers will win by a close vote, but it is only right that there is a debate because there are so many other factors that go into this besides raw statistics.
'Peter King][FONT=verdana][SIZE=10px][/FONT][/SIZE] [B]The MVP dilemma.[/B] Brees made it a horse race said:
Brings up lost fumbles but not INTs?And Rodgers has not lost 4 fumbles. He has fumbled 4 times and not lost any of them.And not enough to make up total yards? Ever think the large number of more attempts for Brees has anything to do with that?And still hilarious discounting Rodgers because he had his team in position so he could take the last game off (in addition to leaving in the third quarter in two other games).
Nothing like cherry-picking stats to make your candidate look better. I can't believe he didn't bring up the INTs like we weren't actually going to call him on it.
I read this article earlier today and I thought this part funny:
Agree with this for sure.
I don't see how considering Manning makes sense. He added zero value to the Colts this season.
Interesting point. I think that's a worthwhile exercise.
