manning, favre, rodgers, brees leading mvp race (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

1. Brees2. Peterson3. Manning4. (tie)Dumervil/Jared Allen5. FavreWithout "All-Day", there is no Favre story.....Without Favre, "All-Day" is still great.

Would the vikings have a better record with Favre and no ADP or with ADP and no Favre?

 

[SSOG]

Elvis Dumervil is a bad, bad man.

Edit: if 10 sacks in 7 games while spearheading arguably the biggest single-season defensive turnaround in NFL history isn't enough to get a defensive player on the MVP ballot, then we need to just make it official and rename it the "OOPoY award" (OTHER Offensive Player of the Year). Darren Sharper deserves some love, too.

I think it's a bit early to be using such hyperbole as the bolded. Lots of season left.Also, I think it is absolutely true that Peyton Manning's play has been more valuable to the Colts this season than Elvis Dumervil's play has been to the Broncos. Dumervil has 10 sacks but Manning has averaged 318 passing yards and more than 2 passing TDs per game. Frankly, it's not close IMO. And this example is why it's rare for a defensive player to win... it's typically not the case that the best defensive player makes the same or greater impact as the best offensive player.

ETA: I just used Manning as an example. I think both Brees and Favre should be in the discussion at this point, and I think both have been more valuable to their teams than Dumervil. And I think it's pretty obvious Brees has been more valuable than Sharper, so I wouldn't include him in the discussion.

Of course there's a lot of season left, but if we're talking about MVP candidates, we can only judge them based on what's happened so far. And so far, Denver is in the midst of possibly the biggest defensive turnaround in NFL history, and so far, Elvis Dumervil is on pace to break the single season sack record.

I think your statement on Favre might be a bit strong. In 2007, he threw for 4155 yards and 28 TDs, with a 95.7 QB rating as the Packers went 13-3, and he was 2nd in MVP voting. Granted, he only got 1 vote as Brady got 49 of 50... but had Brady not had his historic season that year, there is a very strong chance Favre would have won. His numbers this year currently project to be better than in 2007... down on yardage but more TDs, fewer turnovers, better QB rating... and maybe a better record, too.

My point is saying "no way in hell" seems a bit over the top.

In 2007, Brett Favre went 13-3 with a team that had a worse defense than his current team and a worse running game than his current team and a worse offensive line than his current team, and he put up better numbers in the process. He received one MVP vote. One.Yes, Brady had a historic season that year... but that's kind of the point. Someone has a historic season every year. Two years ago, Brady had 50 TDs. Last year, Brees had 5000 yards. Three years ago, Tomlinson broke the TD record. Four years ago, Alexander did. Every year, SOMEONE has a historic season, and this year is no exception as Manning and Brees and Roethlisberger and Dumervil are all lighting the world on fire. I stand by my "no way in hell".

Just look at Kurt Warner last year. Old QB and former multiple MVP having a career renaissance in a new location. Warner revived a historically awful franchise and posted 4583/30... and his reward was the same as Favre's- 1 MVP vote.

The Carolina Panthers defense finished last in the league in 2001. Jack Del Rio was hired as defensive coordinator to the Panthers in 2002, and the defense finished 2nd best in the league. That was a great turnaround, and what landed him a head coaching job at Jacksonville.

To go from last to second best within a season was amazing. They had a great mixture of young and old talent back then. They had Peppers, Rucker, Jenkins, Morgan, Witherspoon, Fields, Minter, Buckner, Grant, Cousin, Howard, McDaniel (I might be forgetting some). Most of those guys played the following season (2003) when they went to the Super Bowl. Mark Fields couldn't play though because he had cancer. Sam Mills who was the linebackers coach at the time also had cancer that year too.

RIP Sam

The 2001 Panthers allowed 5943 yards and 410 points. The 2008 Broncos allowed 5993 yards and 448 points (more than 2 full more points per game).

The 2002 Panthers allowed 4646 yards and 302 points.

The 2009 Broncos are on pace to allow 4253 yards and 219 points.

From 2001 to 2002, the Panthers allowed 1297 fewer yards and 108 fewer points.

From 2008 to 2009, the Broncos are on pace to allow 1740 fewer yards and 229 (!!!) fewer points.

That Panthers turnaround was amazing. This Broncos turnaround is historic.

 

[Tau837]

Elvis Dumervil is a bad, bad man.

Edit: if 10 sacks in 7 games while spearheading arguably the biggest single-season defensive turnaround in NFL history isn't enough to get a defensive player on the MVP ballot, then we need to just make it official and rename it the "OOPoY award" (OTHER Offensive Player of the Year). Darren Sharper deserves some love, too.

I think it's a bit early to be using such hyperbole as the bolded. Lots of season left.Also, I think it is absolutely true that Peyton Manning's play has been more valuable to the Colts this season than Elvis Dumervil's play has been to the Broncos. Dumervil has 10 sacks but Manning has averaged 318 passing yards and more than 2 passing TDs per game. Frankly, it's not close IMO. And this example is why it's rare for a defensive player to win... it's typically not the case that the best defensive player makes the same or greater impact as the best offensive player.

ETA: I just used Manning as an example. I think both Brees and Favre should be in the discussion at this point, and I think both have been more valuable to their teams than Dumervil. And I think it's pretty obvious Brees has been more valuable than Sharper, so I wouldn't include him in the discussion.

Of course there's a lot of season left, but if we're talking about MVP candidates, we can only judge them based on what's happened so far. And so far, Denver is in the midst of possibly the biggest defensive turnaround in NFL history, and so far, Elvis Dumervil is on pace to break the single season sack record.

I agree we can only judge players by what they've done so far. So far, Denver has not completed "arguably the biggest single season defensive turnaround in NFL history"... and Dumervil hasn't broken the sack record. And, as I said, what Manning (and Brees and Favre) has done so far is more valuable than what Dumervil has done so far.

 

[Tau837]

I think your statement on Favre might be a bit strong. In 2007, he threw for 4155 yards and 28 TDs, with a 95.7 QB rating as the Packers went 13-3, and he was 2nd in MVP voting. Granted, he only got 1 vote as Brady got 49 of 50... but had Brady not had his historic season that year, there is a very strong chance Favre would have won. His numbers this year currently project to be better than in 2007... down on yardage but more TDs, fewer turnovers, better QB rating... and maybe a better record, too.My point is saying "no way in hell" seems a bit over the top.

In 2007, Brett Favre went 13-3 with a team that had a worse defense than his current team and a worse running game than his current team and a worse offensive line than his current team, and he put up better numbers in the process. He received one MVP vote. One.Yes, Brady had a historic season that year... but that's kind of the point. Someone has a historic season every year. Two years ago, Brady had 50 TDs. Last year, Brees had 5000 yards. Three years ago, Tomlinson broke the TD record. Four years ago, Alexander did. Every year, SOMEONE has a historic season, and this year is no exception as Manning and Brees and Roethlisberger and Dumervil are all lighting the world on fire. I stand by my "no way in hell".Just look at Kurt Warner last year. Old QB and former multiple MVP having a career renaissance in a new location. Warner revived a historically awful franchise and posted 4583/30... and his reward was the same as Favre's- 1 MVP vote.

Agree to disagree. Saying that there was "no way in hell" the guy who finished second could have won makes no sense to me.We know that winning is a big component in this. If the Vikings go 15-1 and have the best record in the NFL, and Favre maintains his pace numbers-wise, he would stand a great chance of winning. Maybe that's what you are saying "no way in hell" to... that the Vikings could end up with the best record with Favre putting up great numbers... but that's not how I'm reading your post.

 

[jurb26]

1a. Manning

1b. Brees

3. Palmer

4. Favre

5. Brady

 

[Ghost Rider]

Would the vikings have a better record with Favre and no ADP or with ADP and no Favre?

ADP and no Favre. They went 10-6 that way last year. I don't see them doing that well without Peterson. Take Peterson away and Favre doesn't have as many open receivers, as much time to throw, and as much support in the running game. Favre is having an outstanding season, but the popular opinion that he isn't the best or most valuable player on his offensive unit will be the main reason why he won't finish top 2 in the MVP voting, although I would expect he will get a few sentimental votes.

 

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/Ypeh8

Manning and Brees are far ahead of the pack; Romo and Schaub have just as good cases as Rodgers.

Favre? A lot of good numbers but he's only averaging 7.5 Y/A; that's good for a full season, but that's only good enough for 10th right now. He's averaging only 11.1 yards per completion -- he's certainly not carrying the Vikings.

 

[Stinger Ray]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/Ypeh8

Favre? A lot of good numbers but he's only averaging 7.5 Y/A; that's good for a full season, but that's only good enough for 10th right now. He's averaging only 11.1 yards per completion -- he's certainly not carrying the Vikings.

There is a reason he is averaging only 7.5 Y/A. It is by design and so far it has resulted in 16 TDs, 3 INTS, 3rd in the NFL in completion percentage, and he is 4th in the NFL in passer rating. Oh, and a 7-1 record and yes he has had a huge overall impact on that team. His 7.5 is ahead of Tom Brady too.

You have always been biased against Favre.

 

[parasaurolophus]

people saying Favre has no chance to win are forgetting about Steve Mcnair.

 

[SSOG]

I agree we can only judge players by what they've done so far. So far, Denver has not completed "arguably the biggest single season defensive turnaround in NFL history"... and Dumervil hasn't broken the sack record. And, as I said, what Manning (and Brees and Favre) has done so far is more valuable than what Dumervil has done so far.

That's silly. So far, neither Manning or Brees have passed for 3000 yards- clearly they can't be the MVP, because a QB can't be the MVP without passing for 3,000 yards! I'm responding to the question from an "If the season was over today" standpoint, not as an attempt to handicap who would actually walk away with the hardware at the end of the year.

Agree to disagree. Saying that there was "no way in hell" the guy who finished second could have won makes no sense to me.We know that winning is a big component in this. If the Vikings go 15-1 and have the best record in the NFL, and Favre maintains his pace numbers-wise, he would stand a great chance of winning. Maybe that's what you are saying "no way in hell" to... that the Vikings could end up with the best record with Favre putting up great numbers... but that's not how I'm reading your post.

Like I said, I'm coming at it from an "if the season ended today" mindset, and based solely on what everyone has accomplished so far, there's no way in hell Favre would have a shot at the MVP. If he throws for 400 yards a game the rest of the way and the Vikings finish 15-1 while breaking the Patriots' scoring records, then he'll win the MVP. If he throws for 40 yards a game the rest of the way and the Vikings finish 6-10, then he'll get laughed out of the room at MVP discussions. I don't know what's going to happen going forward, but "no way in hell" is Favre a contender right now.Also, continuing to mention that Favre finished 2nd in MVP voting is silly, to say the least. he had one vote. One. For all we know, some Green Bay beat writer voted for him as a lifetime achievement type award. If some Denver beat writer had cast a single ballot for Brandon Marshall, would we be talking about his second place finish in MVP balloting? Regardless of how the other votes went, 1 vote is sort of the MVP equivalent of the "also receiving votes" list in the AP college football poll.

people saying Favre has no chance to win are forgetting about Steve Mcnair.

In 2003, McNair led the league in y/a, ay/a, y/c, ny/a, and any/a. The Titans ranked 22nd in passing attempts and 5th in passing yards. McNair also had *FAR* less help than Favre. Instead of sharing the backfield with Adrian Peterson, he was back there with Eddie Geoge, who was busy averaging a Reggie Bushian 3.3 yards per carry. The Titans ranked 31st out of 32 teams in yards per rush. That was the only team I have ever seen that converted a higher percentage of 3rd and shorts passing than they did rushing. So not only was McNair better in '03 than Favre has been in '09, he was also far more integral to his team's success. Terrible comparison.

 

[Tau837]

I agree we can only judge players by what they've done so far. So far, Denver has not completed "arguably the biggest single season defensive turnaround in NFL history"... and Dumervil hasn't broken the sack record. And, as I said, what Manning (and Brees and Favre) has done so far is more valuable than what Dumervil has done so far.

That's silly. So far, neither Manning or Brees have passed for 3000 yards- clearly they can't be the MVP, because a QB can't be the MVP without passing for 3,000 yards! I'm responding to the question from an "If the season was over today" standpoint, not as an attempt to handicap who would actually walk away with the hardware at the end of the year.

You're being intentionally... well, I'm too nice to say that. You're the one who wants to focus on "if the season was over today". If that is the case, there is no question that Manning, Brees, and Favre, and probably others, have had much more significant impact than Dumervil. Dumervil has 10 sacks and 26 tackles. Come on, give it up. Your stubborn homerness takes away from your credibility.

 

[Tau837]

Agree to disagree. Saying that there was "no way in hell" the guy who finished second could have won makes no sense to me.We know that winning is a big component in this. If the Vikings go 15-1 and have the best record in the NFL, and Favre maintains his pace numbers-wise, he would stand a great chance of winning. Maybe that's what you are saying "no way in hell" to... that the Vikings could end up with the best record with Favre putting up great numbers... but that's not how I'm reading your post.

Like I said, I'm coming at it from an "if the season ended today" mindset, and based solely on what everyone has accomplished so far, there's no way in hell Favre would have a shot at the MVP. If he throws for 400 yards a game the rest of the way and the Vikings finish 15-1 while breaking the Patriots' scoring records, then he'll win the MVP. If he throws for 40 yards a game the rest of the way and the Vikings finish 6-10, then he'll get laughed out of the room at MVP discussions. I don't know what's going to happen going forward, but "no way in hell" is Favre a contender right now.Also, continuing to mention that Favre finished 2nd in MVP voting is silly, to say the least. he had one vote. One. For all we know, some Green Bay beat writer voted for him as a lifetime achievement type award. If some Denver beat writer had cast a single ballot for Brandon Marshall, would we be talking about his second place finish in MVP balloting? Regardless of how the other votes went, 1 vote is sort of the MVP equivalent of the "also receiving votes" list in the AP college football poll.

Mentioning that Favre finished second is a fact. Mentioning that he is on pace to better that season performance is a fact. I already said agree to disagree on this point. I don't agree with your take and I think you are way off. Are you one of those guys who has to have the last word? If so, respond to this, and I'll let you have it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Brees has had a couple off games. The difference for the Saints this year is their defense.

The difference maker is Darren Sharper.

Won't happen, I know, but he is playing at a Troy P/Ed Reed level right now. Every week that dude affects the game in a positive way. Big time playmaker - interceptions, TDs, blitzs.

The Saints offense is very good, no question. But they have been very good in the past. You could never say that about the defense. Six TDs in seven games. Unreal.

 

[SSOG]

You're being intentionally... well, I'm too nice to say that. You're the one who wants to focus on "if the season was over today". If that is the case, there is no question that Manning, Brees, and Favre, and probably others, have had much more significant impact than Dumervil. Dumervil has 10 sacks and 26 tackles. Come on, give it up. Your stubborn homerness takes away from your credibility.

Since when am I a stubborn homer? I generally think I'm a pretty objective observer who happens to be far more familiar with the Broncos than the majority of posters. Yes, sometimes I'm way higher on a Bronco than the general consensus (Champ Bailey, Elvis Dumervil, the offensive line). Other times, I'm way lower than the general consensus (Brandon Marshall, Knowshon Moreno, Jarvis Moss). That seems to be a hallmark of objectivity- that I'm not consistently falling on one side or the other of popular opinion. If I were the kind of guy who thought that all Broncos were the best players in the league at their respective positions just because they were Broncos (or even the kind of guy that thought that all Broncos were the WORST players in the league at their respective positions just because they were Broncos), then I could see where you were coming from, but like I said... there's a huge difference between "stubborn homer" and "informed observer".Last year, Denver's defense was unbelievably awful. One of the 5 worst defenses of the last 20 years. Really, really bad. This year, they're arguably the best defense in the league. They've cut their points allowed by more than 50%. How? The biggest difference between last year and this year by a massive margin is the pass rush... and the biggest difference in the pass rush is Elvis Dumervil, by a massive margin. If one offensive player was the primary reason why a historically bad offense doubled its scoring output, and he was on pace to break one of the league's most hallowed offensive records in the process, then he would probably be a lock to win the MVP award... but when a defensive player is the primary reason why a historically bad defense halved its scoring defense and is on pace to break one of the league's most hallowed defensive records, the fact that I suggested he's a legit MVP candidate makes me a stubborn homer?Elite passrushers are one of the highest paid subsets of players in the NFL, (I think they're currently only behind QBs, although that data might be a year or two old by now). That means that general managers think that they're one of the most important players on the field. It's not like I'm suggesting that an RB should win league MVP, here (oh, wait, RBs win MVP fairly regularly despite playing one of the lowest-paid and most fungible positions). Completely dismissing Dumervil by saying that several other offensive players have had a MUCH MORE significant impact is absurd. Elvis Dumervil is currently on pace for the best season by any passrusher in NFL history, and GMs have said (with their wallets) that passrushers are the second most important players on the field. If that doesn't warrant MVP consideration, then like I said, rename the award to the OOPoY award. Or the MVQB award.Also, that "last word" bit was uncalled for. When last I checked, we were having a discussion. If you don't want to have that discussion any more, then simply say so. Don't respond to me and then finish with an "oh, and by the way, if you respond to this it just shows that you're the kind of guy who always has to have the last word". You're better than that.

 

[SSOG]

Brees has had a couple off games. The difference for the Saints this year is their defense.

The difference maker is Darren Sharper.

Won't happen, I know, but he is playing at a Troy P/Ed Reed level right now. Every week that dude affects the game in a positive way. Big time playmaker - interceptions, TDs, blitzs.

The Saints offense is very good, no question. But they have been very good in the past. You could never say that about the defense. Six TDs in seven games. Unreal.

Agreed on this, too. Last year, the offense scored 463 points. This year, they're on pace for 528 points (with another 96 points chipped in by the defense). Last year, Brees had 5069/34/17. This year, Brees is on pace for 4585/37/14. Brees and the offense are pretty much the same this year as they were last year, when New Orleans went 8-8... the difference is entirely the defense. We don't know what the Saints would be without Brees, but without Sharper we're probably looking at a .500 team.

 

[djcolts]

people saying Favre has no chance to win are forgetting about Steve Mcnair.

I assume you mean McNair winning co-MVP in 2003? I don't see any similarities between the two cases. 2003 was basically a transitional year in thie NFL - Brady wasn't considered a stud QB yet outside of Boston. Peyton was merely in the "very good" category - and McNair was the "it" QB of that year by the media. In hindsight - it was good that McNair got a piece of the MVP that year - but most years, a QB that misses 2 starts and most of a 3rd game, and the team gets those 3 wins anyway, AND is a WC team usually doesn't win the MVP. (Note: Before Titans fans complain about what I said - I'll be the first to say that 2008 was also a strange MVP year, when Peyton won when the Colts were a WC team).This year - Favre is a legitimate candidate because the Vikings get one of the top 2 seeds in the NFC, and he's been very efficient, and come up big in the two Packer games.

 

[parasaurolophus]

people saying Favre has no chance to win are forgetting about Steve Mcnair.

I assume you mean McNair winning co-MVP in 2003? I don't see any similarities between the two cases. 2003 was basically a transitional year in thie NFL - Brady wasn't considered a stud QB yet outside of Boston. Peyton was merely in the "very good" category - and McNair was the "it" QB of that year by the media. In hindsight - it was good that McNair got a piece of the MVP that year - but most years, a QB that misses 2 starts and most of a 3rd game, and the team gets those 3 wins anyway, AND is a WC team usually doesn't win the MVP. (Note: Before Titans fans complain about what I said - I'll be the first to say that 2008 was also a strange MVP year, when Peyton won when the Colts were a WC team).

This year - Favre is a legitimate candidate because the Vikings get one of the top 2 seeds in the NFC, and he's been very efficient, and come up big in the two Packer games.

Yeah. no similarities.Manning had 1000 more passing yards, 5 more passing TDs, was 2-0 against Mcnair, Won the division, and played in all 16 games. Yet McNair still got a share of the MVP.

Kind of looks like Manning could end up with 1000 more yards than Favre this year and maybe 5 more TDs.

 

[sho nuff]

Rodgers is not in the discussion unless the team goes on a crazy winning streak.

He has the numbers...but not the wins right now. (and yes, I know my stance on just taking wins into consideration...its not the only thing, and I will say that every time, but in MVP discussions, it is a pretty big factor).

To me its Manning and Brees going head to head right now, with Favre not far behind them.

Manning's play right now is just downright scary good...does not matter who lines up at WR...he still just gets the job done. Playing at a level that very few, if any, have played at before.

Brees is getting there, though, had some rough patches last night.

Favre, for his age, and what he has done...its just crazy...the old man can still sling it.

 

[djcolts]

people saying Favre has no chance to win are forgetting about Steve Mcnair.

I assume you mean McNair winning co-MVP in 2003? I don't see any similarities between the two cases. 2003 was basically a transitional year in thie NFL - Brady wasn't considered a stud QB yet outside of Boston. Peyton was merely in the "very good" category - and McNair was the "it" QB of that year by the media. In hindsight - it was good that McNair got a piece of the MVP that year - but most years, a QB that misses 2 starts and most of a 3rd game, and the team gets those 3 wins anyway, AND is a WC team usually doesn't win the MVP. (Note: Before Titans fans complain about what I said - I'll be the first to say that 2008 was also a strange MVP year, when Peyton won when the Colts were a WC team).

This year - Favre is a legitimate candidate because the Vikings get one of the top 2 seeds in the NFC, and he's been very efficient, and come up big in the two Packer games.

Yeah. no similarities.Manning had 1000 more passing yards, 5 more passing TDs, was 2-0 against Mcnair, Won the division, and played in all 16 games. Yet McNair still got a share of the MVP.

Kind of looks like Manning could end up with 1000 more yards than Favre this year and maybe 5 more TDs.

But Favre's team will probably win their division and get a bye. And the Colts and Vikings won't play each other in the regular season. And Favre, if history is our guide, will start all 16 games.

 

[parasaurolophus]

people saying Favre has no chance to win are forgetting about Steve Mcnair.

I assume you mean McNair winning co-MVP in 2003? I don't see any similarities between the two cases. 2003 was basically a transitional year in thie NFL - Brady wasn't considered a stud QB yet outside of Boston. Peyton was merely in the "very good" category - and McNair was the "it" QB of that year by the media. In hindsight - it was good that McNair got a piece of the MVP that year - but most years, a QB that misses 2 starts and most of a 3rd game, and the team gets those 3 wins anyway, AND is a WC team usually doesn't win the MVP. (Note: Before Titans fans complain about what I said - I'll be the first to say that 2008 was also a strange MVP year, when Peyton won when the Colts were a WC team).

This year - Favre is a legitimate candidate because the Vikings get one of the top 2 seeds in the NFC, and he's been very efficient, and come up big in the two Packer games.

Yeah. no similarities.Manning had 1000 more passing yards, 5 more passing TDs, was 2-0 against Mcnair, Won the division, and played in all 16 games. Yet McNair still got a share of the MVP.

Kind of looks like Manning could end up with 1000 more yards than Favre this year and maybe 5 more TDs.

But Favre's team will probably win their division and get a bye. And the Colts and Vikings won't play each other in the regular season. And Favre, if history is our guide, will start all 16 games.

I dont understand your point.People were saying basically Favre didnt stand a chance because Manning is going to beat him statistically. I posted those people are forgetting about Steve Mcnair. He got a share of it because he was the media darling even though his numbers and even his record etc were inferior.

Favre will have smaller numbers, could likely finish a game or two behind the colts, but could easily still win because of the fact that he is 40 and is a media darling.

Now if you disagree with those points ok, but otherwise I dont really understand what we are debating.

 

[djcolts]

people saying Favre has no chance to win are forgetting about Steve Mcnair.

I assume you mean McNair winning co-MVP in 2003? I don't see any similarities between the two cases. 2003 was basically a transitional year in thie NFL - Brady wasn't considered a stud QB yet outside of Boston. Peyton was merely in the "very good" category - and McNair was the "it" QB of that year by the media. In hindsight - it was good that McNair got a piece of the MVP that year - but most years, a QB that misses 2 starts and most of a 3rd game, and the team gets those 3 wins anyway, AND is a WC team usually doesn't win the MVP. (Note: Before Titans fans complain about what I said - I'll be the first to say that 2008 was also a strange MVP year, when Peyton won when the Colts were a WC team).

This year - Favre is a legitimate candidate because the Vikings get one of the top 2 seeds in the NFC, and he's been very efficient, and come up big in the two Packer games.

Yeah. no similarities.Manning had 1000 more passing yards, 5 more passing TDs, was 2-0 against Mcnair, Won the division, and played in all 16 games. Yet McNair still got a share of the MVP.

Kind of looks like Manning could end up with 1000 more yards than Favre this year and maybe 5 more TDs.

But Favre's team will probably win their division and get a bye. And the Colts and Vikings won't play each other in the regular season. And Favre, if history is our guide, will start all 16 games.

I dont understand your point.People were saying basically Favre didnt stand a chance because Manning is going to beat him statistically. I posted those people are forgetting about Steve Mcnair. He got a share of it because he was the media darling even though his numbers and even his record etc were inferior.

Favre will have smaller numbers, could likely finish a game or two behind the colts, but could easily still win because of the fact that he is 40 and is a media darling.

Now if you disagree with those points ok, but otherwise I dont really understand what we are debating.

If that is your point - OK.

 

[SoFresh&SoClean]

If the Bengals keep winning in the fashion they have, Palmer or Benson should be in the conversation. Palmer has about 4-5 4th quarter comeback winning drives and Benson is right there with Peterson this season.

It's still only halfway through and the first half MVPs are Brees and Manning, but there's a lot more games left and things could change. I'd say at this point, the top contenders are Brees, Manning, Favre, AP, Benson, Palmer, Dumervil, Sharper, Allen. It's also a shame Antwan Odom is out for the rest of the season. He was having a better season than Dumervil up until his injury.

 

[nlgb1]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.

also, rodgers put on a show in the 2nd half against MIN, regardless of whether they won or lost. he carried that team back from 24-3 and made it a game in the 4th quarter. so dont tell me the guy isnt clutch.

#1 rated passer 14/2 1989 yds through 7 games.... anyone that does that while receiving ZERO protection deserves to be an mvp candidate.

and to the guy that said schaub over rodgers.... put schaub behind this offensive line and hed look like 1997 dave brown of NYG

rodgers deserves to be on this list. its about time people realize this guy on the same tier as brees and roethlisberger

 

[sho nuff]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.also, rodgers put on a show in the 2nd half against MIN, regardless of whether they won or lost. he carried that team back from 24-3 and made it a game in the 4th quarter. so dont tell me the guy isnt clutch.#1 rated passer 14/2 1989 yds through 7 games.... anyone that does that while receiving ZERO protection deserves to be an mvp candidate. and to the guy that said schaub over rodgers.... put schaub behind this offensive line and hed look like 1997 dave brown of NYGrodgers deserves to be on this list. its about time people realize this guy on the same tier as brees and roethlisberger

One of the reasons they were down 24-3 was the ineptitude on offense in the first half. he threw for 38 yards in the first half.So far they have beat up the bad teams and lost to the 2 good teams they have played. And beat an average Bears team.I love Rodgers and think he is definitely a top 10 QB...but he is not yet MVP caliber.There are several QBs playing as well or better and their teams are having more success (Manning, Brees, Favre, Palmer)

 

[nlgb1]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.also, rodgers put on a show in the 2nd half against MIN, regardless of whether they won or lost. he carried that team back from 24-3 and made it a game in the 4th quarter. so dont tell me the guy isnt clutch.#1 rated passer 14/2 1989 yds through 7 games.... anyone that does that while receiving ZERO protection deserves to be an mvp candidate. and to the guy that said schaub over rodgers.... put schaub behind this offensive line and hed look like 1997 dave brown of NYGrodgers deserves to be on this list. its about time people realize this guy on the same tier as brees and roethlisberger

One of the reasons they were down 24-3 was the ineptitude on offense in the first half. he threw for 38 yards in the first half.So far they have beat up the bad teams and lost to the 2 good teams they have played. And beat an average Bears team.I love Rodgers and think he is definitely a top 10 QB...but he is not yet MVP caliber.There are several QBs playing as well or better and their teams are having more success (Manning, Brees, Favre, Palmer)

lol top 10 qb.... try top 5. i couldnt care less about how much success those other guys are having. rodgers has no control over the defenses ability to stop people and his lines ability to protect him and open holes in the run game. as much as people hate to admit it, a qb cannot make his defense/offensive line good.

 

[Ghost Rider]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid.

Wrong. MVPs do not come from teams barely over .500. Rodgers is playing extremely well this season, but he is simply not a legit MVP contender at this point. Too many things working against him.

rodgers deserves to be on this list. its about time people realize this guy on the same tier as brees and roethlisberger

No, he isn't. He is probably an NFL top 10 QB now, despite his 10-13 record as starting QB (but I have long said that W/L record is overrated, especially at the beginning of a QB's career), but he isn't on the level of Brees (who is in the top tier with Peyton and a healthy Brady), or even Roethlisberger. You are being a large homer, and an unrealistic one at that.

 

[nlgb1]

why? the only reason you gave was his record, which you said was unimportant.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Because he hasn't done it long enough yet, and Brees and Roethlisberger are already much more accomplished and proven than Rodgers. Simple as that.

If you asked on this forum who was the better QB, Brees or Rodgers, 94% would say Brees, and 6% would say Rodgers, 5% of which would be some Packers fans and the other 1% would be delusional posters like LHUCKS.

 

[nlgb1]

Because he hasn't done it long enough yet, and Brees and Roethlisberger are already much more accomplished and proven than Rodgers. Simple as that. If you asked on this forum who was the better QB, Brees or Rodgers, 94% would say Brees, and 6% would say Rodgers, 5% of which would be some Packers fans and the other 1% would be delusional posters like LHUCKS.

if thats your reason then thats ridiculous. this is exactly what is wrong with people and the qb discussions. if your team isnt elite or you arent being stroked by ESPN, you have no shot.p.s. i think brees is better than rodgers. the problem is that people dont think they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yes, how dare football fans be so dumb as to expect players to prove themselves over the long haul before being put in the same sentence with the best players at their position in the league. Excuse me while I go put Miles Austin in the same sentence with Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald.

This has to be a fishing trip, so I guess I was hooked.

 

[jonm8]

If the stats from today hold up for the rest of the year, Manning would win. Periold. Manning is widely considered the best QB, and people view him as the most important player to his team, which just happens to be undefeated. This is shaping up to a huge year for QB's, so it will be a QB who wins it. We probably will have more than 6 QB's over 4,000 yards and perhaps 6 with QB ratings over 100. As long as Manning is one of those with 4,000 and 100 plus rating, he will win on reputation.

 

[ScottyFargo]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.

Anybody who watched those games knows they were blow outs.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Because he hasn't done it long enough yet, and Brees and Roethlisberger are already much more accomplished and proven than Rodgers. Simple as that. If you asked on this forum who was the better QB, Brees or Rodgers, 94% would say Brees, and 6% would say Rodgers, 5% of which would be some Packers fans and the other 1% would be delusional posters like LHUCKS.

p.s. i think brees is better than rodgers. the problem is that people dont think they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath

Brees is at a level that Rodgers hasn't attained yet.

 

[nlgb1]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.

Anybody who watched those games knows they were blow outs.

maybe im mistaken, but im pretty sure it was a 5 point game until peterson's screen with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter. i think my definition of blowout is different than yours

 

[SSOG]

Because he hasn't done it long enough yet, and Brees and Roethlisberger are already much more accomplished and proven than Rodgers. Simple as that. If you asked on this forum who was the better QB, Brees or Rodgers, 94% would say Brees, and 6% would say Rodgers, 5% of which would be some Packers fans and the other 1% would be delusional posters like LHUCKS.

if thats your reason then thats ridiculous. this is exactly what is wrong with people and the qb discussions. if your team isnt elite or you arent being stroked by ESPN, you have no shot.p.s. i think brees is better than rodgers. the problem is that people dont think they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath

Drew Brees? You mean Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints? Passed for 5,000 yards last year? Four straight seasons of 275+ yards per game? 8+ ypa in 3 of the last 4 years? 104 TDs vs. 52 INTs since joining the Saints? Directing the #1 offense in the NFL in both yards and points this year, after directing the #1 offense in the NFL in both yards and points last year, as well? We're talking about the same Drew Brees, right? There's not secretly another one starting somewhere in the league, is there?Assuming we're really talking about the same Drew Brees, then they don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. Brees is clearly and unequivocally better. You even agree. Rodgers is great, but clearly inferior to Brees. He deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as guys like Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Tony Romo, not Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning.

 

[jonm8]

There is NO WAY, someone who isn't named Peyton, Brees, or Brady wins the MVP this year. Right now it is Peyton's to lose.

 

[meanjoegreen]

Because he hasn't done it long enough yet, and Brees and Roethlisberger are already much more accomplished and proven than Rodgers. Simple as that. If you asked on this forum who was the better QB, Brees or Rodgers, 94% would say Brees, and 6% would say Rodgers, 5% of which would be some Packers fans and the other 1% would be delusional posters like LHUCKS.

if thats your reason then thats ridiculous. this is exactly what is wrong with people and the qb discussions. if your team isnt elite or you arent being stroked by ESPN, you have no shot.p.s. i think brees is better than rodgers. the problem is that people dont think they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath

Drew Brees? You mean Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints? Passed for 5,000 yards last year? Four straight seasons of 275+ yards per game? 8+ ypa in 3 of the last 4 years? 104 TDs vs. 52 INTs since joining the Saints? Directing the #1 offense in the NFL in both yards and points this year, after directing the #1 offense in the NFL in both yards and points last year, as well? We're talking about the same Drew Brees, right? There's not secretly another one starting somewhere in the league, is there?Assuming we're really talking about the same Drew Brees, then they don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. Brees is clearly and unequivocally better. You even agree. Rodgers is great, but clearly inferior to Brees. He deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as guys like Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Tony Romo, not Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning.

Condescending much?

 

[djcolts]

There is NO WAY, someone who isn't named Peyton, Brees, or Brady wins the MVP this year. Right now it is Peyton's to lose.

Favre has a shot - the Vikings' schedule the rest of the way isn't as tough as we may have thought earlier in the season. They will have a gaudy regular season record and a bye.

 

[djcolts]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.

Any QB except one from the Browns or Raiders would have made cutler look like a pop warner qb that night.

 

[jonm8]

There is NO WAY, someone who isn't named Peyton, Brees, or Brady wins the MVP this year. Right now it is Peyton's to lose.

Favre has a shot - the Vikings' schedule the rest of the way isn't as tough as we may have thought earlier in the season. They will have a gaudy regular season record and a bye.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't see it. Farve is still viewed as old and having lots of talent around him. All else equal, Manning will get more votes. The only way Farve would win is if he clearly has a better year than Manning, and I don't think that will happen. MVP voting is heavily biased.

 

[Phase of the Game]

There is NO WAY, someone who isn't named Peyton, Brees, or Brady wins the MVP this year. Right now it is Peyton's to lose.

Favre has a shot - the Vikings' schedule the rest of the way isn't as tough as we may have thought earlier in the season. They will have a gaudy regular season record and a bye.

Farve is still viewed as old

Do you have to be under a certain age to be considered for the MVP?

 

[Chase Stuart]

If you're going to open things up past Brees/Manning -- by including Favre, Roethlisberger and Brady -- then you need to include Romo and Schaub, too. Romo has been lights out and arguably the best QB in the league this year behind the big two. He's also doing it without TO and with what most thought was a weak group of receivers. If you knew Roy Williams would have only 250 yards in the first six games, you wouldn't expect Romo to be putting up the huge numbers he's had.

Similarly, Rivers deserves a mention, just like he did last year. He probably deserved the award last season and he's not much off that pace this year.

Lastly, Schaub can't be ignored. He's leading the league in passing yards, putting up great efficiency numbers, and the passing game is basically carrying the Texans (bad running game (bottom five in yards and YPC), bad rush defense (bottom five in YPC and TDs) and a mediocre pass defense).

 

[jonm8]

There is NO WAY, someone who isn't named Peyton, Brees, or Brady wins the MVP this year. Right now it is Peyton's to lose.

Favre has a shot - the Vikings' schedule the rest of the way isn't as tough as we may have thought earlier in the season. They will have a gaudy regular season record and a bye.

Farve is still viewed as old

Do you have to be under a certain age to be considered for the MVP?

I am just saying, MVP voting has more biased in it than any other. It is more based on reputation and conventional wisdom, not statistics. Farve's age will be held as a negative factor against him, and the view by some that he is a traitor will play into it. In many ways, Brees may be the best quarterback in the game, but the vote will still favor Manning. If QB 'a' throws for 5000 yards and 40 TD's, and Manning throws for 4400 yards and 35 TD's, I think Manning wins.

 

[sho nuff]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.also, rodgers put on a show in the 2nd half against MIN, regardless of whether they won or lost. he carried that team back from 24-3 and made it a game in the 4th quarter. so dont tell me the guy isnt clutch.#1 rated passer 14/2 1989 yds through 7 games.... anyone that does that while receiving ZERO protection deserves to be an mvp candidate. and to the guy that said schaub over rodgers.... put schaub behind this offensive line and hed look like 1997 dave brown of NYGrodgers deserves to be on this list. its about time people realize this guy on the same tier as brees and roethlisberger

One of the reasons they were down 24-3 was the ineptitude on offense in the first half. he threw for 38 yards in the first half.So far they have beat up the bad teams and lost to the 2 good teams they have played. And beat an average Bears team.I love Rodgers and think he is definitely a top 10 QB...but he is not yet MVP caliber.There are several QBs playing as well or better and their teams are having more success (Manning, Brees, Favre, Palmer)

lol top 10 qb.... try top 5. i couldnt care less about how much success those other guys are having. rodgers has no control over the defenses ability to stop people and his lines ability to protect him and open holes in the run game. as much as people hate to admit it, a qb cannot make his defense/offensive line good.

A QB cannot on his own...but he also can throw for more than 38 yards in a half. It was not all the defenses fault this past week. Offense and special teams did the D no favors (nor did Jolly's idiotic headbutt).Top 5. I can't give him that yet.Right now, top 5.1. Manning2. Brees3. Favre4. Brady (even being off he is better)5. Big BenAnd there are a few others that warrant consideration (Rivers, McNabb, Palmer, Flacco and yes Rodgers)Just can't put Rodgers in there yet until he performs and leads them to win over a more quality team.

 

[sho nuff]

anyone that says that rodgers shouldnt be in the discussion is downright stupid. also, saying the packers are merely mediocre is also a stupid statement. only losses were by a touchdown to cincy (5-2) and the vikings in 2 close 4th quarter games (7-1). blew out inferior teams, and made cutler look like a pop warner qb.

Anybody who watched those games knows they were blow outs.

Down 5 with 8 minutes left and Packers had the ball is now a blowout?

 

[Balance]

why is rodgers' name included in the title?

 

[Phase of the Game]

There is NO WAY, someone who isn't named Peyton, Brees, or Brady wins the MVP this year. Right now it is Peyton's to lose.

Favre has a shot - the Vikings' schedule the rest of the way isn't as tough as we may have thought earlier in the season. They will have a gaudy regular season record and a bye.

Farve is still viewed as old

Do you have to be under a certain age to be considered for the MVP?

I am just saying, MVP voting has more biased in it than any other.

2 Years ago Favre was 2nd in MVP voting.

 

[SSOG]

2 Years ago Favre was 2nd in MVP voting.

2 years ago, Favre received 1 MVP vote out of 50.

 

[Stinger Ray]

2 Years ago Favre was 2nd in MVP voting.

2 years ago, Favre received 1 MVP vote out of 50.

and that doesn't change the fact he was 2nd in MVP voting.

The Patriots quarterback was a unanimous selection as USA TODAY's NFL MVP, collecting 50 total points. Packers quarterback Brett Favre, who also set several league records this season (including career touchdowns, passing yards and wins by a starting quarterback) while leading Green Bay to a 13-3 record, was second 19 points. Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson, who won last year's USA TODAY NFL MVP award, was third with 12 points.