Greatest Player of All-Time to NEVER be named MVP (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

My counterargument on Brady would be look at the records of the Pats teams when he was out. 

My counterargument on brees would be look at the records of the saints teams when he was in. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My counterargument on brees would be look at the records of the saints teams when he was in. 

Right, and then look at Saints records before he showed up.

 

[bostonfred]

Right, and then look at Saints records before he showed up.

When you say "he showed up" do you mean your coach or qb?

The Pats are 18-20 in 38 games with Belichick and not Brady.  The two together are 196-55.

Brees and Payton both started with the saints in 2006, and Brees without Payton is just above .500 at 47-43. With Payton, his record is 95-63. 

The patriots were 13-21 (8-8 in 1999, 5-11 in 2000, 0-2 in 2001) before Brady started, and finished 11-3 then won the Superbowl.

The saints were 11-21 (8-8 in 2004, 3-13 in 2005) before brees, then went 10-6 and won a playoff game. 

I'm really not sure how you compare them on winning when Brady has over 100 more regular season wins AND fewer regular season losses, plus the whole post season things. 

If you want to compare them on qb statistics you'll see brees is slightly ahead in yards and touchdowns for his career, although he's played in warm weather or a dome while Brady played outdoors in the cold.  Brees is really, really good, and the year he broke Marino's single season yardage record he only got two votes while Rodgers got all 48 of the others, so he certainly deserved mvp consideration. But let's not go crazy. 

 

[Tau837]

When you say "he showed up" do you mean your coach or qb?

The Pats are 18-20 in 38 games with Belichick and not Brady.  The two together are 196-55.

Brees and Payton both started with the saints in 2006, and Brees without Payton is just above .500 at 47-43. With Payton, his record is 95-63. 

The patriots were 13-21 (8-8 in 1999, 5-11 in 2000, 0-2 in 2001) before Brady started, and finished 11-3 then won the Superbowl.

The saints were 11-21 (8-8 in 2004, 3-13 in 2005) before brees, then went 10-6 and won a playoff game. 

I'm really not sure how you compare them on winning when Brady has over 100 more regular season wins AND fewer regular season losses, plus the whole post season things. 

If you want to compare them on qb statistics you'll see brees is slightly ahead in yards and touchdowns for his career, although he's played in warm weather or a dome while Brady played outdoors in the cold.  Brees is really, really good, and the year he broke Marino's single season yardage record he only got two votes while Rodgers got all 48 of the others, so he certainly deserved mvp consideration. But let's not go crazy. 

 

 

[Ghost Rider]

Unfortunately for Brees fans, winning is a large component of the MVP equation. It cuts both ways. If the Saints had a better defense and a better running game, they would likely have won more games but Brees’ totals would have been lower. 

Since coming to NO, he has 800 more passing attempts than anyone else (Eli) and 1000-1500 more attempts than the other old timers in the league (Rivers, TB12, Ben).  

Certianly those helped Brees compile some pretty impressive passing totals. Taken on a year by year basis, there weren’t years where he clearly should have won and based on the Saints lack of winning, he really hasn’t had many years where he was a top, top candidate in terms of voting. 

To be fair, while the Saints 2009 defense gave up a boat load of yards, they did get like 8 or 9 defensive scores that year. I don't think they win 13 games without the defense being so opportunistic.  

That said, I think Brees should have been the co-MVP along with Manning (both were very deserving). 

 

[matuski]

Fwiw, I was talking to a friend the other day about the best player ever to be on the worst team for his career. 

While Barry Sanders came to mind, is it anyone other than Joe Thomas?

Barry shared MVP with Favre '97.

 

[petekrum]

In my opinion, no player other than a QB should ever win the MVP. Probably the most absurd winner was Mark Mosely.

 

[-OZ-]

Barry shared MVP with Favre '97.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about MVP in that post. Just best player in the worst team for their career.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

I remember thinking that they might award it to him as they were coming off the Superbowl win and he had a record shattering season.

I was living in Wisconsin that year, and Rodgers earned that award.  He may not have had the lofty numbers, but his play that year was magnificent.

45 TD's to only 6 INT's are not lofty numbers? 

 

[Statorama]

45 TD's to only 6 INT's are not lofty numbers? 

That's great, but Brees put up LOFTY numbers that year

 

[Ned Ryerson]

When you say "he showed up" do you mean your coach or qb?

The Pats are 18-20 in 38 games with Belichick and not Brady.  The two together are 196-55.

Brees and Payton both started with the saints in 2006, and Brees without Payton is just above .500 at 47-43. With Payton, his record is 95-63. 

The patriots were 13-21 (8-8 in 1999, 5-11 in 2000, 0-2 in 2001) before Brady started, and finished 11-3 then won the Superbowl.

The saints were 11-21 (8-8 in 2004, 3-13 in 2005) before brees, then went 10-6 and won a playoff game. 

I'm really not sure how you compare them on winning when Brady has over 100 more regular season wins AND fewer regular season losses, plus the whole post season things. 

If you want to compare them on qb statistics you'll see brees is slightly ahead in yards and touchdowns for his career, although he's played in warm weather or a dome while Brady played outdoors in the cold.  Brees is really, really good, and the year he broke Marino's single season yardage record he only got two votes while Rodgers got all 48 of the others, so he certainly deserved mvp consideration. But let's not go crazy. 

Belichick didn't get there until 2000 (5 - 11).  Brady also didn't play in '08 (11 - 5) (almost the whole year) and first four games of '16 (3-1).  19 - 19.  That said, an argument could be made that once it "clicked" for Belichick in '01, in the 20 games since '01 where he didn't have Brady, he is 14 -6,  which is not much different than the 196 - 55 he is with Brady.  

 

[Anarchy99]

For what it's worth, Brees really hasn't garnered much love in MVP voting over the years. Here is the cumulative MVP vote totals over the past 20 years . . .

Peyton Manning		229
Tom Brady		170
Aaron Rodgers		81
Kurt Warner		55.5
Marshall Faulk		49.5
Cam Newton		48
LaDainian Tomlinson	44
Adrian Peterson		33.5
Steve McNair		27
Terrell Davis		25
Matt Ryan		25
Rich Gannon		24
Brett Favre		22
Shaun Alexander		19
Randall Cunningham	14
Drew Brees		13.5
JJ Watt			13
Donovan McNabb		11
Eddie George		8
Todd Gurley		8
Tiki Barber		6
Derek Carr		6
Ezekiel Elliott		6
Jamal Lewis		5
Randy Moss		4
Jamal Anderson		4
Kordell Stewart		4
Priest Holmes		4
Chad Pennington		4
Michael Turner		4
Philip Rivers		4
Ray Lewis		3
Carson Palmer		3
James Harrison		3
Brian Urlacher		2
Michael Vick		2
Tony Romo		2
DeMarco Murray		2
Carson Wentz		2
Edgerrin James		1
Derrick Brooks		1
Chris Johnson		1
Bobby Wagner		1
Dak Prescott		1

 

[Anarchy99]

Belichick didn't get there until 2000 (5 - 11).  Brady also didn't play in '08 (11 - 5) (almost the whole year) and first four games of '16 (3-1).  19 - 19.  That said, an argument could be made that once it "clicked" for Belichick in '01, in the 20 games since '01 where he didn't have Brady, he is 14 -6,  which is not much different than the 196 - 55 he is with Brady.  

Yes, NE has gone 14-6 in games without Brady. But lost in that is the strength of schedule. In those 14 wins, their opponents went 97-126-1 (.435).
The teams in their 6 losses went a combined 59-37 (.615).