How is Rodgers not the MVP? (1 Viewer)

[meyerj31]

I understand this is a "stats" award ... so let's have it. Brady/Manning have had great years, but Rodgers has:

108.0 - highest QB rating

67.2 - 2nd highest completion percentage (Manning higher)

39:8 - Best TD:INT ratio among the MVP contenders (Brady/Manning/Rodgers)

And he's done all that with by far one of the worst offensive lines in the league... as well as taking nearly twice the sacks of the other guys. I don't understand people who consider sacks bad - sometimes it's the best choice on the play, rather than risk an intentional grounding, interception, or other turnover.

I don't understand how any other QB stacks up.

The only other person I can see getting this is Peterson. I think it's a popularity-feel-good-story if Manning gets it over Rodgers given how much talent that team has with offensive line and RB relative to what Rodgers' has on his team. The Broncos were a playoff team already with Tim Tebow. I just don't get it. If Rodger's goes on another Super Bowl run this year there is no question. Rodgers is absolutely the most talented QB in the league and he uses 100% of it every game. The Packers would not be a playoff team with Tim Tebow under center.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Rodgers should finish top 3, but should not win. AD should be the hands down winner.

But the "The Broncos were a playoff team already with Tim Tebow" argument is an awful one. With Tebow, the Broncos were an 8-8 team that backed into the playoffs; with Peyton, the Broncos are a 13-3 team and the top seed in the AFC. If you don't see understand the difference there, then we can't help you.

 

[weebs]

Two words. Adrian Peterson.

 

[butcher boy]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

 

[drummer]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

The only person who would make that case with junk stats would be...you.

 

[sho nuff]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.Id hands down give it to Peterson.

 

[drummer]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.

TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.

Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.

Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.

So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?

As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.

Id hands down give it to Peterson.

Rodgers this season threw for 38tds to 8 ints, 4295 yards with 51 sacks. Smith last season threw 17 tds to 5 ints, 3144 yards with 44 sacks.

butcher is fishing here.

 

[butcher boy]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.Id hands down give it to Peterson.

Just saying that those aren't the only stats to look at (the 3 originally posted, not the ones you added in your reply). They're stats a guy like Smith excelled at but hardly anyone would call him MVP material. I see my own personal public relations guy drummer is already on top of this though. ETA: Rodgers didnt kill Smith in Rating last year. It was very close. And Smith's % was higher.

 

[drummer]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.Id hands down give it to Peterson.

Just saying that those aren't the only stats to look at (the 3 originally posted, not the ones you added in your reply). They're stats a guy like Smith excelled at but hardly anyone would call him MVP material. I see my own personal public relations guy drummer is already on top of this though. ETA: Rodgers didnt kill Smith in Rating last year. It was very close. And Smith's % was higher.

I'm just helping the guy who asked the question, since you can't provide a real answer.

 

[Alkahsu]

Two words. Adrian Peterson.

This, that's all you need to know.

 

[Run It Up]

Because he struggled this year, something Peyton, Brady, Peterson and Megatron did not.

 

[devouredbychaos]

The most talented QB in the league?? lol you GB homers are a fun bunch.

 

[Abrantes]

I understand this is a "stats" award ... so let's have it. Brady/Manning have had great years, but Rodgers has:108.0 - highest QB rating67.2 - 2nd highest completion percentage (Manning higher)39:8 - Best TD:INT ratio among the MVP contenders (Brady/Manning/Rodgers)And he's done all that with by far one of the worst offensive lines in the league... as well as taking nearly twice the sacks of the other guys. I don't understand people who consider sacks bad - sometimes it's the best choice on the play, rather than risk an intentional grounding, interception, or other turnover.I don't understand how any other QB stacks up.

I'm sure you understand the cases for other QBs. You simply disagree. Brady and Manning have raw yardage on their side, aren't far off in the other categories, and didn't take a zillion sacks. Saying that you don't understand why people consider sacks bad is strange, to say the least. Sacks are bad. The optimal outcome when the play gets ugly is throwing it away, not eating the sack. There were numerous instances this year where Rodgers got sacked due to holding on to the ball for too long, trying to make a play. That's not a positive. This is also related to his 4 lost fumbles (compared to 2 for Peyton and none for Brady), and doesn't favor the argument that sacks help avoid turnovers.

 

[meyerj31]

Because he struggled this year, something Peyton, Brady, Peterson and Megatron did not.

The Broncos started 2-3. I don't think Manning did any better early season than Rodgers did. Rodgers also played way more difficult teams this year.I'm OK with AP getting it but giving it to Manning over Rodgers seems unreal to me given what they have done with what they have ...

 

[meyerj31]

I understand this is a "stats" award ... so let's have it. Brady/Manning have had great years, but Rodgers has:108.0 - highest QB rating67.2 - 2nd highest completion percentage (Manning higher)39:8 - Best TD:INT ratio among the MVP contenders (Brady/Manning/Rodgers)And he's done all that with by far one of the worst offensive lines in the league... as well as taking nearly twice the sacks of the other guys. I don't understand people who consider sacks bad - sometimes it's the best choice on the play, rather than risk an intentional grounding, interception, or other turnover.I don't understand how any other QB stacks up.

I'm sure you understand the cases for other QBs. You simply disagree. Brady and Manning have raw yardage on their side, aren't far off in the other categories, and didn't take a zillion sacks. Saying that you don't understand why people consider sacks bad is strange, to say the least. Sacks are bad. The optimal outcome when the play gets ugly is throwing it away, not eating the sack. There were numerous instances this year where Rodgers got sacked due to holding on to the ball for too long, trying to make a play. That's not a positive. This is also related to his 4 lost fumbles (compared to 2 for Peyton and none for Brady), and doesn't favor the argument that sacks help avoid turnovers.

Rodgers is virtually never sacked out of the pocket. If it is possible to throw it away, he usually does. When it comes down to heaving it up risking a turnover while inside the pocket, or taking the sack, he takes the sack. This is better than what Favre did for years, which resulted in many turnovers. Therefore he's usually making the optimal play when the pocket breaks down. He shouldn't be punished on MVP because he's forced to take 25 more sacks each year with a ridiculously bad offensive line.

 

[devouredbychaos]

Because he struggled this year, something Peyton, Brady, Peterson and Megatron did not.

The Broncos started 2-3. I don't think Manning did any better early season than Rodgers did. Rodgers also played way more difficult teams this year.I'm OK with AP getting it but giving it to Manning over Rodgers seems unreal to me given what they have done with what they have ...

Don't let the homerism cloud your judgement.

 

[sho nuff]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.Id hands down give it to Peterson.

Just saying that those aren't the only stats to look at (the 3 originally posted, not the ones you added in your reply). They're stats a guy like Smith excelled at but hardly anyone would call him MVP material. I see my own personal public relations guy drummer is already on top of this though. ETA: Rodgers didnt kill Smith in Rating last year. It was very close. And Smith's % was higher.

What stats do you want to put out there that Rodgers did not beat Smith 2011 Rodgers rating was 122.5...Smith was 90.7. How is that not destroyed...or how is that very close?COmpletion percentage...Rodgers 68.3%...Smith 61.3%.You may want to get a new stat book...yours is broken.

 

[sho nuff]

Because he struggled this year, something Peyton, Brady, Peterson and Megatron did not.

The Broncos started 2-3. I don't think Manning did any better early season than Rodgers did. Rodgers also played way more difficult teams this year.I'm OK with AP getting it but giving it to Manning over Rodgers seems unreal to me given what they have done with what they have ...

Don't let the homerism cloud your judgement.

And don't let ignorance cloud yours.

 

[SSOG]

Peyton Manning- more yards, better comp%, better YPA, better NY/A, better ANY/A, was among the least sacked QBs behind a line that was among the league leaders in sacks allowed last year, ran a better offense, installed his own offense, oversaw the 4th largest increase in point differential in NFL history, oversaw the 2nd largest team improvement in DVOA history, did it all with a bunch of strangers he'd never met before 8 months ago. Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[Run It Up]

Because he struggled this year, something Peyton, Brady, Peterson and Megatron did not.

The Broncos started 2-3. I don't think Manning did any better early season than Rodgers did. Rodgers also played way more difficult teams this year.I'm OK with AP getting it but giving it to Manning over Rodgers seems unreal to me given what they have done with what they have ...

And the Pats started 3-3... the record has nothing to do with their performance, Rodgers played well below his average the first six weeks, Manning had one bad game, Brady had no bad games - all year.Brady had a middle of the road schedule and Manning had a softer schedule than that, which should be taken into consideration, but Brady controlled every game he played this year, of the four games they lost, the first three they lost by a combined 4 pts and two of those games came down to blown calls.

 

[sho nuff]

Because he struggled this year, something Peyton, Brady, Peterson and Megatron did not.

The Broncos started 2-3. I don't think Manning did any better early season than Rodgers did. Rodgers also played way more difficult teams this year.I'm OK with AP getting it but giving it to Manning over Rodgers seems unreal to me given what they have done with what they have ...

And the Pats started 3-3... the record has nothing to do with their performance, Rodgers played well below his average the first six weeks, Manning had one bad game, Brady had no bad games - all year.Brady had a middle of the road schedule and Manning had a softer schedule than that, which should be taken into consideration, but Brady controlled every game he played this year, of the four games they lost, the first three they lost by a combined 4 pts and two of those games came down to blown calls.

Playing "below" his own average should hardly be a reason to penalize the guy.The end of the year numbers are close.Manning leads in a few for sure...and the comeback will put him over the top of Rodgers.

 

[David Yudkin]

I would say that QBs that don't earn a bye are not on teams that merit having an MVP QB. GB didn't go 15-1 this year, and as we all know MVP balloting almost always factors in how well the team did. Rodgers may have had a strong season, but he did not do as well as last year and didn't really chase many records.

Brady will likely get more MVP love than Rodgers, as the Pats scored 557 points on the season. The Packers scored 433. That's more than a TD per game difference.

I suspect Manning and ADP will be fighting it out for MVP. Rodgers was the third best QB in terms of MVP candidacy (unless people want to start including Luck and RGIII as well).

 

[meyerj31]

The most talented QB in the league?? lol you GB homers are a fun bunch.

I don't know how much this one can be debated. He's Brady/Manning but with great mobility...

 

[butcher boy]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.Id hands down give it to Peterson.

Just saying that those aren't the only stats to look at (the 3 originally posted, not the ones you added in your reply). They're stats a guy like Smith excelled at but hardly anyone would call him MVP material. I see my own personal public relations guy drummer is already on top of this though. ETA: Rodgers didnt kill Smith in Rating last year. It was very close. And Smith's % was higher.

What stats do you want to put out there that Rodgers did not beat Smith 2011 Rodgers rating was 122.5...Smith was 90.7. How is that not destroyed...or how is that very close?COmpletion percentage...Rodgers 68.3%...Smith 61.3%.You may want to get a new stat book...yours is broken.

It's ESPN that's broken. Their 2011 stats are completely wrong or I'm using the site wrong. They have Smith at over 70%. Weird.But my original point remains. Rodgers DID excel in almost every category that should count towards an MVP nod. The three mentioned in the OP, however, are not necesarily the ones I'd focus or at least not the ones I'd use to make a case for MVP.

 

[Abrantes]

I understand this is a "stats" award ... so let's have it. Brady/Manning have had great years, but Rodgers has:108.0 - highest QB rating67.2 - 2nd highest completion percentage (Manning higher)39:8 - Best TD:INT ratio among the MVP contenders (Brady/Manning/Rodgers)And he's done all that with by far one of the worst offensive lines in the league... as well as taking nearly twice the sacks of the other guys. I don't understand people who consider sacks bad - sometimes it's the best choice on the play, rather than risk an intentional grounding, interception, or other turnover.I don't understand how any other QB stacks up.

I'm sure you understand the cases for other QBs. You simply disagree. Brady and Manning have raw yardage on their side, aren't far off in the other categories, and didn't take a zillion sacks. Saying that you don't understand why people consider sacks bad is strange, to say the least. Sacks are bad. The optimal outcome when the play gets ugly is throwing it away, not eating the sack. There were numerous instances this year where Rodgers got sacked due to holding on to the ball for too long, trying to make a play. That's not a positive. This is also related to his 4 lost fumbles (compared to 2 for Peyton and none for Brady), and doesn't favor the argument that sacks help avoid turnovers.

Rodgers is virtually never sacked out of the pocket. If it is possible to throw it away, he usually does. When it comes down to heaving it up risking a turnover while inside the pocket, or taking the sack, he takes the sack. This is better than what Favre did for years, which resulted in many turnovers. Therefore he's usually making the optimal play when the pocket breaks down. He shouldn't be punished on MVP because he's forced to take 25 more sacks each year with a ridiculously bad offensive line.

In that case, Rodgers should either develop the habit of leaving the pocket sooner to throw the ball away, or accept that in order to make a handful of plays, he's going to get sacked more often than he should.It's a matter of faith. You believe Rodgers to be The Best, so you trust his judgment when it comes to assessing whether to take a sack or not. I don't, and find it amazing that his high sack total is being used as an example of his football IQ, rather than occasionally bad decision-making.

 

[Donnybrook]

What do people think of the ESPN's QBR system? http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

 

[meyerj31]

I understand this is a "stats" award ... so let's have it. Brady/Manning have had great years, but Rodgers has:108.0 - highest QB rating67.2 - 2nd highest completion percentage (Manning higher)39:8 - Best TD:INT ratio among the MVP contenders (Brady/Manning/Rodgers)And he's done all that with by far one of the worst offensive lines in the league... as well as taking nearly twice the sacks of the other guys. I don't understand people who consider sacks bad - sometimes it's the best choice on the play, rather than risk an intentional grounding, interception, or other turnover.I don't understand how any other QB stacks up.

I'm sure you understand the cases for other QBs. You simply disagree. Brady and Manning have raw yardage on their side, aren't far off in the other categories, and didn't take a zillion sacks. Saying that you don't understand why people consider sacks bad is strange, to say the least. Sacks are bad. The optimal outcome when the play gets ugly is throwing it away, not eating the sack. There were numerous instances this year where Rodgers got sacked due to holding on to the ball for too long, trying to make a play. That's not a positive. This is also related to his 4 lost fumbles (compared to 2 for Peyton and none for Brady), and doesn't favor the argument that sacks help avoid turnovers.

Rodgers is virtually never sacked out of the pocket. If it is possible to throw it away, he usually does. When it comes down to heaving it up risking a turnover while inside the pocket, or taking the sack, he takes the sack. This is better than what Favre did for years, which resulted in many turnovers. Therefore he's usually making the optimal play when the pocket breaks down. He shouldn't be punished on MVP because he's forced to take 25 more sacks each year with a ridiculously bad offensive line.

In that case, Rodgers should either develop the habit of leaving the pocket sooner to throw the ball away, or accept that in order to make a handful of plays, he's going to get sacked more often than he should.It's a matter of faith. You believe Rodgers to be The Best, so you trust his judgment when it comes to assessing whether to take a sack or not. I don't, and find it amazing that his high sack total is being used as an example of his football IQ, rather than occasionally bad decision-making.

I don't have any vested interest in calling him king, even though I'm a Packers fan. I'd rather have AP than DuJuan Harris, Calvin than Greg Jennings, and Revis instead of Woodson... but there's no QB regardless of age I would want besides Rodgers. He's the best player in the game.

 

[devouredbychaos]

The most talented QB in the league?? lol you GB homers are a fun bunch.

I don't know how much this one can be debated. He's Brady/Manning but with great mobility...

Oh it can be debated. Brady is by far the better QB.

 

[devouredbychaos]

I understand this is a "stats" award ... so let's have it. Brady/Manning have had great years, but Rodgers has:108.0 - highest QB rating67.2 - 2nd highest completion percentage (Manning higher)39:8 - Best TD:INT ratio among the MVP contenders (Brady/Manning/Rodgers)And he's done all that with by far one of the worst offensive lines in the league... as well as taking nearly twice the sacks of the other guys. I don't understand people who consider sacks bad - sometimes it's the best choice on the play, rather than risk an intentional grounding, interception, or other turnover.I don't understand how any other QB stacks up.

I'm sure you understand the cases for other QBs. You simply disagree. Brady and Manning have raw yardage on their side, aren't far off in the other categories, and didn't take a zillion sacks. Saying that you don't understand why people consider sacks bad is strange, to say the least. Sacks are bad. The optimal outcome when the play gets ugly is throwing it away, not eating the sack. There were numerous instances this year where Rodgers got sacked due to holding on to the ball for too long, trying to make a play. That's not a positive. This is also related to his 4 lost fumbles (compared to 2 for Peyton and none for Brady), and doesn't favor the argument that sacks help avoid turnovers.

Rodgers is virtually never sacked out of the pocket. If it is possible to throw it away, he usually does. When it comes down to heaving it up risking a turnover while inside the pocket, or taking the sack, he takes the sack. This is better than what Favre did for years, which resulted in many turnovers. Therefore he's usually making the optimal play when the pocket breaks down. He shouldn't be punished on MVP because he's forced to take 25 more sacks each year with a ridiculously bad offensive line.

In that case, Rodgers should either develop the habit of leaving the pocket sooner to throw the ball away, or accept that in order to make a handful of plays, he's going to get sacked more often than he should.It's a matter of faith. You believe Rodgers to be The Best, so you trust his judgment when it comes to assessing whether to take a sack or not. I don't, and find it amazing that his high sack total is being used as an example of his football IQ, rather than occasionally bad decision-making.

I don't have any vested interest in calling him king, even though I'm a Packers fan. I'd rather have AP than DuJuan Harris, Calvin than Greg Jennings, and Revis instead of Woodson... but there's no QB regardless of age I would want besides Rodgers. He's the best player in the game.

How is he the best player in the game? Rodgers is great don't get me wrong, but he's still not better than Brady.

 

[meyerj31]

The most talented QB in the league?? lol you GB homers are a fun bunch.

I don't know how much this one can be debated. He's Brady/Manning but with great mobility...

Oh it can be debated. Brady is by far the better QB.

I said talented. NE designed the offense around a 3 second clock where Brady MUST get rid of the ball. That's why they dink and dunk so much, because he has no mobility. They're just REALLY good at it so he puts up crazy numbers. They have the players to execute that offense. Obviously Brady is still phenomenal at being a QB in the NFL, but he does not have the raw talent of Rodgers. Belichek is just perfect at creating schemes that compliment already top players. In combination, they win a lot of games and put up crazy numbers.Meanwhile Rodgers has patchwork offensive line and is flushed out many plays. The one throw that I will never forget was early this year when Rodgers was rolling out to his non-throwing side. He juked a defender to not take a sack, ran out nearly halfway to the sideline, then contorted his body to throw the other direction on a perfect on-a-string spiral to a 6 inch window that hit Cobb right on the hands 40 yards downfield for a touchdown. There is no other QB in the league that could have made that play, and quite possible no other QB in the history of the game (maybe Montana). Perhaps athletically there are guys that could do that, but not in the heat of the moment with that kind of awareness. He has an unparalled combination of both and it is fantastic to watch him play. The Packers would not be in the playoffs without him. I can't say the same for the Pats or the Broncos. We know about the Broncos, regardless of how they did it last year, and the season that Brady missed a few years back the Pats went 11-5, after he was hurt in the first or second game.

 

[sho nuff]

The most talented QB in the league?? lol you GB homers are a fun bunch.

I don't know how much this one can be debated. He's Brady/Manning but with great mobility...

Oh it can be debated. Brady is by far the better QB.

Right now? I disagree.

 

[Sarnoff]

Sharks indeed.

 

[packseasontix]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.Id hands down give it to Peterson.

Just saying that those aren't the only stats to look at (the 3 originally posted, not the ones you added in your reply). They're stats a guy like Smith excelled at but hardly anyone would call him MVP material. I see my own personal public relations guy drummer is already on top of this though. ETA: Rodgers didnt kill Smith in Rating last year. It was very close. And Smith's % was higher.

I'm just helping the guy who asked the question, since you can't provide a real answer.

Alex Smith - 90.7Rodgers - 122.5Sorry but Butcher just shut up, at least bring someone up that is close when trying to prove a point.

 

[Buffaloes]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

not sure if serious

 

[packseasontix]

The most talented QB in the league?? lol you GB homers are a fun bunch.

I don't know how much this one can be debated. He's Brady/Manning but with great mobility...

Oh it can be debated. Brady is by far the better QB.

Right now? I disagree.

I hear all the time from other NFL teams and experts about "Only Rodgers could do that" or "the only other person who could do that is Rodgers" I rarely if ever hear anyone comment like that on Brady. Does Brady have more rings? yesWho would I rather have with the same exact roster behind center? Rodgers all day long, sure Brady is great but he still isn't Rodgers...

 

[SSOG]

What do people think of the ESPN's QBR system? http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

It's crap with serious flaws, but no crappier than passer rating, and the flaws are no more serious. I'd never make an argument based off of it, but as one more stat in a mountain of stats, it's fine. Speaking of a mountain of stats, Manning tops Rodgers in QBR, DVOA (which adjusts for quality of opponent), DYAR (like DVOA, but cumulative), and PFF's film-based player ratings.

Edit: Jaws has Manning #1, too.

 

[devouredbychaos]

####ing Christ you guys need to get off Rodgers nuts. There's no point in me arguing in this thread with a bunch of Packers homers.

If my team is down by 28 with a quarter left to play, I'm taking Brady and not Rodgers. Did we all not watch the 49ers and Pats game a few weeks ago? Sure the Pats didn't win, but to put up 28 straight points against that defense, in that amount of time, I just don't see Rodgers doing that.

The whole "system" QB excuse is getting old. And sure Brady is great, he still isn't Rodgers though because he's an all around better QB

 

[Raider Nation]

This is Peterson's award to lose. Let's break it down in the most simple fashion.

The Vikings were picked by most people in the preseason to be the worst team in the league. It's easy to forget that now, but Minnesota's outlook was bleak this summer. Peterson has only 600 fewer total yards than Ponder has PASSING yards... with both of them playing all 16 games. Let that sink in for a minute.

Meanwhile, Manning has been terrific. But he took over a team which made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year behind a terrible quarterback. He clearly has more talent around him than Peterson does. I don't see how this vote is all that close.

 

[devouredbychaos]

This is Peterson's award to lose. Let's break it down in the most simple fashion.The Vikings were picked by most people in the preseason to be the worst team in the league. It's easy to forget that now, but Minnesota's outlook was bleak this summer. Peterson has only 600 fewer total yards than Ponder has PASSING yards... with both of them playing all 16 games. Let that sink in for a minute.Meanwhile, Manning has been terrific. But he took over a team which made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year behind a terrible quarterback. He clearly has more talent around him than Peterson does. I don't see how this vote is all that close.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[SSOG]

This is Peterson's award to lose. Let's break it down in the most simple fashion.The Vikings were picked by most people in the preseason to be the worst team in the league. It's easy to forget that now, but Minnesota's outlook was bleak this summer. Peterson has only 600 fewer total yards than Ponder has PASSING yards... with both of them playing all 16 games. Let that sink in for a minute.Meanwhile, Manning has been terrific. But he took over a team which made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year behind a terrible quarterback. He clearly has more talent around him than Peterson does. I don't see how this vote is all that close.

Minnesota scored 340 points last year and gave up 449, for a differential of -109. Denver scored 309 and gave up 390, for a differential of -81. The two teams met last year, and Denver walked away with a 3 point win after a 4th quarter rally. Denver was 24th last year with -11.8% DVOA. Minnesota was 29th with -22.2%. Anyone who thinks there was a dramatic difference in quality between these two teams last year is sorely mistaken. And more of Denver's improvement can be attributed to Manning than Minnesota's can be attributed to Peterson, because Peterson played for Minnesota last year.Edit: if KC had won one more game to end the season, the AFC West would have been a 4-way tie and Denver would have missed the playoffs. So you're saying Manning could be MVP if KC had only won one more game last year?

 

[drummer]

With those 3 criteria, Alex Smith should've been in last year's MVP equation.

How?Rating? Rodgers killed him last year.TD:INT? Rodgers killed him last year.Yards? Rodgers killed him last year.Completion %? Rodgers killed him last year.So why should Smith have been in the conversation last year?As for this year. Rodgers should be in the conversation for sure. But the fumbles and sacks are a lot on him...and Denver's improvement and Peyton's comeback...plus Peterson's year and comeback from injury will get the votes easily.Id hands down give it to Peterson.

Just saying that those aren't the only stats to look at (the 3 originally posted, not the ones you added in your reply). They're stats a guy like Smith excelled at but hardly anyone would call him MVP material. I see my own personal public relations guy drummer is already on top of this though. ETA: Rodgers didnt kill Smith in Rating last year. It was very close. And Smith's % was higher.

I'm just helping the guy who asked the question, since you can't provide a real answer.

Alex Smith - 90.7Rodgers - 122.5Sorry but Butcher just shut up, at least bring someone up that is close when trying to prove a point.

21 tds more with just 3 more ints to Smith's 'best season' in 2011? Not even in the same universe.

 

[Chazzhawk]

I understand this is a "stats" award ... so let's have it. Brady/Manning have had great years, but Rodgers has:108.0 - highest QB rating67.2 - 2nd highest completion percentage (Manning higher)39:8 - Best TD:INT ratio among the MVP contenders (Brady/Manning/Rodgers)And he's done all that with by far one of the worst offensive lines in the league... as well as taking nearly twice the sacks of the other guys. I don't understand people who consider sacks bad - sometimes it's the best choice on the play, rather than risk an intentional grounding, interception, or other turnover.I don't understand how any other QB stacks up.The only other person I can see getting this is Peterson. I think it's a popularity-feel-good-story if Manning gets it over Rodgers given how much talent that team has with offensive line and RB relative to what Rodgers' has on his team. The Broncos were a playoff team already with Tim Tebow. I just don't get it. If Rodger's goes on another Super Bowl run this year there is no question. Rodgers is absolutely the most talented QB in the league and he uses 100% of it every game. The Packers would not be a playoff team with Tim Tebow under center.

Because a guy named Adrian Peterson only touches the ball about 25 times a game, Rodgers touches the ball every offense play. Yet Peterson had just as much to do with his team making the playoffs as Rodgers did.Put any other back in the league on the Vikings they are lucky to win 8 games, you could have put about 10 different quarterbacks for Green Bay and they still make the playoffs, you can also argue about 5 of those quarterbacks would have lead them to the same record.Manning and Rodgers stats are very similar, the difference is Rodgers has been leading the same attack and most of the same crew for the past 4 years and has been pretty healthy through all of it. Manning went to a new system with almost all new players (Tamme) and he came off of 4 neck surgeries. If two players are that close the tie breaker goes to the guy that had to overcome more.Lastly Rodgers team lost 4 more games this year compared to last, Peyton lead his team to 5 more victories. In a lot years Rodgers would be MVP but he ran into a couple guys that had to over come more than he did. Top 4 yes, (not sure where Brady stands), but he shouldn't be the MVP this year.

 

[Raider Nation]

This is Peterson's award to lose. Let's break it down in the most simple fashion.

The Vikings were picked by most people in the preseason to be the worst team in the league. It's easy to forget that now, but Minnesota's outlook was bleak this summer. Peterson has only 600 fewer total yards than Ponder has PASSING yards... with both of them playing all 16 games. Let that sink in for a minute.

Meanwhile, Manning has been terrific. But he took over a team which made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year behind a terrible quarterback. He clearly has more talent around him than Peterson does. I don't see how this vote is all that close.

Minnesota scored 340 points last year and gave up 449, for a differential of -109. Denver scored 309 and gave up 390, for a differential of -81. The two teams met last year, and Denver walked away with a 3 point win after a 4th quarter rally. Denver was 24th last year with -11.8% DVOA. Minnesota was 29th with -22.2%. Anyone who thinks there was a dramatic difference in quality between these two teams last year is sorely mistaken. And more of Denver's improvement can be attributed to Manning than Minnesota's can be attributed to Peterson, because Peterson played for Minnesota last year.Edit: if KC had won one more game to end the season, the AFC West would have been a 4-way tie and Denver would have missed the playoffs. So you're saying Manning could be MVP if KC had only won one more game last year?

I know we're buds and all, but sometimes I wish you would use more common sense and be less of a slave to the numbers.Regarding the bolded comment above, in defense of Peterson's claim to the MVP, it's fair to use preseason expectations.

Look at what Vegas had pegged for the win totals for these teams in this thread.

Denver - 10 wins

Minnesota - 5.5 wins

In that respect, perhaps it was unfair of me to compare this Denver team to the 2011 Denver team. Fine.

Let me ask it this way: With no Peterson or Manning, which team had a better chance of going to the playoffs this year?

Be honest.

 

[Chazzhawk]

Since we are being honest, if Peterson doesn't win this award they should just rename it to the MVQ award. He had a historic season with just rushing yards, add in the fact his quarterback didn't even hit 3000 yards passing, and he came off ACL surgery 9 months earlier only add more fuel to his fire.

 

[sho nuff]

####ing Christ you guys need to get off Rodgers nuts. There's no point in me arguing in this thread with a bunch of Packers homers. If my team is down by 28 with a quarter left to play, I'm taking Brady and not Rodgers. Did we all not watch the 49ers and Pats game a few weeks ago? Sure the Pats didn't win, but to put up 28 straight points against that defense, in that amount of time, I just don't see Rodgers doing that.The whole "system" QB excuse is getting old. And sure Brady is great, he still isn't Rodgers though because he's an all around better QB

And you need to get off of Brady's.He is a great QB who has had a great career...but right now...at this moment. Rodgers is the better player. Its not just Packers homers who think such a thing.BTW...why were they down 28 with a quarter left to play?You really want to judge a QB based on that criteria? How sad.

 

[meyerj31]

I agree completely with all the pro-AP posts. I'm just a little steamed this award goes to most popular player instead of most deserving as the actual most VALUEABLE player.

AP

Rodgers

Manning/Brady

imo

 

[SSOG]

This is Peterson's award to lose. Let's break it down in the most simple fashion.

The Vikings were picked by most people in the preseason to be the worst team in the league. It's easy to forget that now, but Minnesota's outlook was bleak this summer. Peterson has only 600 fewer total yards than Ponder has PASSING yards... with both of them playing all 16 games. Let that sink in for a minute.

Meanwhile, Manning has been terrific. But he took over a team which made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year behind a terrible quarterback. He clearly has more talent around him than Peterson does. I don't see how this vote is all that close.

Minnesota scored 340 points last year and gave up 449, for a differential of -109. Denver scored 309 and gave up 390, for a differential of -81. The two teams met last year, and Denver walked away with a 3 point win after a 4th quarter rally. Denver was 24th last year with -11.8% DVOA. Minnesota was 29th with -22.2%. Anyone who thinks there was a dramatic difference in quality between these two teams last year is sorely mistaken. And more of Denver's improvement can be attributed to Manning than Minnesota's can be attributed to Peterson, because Peterson played for Minnesota last year.Edit: if KC had won one more game to end the season, the AFC West would have been a 4-way tie and Denver would have missed the playoffs. So you're saying Manning could be MVP if KC had only won one more game last year?

I know we're buds and all, but sometimes I wish you would use more common sense and be less of a slave to the numbers.Regarding the bolded comment above, in defense of Peterson's claim to the MVP, it's fair to use preseason expectations.

Look at what Vegas had pegged for the win totals for these teams in this thread.

Denver - 10 wins

Minnesota - 5.5 wins

In that respect, perhaps it was unfair of me to compare this Denver team to the 2011 Denver team. Fine.

Let me ask it this way: With no Peterson or Manning, which team had a better chance of going to the playoffs this year?

Be honest.

Denver, for sure, but team quality cannot be measured by some binary "playoff/no playoff" metric. If Minnesota was just 1 win worse without Peterson, that'd be the difference between the playoffs and no playoffs. If Denver was 5 wins worse without Manning, then they'd still win the AFC West.I don't get how you can hold Denver's preseason o/u against Manning. The only reason it was that high is because Manning is amazing. So we somehow penalize him for the fact that people knew before the season how amazing he is? Again, comparing this year's team to last year's team, you've got the 4th largest improvement in scoring differential in NFL history. Last year's team was below average. This year's team is the odds-on favorite to win the SB. Is the improvement from bad (with you) to above average (also with you) really more impressive than the improvement from below average (without you) to best in the league (with you)?

 

[SSOG]

Since we are being honest, if Peterson doesn't win this award they should just rename it to the MVQ award. He had a historic season with just rushing yards, add in the fact his quarterback didn't even hit 3000 yards passing, and he came off ACL surgery 9 months earlier only add more fuel to his fire.

The ACL surgery doesn't factor into MVP considerations. As for the rest of it... Of the top 10 rushing seasons of all time, only three have netted MVPs (Simpson, Sanders, and Davis). Which is fair- only four of the top 20 seasons in terms of passing yardage have netted an MVP. The moral? Yardage totals are nice, but if you want hardware, you're better off setting a TD record, piling up huge win totals, or both.

 

[bostonfred]

You keep bringing up last years stats, ssog, but you know that its a little disingenuous to claim that the improvement from tebow to manning is all due to manning, and not due to tebow. You watched him last year, when he was starting. You watched him this year, when he couldn't make second string on the jets. You know that the improvement in denvers passing stats - especially sacks allowed - have less to do with manning than tebow running.

You also keep going back to these stats like dvoa, as if those stats are the important ones to most people. Brady has more yards, more total tds, and fewer interceptions than manning. I am no longer making the case for brady as mvp, either - just that manning did not have the best qb season in the nfl this year. Rodgers, as posited earlier in the thread, can also make a case as qb of the year. Nobody in the nfl did anything close to what peterson did. He came a run away from beating a long standing nfl record, he was by far the best player on a team that was expected to be a cellar dwellar and he pushed them into the playoffs when a lot of teams would have folded up in novembert in the same spot they were in. Manning had an excellent season, and so did brady and rodgers, but what peterson did was way more memorable, especially considering the injury. This will be talked about for years and years.

 

[Eviloutsider]

Obviously we know there are flaws in the system as in looking at previous years (Rodgers had a much better 2011)instead of focusing on the current year and making it almost a QB award (Peterson would be my pick). I think looking at wins is an issue looking at MVP as well as it's a team game. Also, maybe we should be looking at the type of offenses and not just the numbers (think Hawaii with June Jones and all the numbers his QBs put up) to help measure the impact to the team. In the end it doesn't matter, all that matters are Super Bowls.

My biased rankings (as a Packer fan)...

1) Peterson-He was remarkable this year.

2) Manning-He changed around their entire offense.

3) Rodgers-Without him, the Packers are not a .500 team in my opinion.

4) Brady-The offense is so high-powered/energy that his stats seemed water down in a way. He also is compared to his huge year a couple years back which hurts him.