What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Peyton Manning (1 Viewer)

Rivers is an arrogant p-u-s----y. GO COLTS!!!! GO MANNING !!!!! I find it hard to believe that even SD fans like this guy. He has an ACL in his future.ETA: I'm sorry, I really am trying to not do this. Please forgive me :bag:
What a classless and ignorant post. <_<
 
Rivers is an arrogant p-u-s----y. GO COLTS!!!! GO MANNING !!!!! I find it hard to believe that even SD fans like this guy. He has an ACL in his future.ETA: I'm sorry, I really am trying to not do this. Please forgive me :bag:
What a classless and ignorant post. <_<
JWB and former leaguemate, and NC State dude, come on now, lighten up. Have some fun. ACL not withstanding, you should be able to take some fun poked at Rivers. I'm sorry for the ACL comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rivers is an arrogant p-u-s----y. GO COLTS!!!! GO MANNING !!!!! I find it hard to believe that even SD fans like this guy. He has an ACL in his future.ETA: I'm sorry, I really am trying to not do this. Please forgive me :pickle:
What a classless and ignorant post. <_<
JWB and former leaguemate, and NC State dude, come on now, lighten up. Have some fun. ACL not withstanding, you should be able to take some fun poked at Rivers. I'm sorry for the ACL comment. He's still an #####.
Your post was classless and ignorant. It just shows you know nothing about Rivers. I don't see it as "poking fun." And by the way, it hasn't even been 12 months since Rivers tore his ACL.Again: :bag:
 
I'm not shocked about Manning winning the MVP, he earned it. However, I am shocked by DeAngello Williams not getting a single vote. He is a BIG reason why the Panthers are in the position they're in right now. Talk about a guy getting no respect whatsoever.
<_< Maybe Chris Johnson was on to something.
 
Didn't Manning have a crazy amount of victories won in the 4th quarter when they were trailing if I remember correctly?

I think the right guy won the award. He was money this season when it counted, and by the first few games, the Colts could have easily tanked.

 
Didn't Manning have a crazy amount of victories won in the 4th quarter when they were trailing if I remember correctly?I think the right guy won the award. He was money this season when it counted, and by the first few games, the Colts could have easily tanked.
So simply put, yet so true. :greatposting:
 
Everyone keeps pointing to the stats. Saying Rivers had a better year statistically.

Well lets actually look at the stats.

Rivers 4009 yards

Manning 4002 yards

Rivers 34TD's

Manning 27TD's + 1 Rushing = 28TD

Rivers 11INT + 4 Lost Fumbles = 15 Turnovers

Manning 12 INT + 0 Lost Fumbles = 12 Turnovers

So final tally? Rivers threw for a few more TD's than Manning. It really comes down to what their teams did - 8-8 vs 12-4.

Trust me, if Manning were in closer games and playing from behind - just as the Chargers were all season long - he would have thrown for way more TD's. Plus factor in the final week of the season were Manning only played the first series.

Plus Manning threw for a higher completion %, took fewer sacks, and played against MUCH STIFFER competition. Plus head to head - at San Diego - Manning is the one that led the Colts to victory over Rivers.

I think this is a no contest. Manning by a mile.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone keeps pointing to the stats. Saying Rivers had a better year statistically.Well lets actually look at the stats.Rivers 4009 yardsManning 4002 yardsRivers 34TD'sManning 27TD's + 1 Rushing = 28TDRivers 11INT + 4 Lost Fumbles = 15 TurnoversManning 12 INT + 0 Lost Fumbles = 12 TurnoversSo final tally? Rivers threw for a few more TD's than Manning. It really comes down to what their teams did - 8-8 vs 12-4.Trust me, if Manning were in closer games and playing from behind - just as the Chargers were all season long - he would have thrown for way more TD's. Plus factor in the final week of the season were Manning only played the first series. Plus Manning threw for a higher completion %, took fewer sacks, and played against MUCH STIFFER competition. Plus head to head - at San Diego - Manning is the one that led the Colts to victory over Rivers.I think this is a no contest. Manning by a mile.
1. Rivers is better than Manning in QB rating, TDs, TD percentage, TD/interception ratio (and passing TD/turnover ratio if you want to include fumbles), yards, and yards per attempt. And you ignored the fact that Manning attempted 555 passes and Rivers attempted only 478 - Manning attempted 16% more passes. Statistics favor Rivers, it's not debatable.2. Your point about the Colts playing stiffer competition is wrong. As I posted earlier in the thread:- The Colts played 10 games against teams that finished .500 or better... San Diego played 11.- The Colts played 7 games against teams that finished with winning records... San Diego played 8.- The cumulative record of the Colts' opponents, not including their games against the Colts, is 123-116-1... the cumulative record of the Chargers' opponents, not including their games against the Chargers, is 124-116.3. You say it comes down to record when comparing them. I understand that argument, and there is some merit to it. However, it completely ignores the fact that Manning had a much better defense (and coaching). The Colts are #11 in yards allowed and #7 in points allowed, compared to #25 and #15, respectively, for San Diego. Is that really a solid basis for Manning being a stronger MVP candidate than Rivers? The Chargers lost 8 games by a total of 34 points, and that has much more to do with their defense than any lack of performance on Rivers' part. Multiple times Rivers led his team to a tie or lead late in the 4th quarter and the defense (or Ed Hochuli) blew it.As I have said, I did not expect Rivers to win. But to suggest that it was "no contest" and "Manning by a mile" is way off base IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone keeps pointing to the stats. Saying Rivers had a better year statistically.

Well lets actually look at the stats.

Rivers 4009 yards

Manning 4002 yards

Rivers 34TD's

Manning 27TD's + 1 Rushing = 28TD

Rivers 11INT + 4 Lost Fumbles = 15 Turnovers

Manning 12 INT + 0 Lost Fumbles = 12 Turnovers
1. Rivers is better than Manning in QB rating, TDs, TD/interception ratio (and TD/turnover ratio if you want to include fumbles), ...
Eh? 28/12 = 2.33 and 34 / 15 = 2.27Maybe I'm no math genius, but.....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is how the voting went:Peyton Manning 32Michael Turner 4Chad Pennington 4James Harrison 3Adrian Peterson 3Philip Rivers 2Kurt Warner 1Chris Johnson 1
At least two voters were able to see past the ESPN highlight reels and vote for the player who had the best year and led his team to the playoffs almost singlehandedly....
Please. Go find a codepink rally.
I agree that Peyton Manning is a better player than Philip Rivers. But Rivers had a better season in 2008 than Peyton Manning did. Period.
Statistically?Consider, Rivers team is 8-8, in the AFC West. Peyton's is 12-4--in the AFC South. That says alot.
The Colts are a much better team than the Chargers. Consider that Rivers did what he did without a stud WR. Imagine if Rivers had Wayne. In fact, if I'm the Chargers, I might try to find Rivers a stud WR for 2009. I mean, if Rivers is going to step up his game like this and strap the team on his back, I think he deserves the opportunity to maximize his talents with a true #1 wideout. Might smash some records.
 
jesseasi said:
Rivers 11INT + 4 Lost Fumbles = 15 TurnoversManning 12 INT + 0 Lost Fumbles = 12 Turnovers
lost fumbles brings up an interesting point: the OLRivers: sacked 25 timesPManning: sacked 14 timesso Rivers did what he did with a worse OL, making it even more impressive
jesseasi said:
It really comes down to what their teams did - 8-8 vs 12-4.
1. we all know it's 9-7 vs 12-4 :thumbup: 2. the QB can only be responsible for the offense, which as we all know is only 1/2 a football teamso let's compare offenses:SD: 433 points - 4 Def/ST TDs = 405 pointsIND: 373 points - 5 Def/ST TDs = 338 pointsso SD's offense significantly outperformed IND's offenseon a more basic level, you can look at what each offense does per driveSD: 2.52 pts/drIND: 2.41 pts/drit's undeniable that SD's offense is performing at a higher level than IND's offense despite having a worse offensive line
jesseasi said:
Trust me, if Manning were in closer games and playing from behind - just as the Chargers were all season long - he would have thrown for way more TD's.
irrelevant, we can only judge players on what they did do, not what they could shoulda woulda doneif Manning were in closer games and playing from behind he would have thrown riskier passes and had more interceptions
jesseasi said:
Plus head to head - at San Diego - Manning is the one that led the Colts to victory over Rivers.
so . . . if the Chargers win this game, you'll agree that Rivers should have gotten the MVP?
His team adds NO merit as a 'top' team. Its a mediocre regular season team.
it was actually a very unlucky team while Indy was a very lucky teamthe point differential (+92) was very good and better than Indy's (+79)according to the PFR Expected W-L, they are both exactly the same (10.2-5.8)according to FO, Indy and SD are ranked 7th and 8th respectively in total DVOA (SD OFF rank = 3, IND OFF rank = 4, SD DEF rank = 22, IND DEF rank = 14)what we see are two fairly evenly matched teams except one has been very lucky and one has been very unluckyperhaps luck is random and perhaps it's not (coaching and whatnot), but in raw ability, there is no reason to think one team is substantially better than the other
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if the Chargers could pry Terrell Owens away from the Cowboys. His act might be getting tired in Dallas. He's not a long-term solution for the Bolts but a year or two of Rivers to Owens would give Rivers an opportunity to show what he can do. Owens will be 36. If the Chargers could do some sort of Randy Moss-to-New England type deal where they don't give up a lot, it might be win-win for both clubs. It doesn't seem QBs get credit if they don't have the wideouts anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rivers toss 50 TDs if he had Owens for a full season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if the Chargers could pry Terrell Owens away from the Cowboys. His act might be getting tired in Dallas. He's not a long-term solution for the Bolts but a year or two of Rivers to Owens would give Rivers an opportunity to show what he can do. Owens will be 36. If the Chargers could do some sort of Randy Moss-to-New England type deal where they don't give up a lot, it might be win-win for both clubs.
chambers+vjax+gates isn't too shabby (when they're all healthy)i would think a real RT and a replacement for Goff at RG is more of a priority(not to mention a running back, a replacement for Igor at DE, and help for Jamal at NT)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
Rivers is an arrogant p-u-s----y. GO COLTS!!!! GO MANNING !!!!! I find it hard to believe that even SD fans like this guy. He has an ACL in his future.ETA: I'm sorry, I really am trying to not do this. Please forgive me :thumbup: I have no control over my fingers.
You're better than this.
 
I wonder if the Chargers could pry Terrell Owens away from the Cowboys. His act might be getting tired in Dallas. He's not a long-term solution for the Bolts but a year or two of Rivers to Owens would give Rivers an opportunity to show what he can do. Owens will be 36. If the Chargers could do some sort of Randy Moss-to-New England type deal where they don't give up a lot, it might be win-win for both clubs.
chambers+vjax+gates isn't too shabby (when they're all healthy)i would think a real RT and a replacement for Goff at RG is more of a priority(not to mention a running back, a replacement for Igor at DE, and help for Jamal at NT)
It depends on how you look at it. Should a team try to maximize a strength? Or should they decide that aspect is strong enough, and to focus on other aspects of the team. I think the correct approach is to identify a strength and maximize it. Rivers is in his prime and I think its a mistake to not capitalize.
 
JohnnyU said:
Rivers is an arrogant p-u-s----y. GO COLTS!!!! GO MANNING !!!!! I find it hard to believe that even SD fans like this guy. He has an ACL in his future.ETA: I'm sorry, I really am trying to not do this. Please forgive me :ph34r: I have no control over my fingers.
You're better than this.
You're right, and I apologize for posting that after having quite a few beers. My dislike for Rivers because of his jestures to the Indy crowd got the better of me. I crossed the line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warner needs to call the police and put an APB out on a guy about 6'5 with a laser rocket... because he got robbed.

 
Warner needs to call the police and put an APB out on a guy about 6'5 with a laser rocket... because he got robbed.
I am a big Kurt Warner fan, and he had a great season, definitely worthy of being the MVP, but his team was only 9-7, and you have to outdistance the field by quite a bit if you are gonna win the MVP while being on a team with a record like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IndyHavoc said:
Just Win Baby said:
jesseasi said:
Everyone keeps pointing to the stats. Saying Rivers had a better year statistically.

Well lets actually look at the stats.

Rivers 4009 yards

Manning 4002 yards

Rivers 34TD's

Manning 27TD's + 1 Rushing = 28TD

Rivers 11INT + 4 Lost Fumbles = 15 Turnovers

Manning 12 INT + 0 Lost Fumbles = 12 Turnovers
1. Rivers is better than Manning in QB rating, TDs, TD/interception ratio (and TD/turnover ratio if you want to include fumbles), ...
Eh? 28/12 = 2.33 and 34 / 15 = 2.27Maybe I'm no math genius, but.....
Should have said passing TDs.
 
it was actually a very unlucky team while Indy was a very lucky teamthe point differential (+92) was very good and better than Indy's (+79)according to the PFR Expected W-L, they are both exactly the same (10.2-5.8)according to FO, Indy and SD are ranked 7th and 8th respectively in total DVOA (SD OFF rank = 3, IND OFF rank = 4, SD DEF rank = 22, IND DEF rank = 14)what we see are two fairly evenly matched teams except one has been very lucky and one has been very unluckyperhaps luck is random and perhaps it's not (coaching and whatnot), but in raw ability, there is no reason to think one team is substantially better than the other
:shrug:
 
Manning:4th in completions5th in attempts3rd in percentage6th in passing yards8th in yards per game5th in touchdowns4th in 1st downs5th in passer ratingThe media darling wins another won. No good reason Manning wins this. No division title so the Brees naysayers have nothing to say about not winning the division. Stat wise Manning should not have won. :goodposting:
I agree with you to a point. Manning's numbers were not as eye popping as he is capable. In fact, Rivers' numbers are better and even Pennington or Cassel's numbers are comparable. I am not pitching Cassel here but considering the guy hadn't started a game in 6 years... he had 6 fewer TDs, 1 less pick and 300 less yards. Not a huge difference and one guy is coming off the bench and the other is widely considered the best QB in the game.Kind of a a dicey season for the Colt's; Without the monumental late game collapse by Houston, the Colt's are fighting for a play-off spot. And basically the Titans laid down in week 17. Granted, 12-4 is a solid season but it is also where the Colt's were expected to be given their personnel. Another poster mentioned it wasn't a "typical" year. I know what he meant; there was no stud RB consistently posting well rounded (rushing, receiving, TDs) numbers like an LT of the past. There were good backs but many were in and out of line-ups. Personally, I think Turner and DeAngelo Williams deserved more recognition, especially in light of expectations for their respective teams.Manning is a media darling. He seems to be in every commercial and the broadcasters go on and on to Favresque proportions. A solid season...No surprise to me that he was chosen. However, I don't believe they gave enough consideration to players who possibly had a bigger impact on their teams records; Pennington, Turner or DeAngelo.
 
jesseasi said:
Trust me, if Manning were in closer games and playing from behind - just as the Chargers were all season long - he would have thrown for way more TD's. Plus factor in the final week of the season were Manning only played the first series.
Manning was in close games or playing from behind quite often. The Colt's actually came real close to losing 6 of their first 7 games as the Vikings and Texans were a little inept in close games. After that, most Colt's games were very close, 18-15, 24-20, 33-27, 23-20, 10-6.... Don't let the facts cloud your judgement.You really want to discuss whet he "could have done" in week 17 against a team that isn't trying? Sitting down and staying healthy is as much part of the game as weather conditions.ETA... I'm no big fan of Rivers and think he is somewhat of a punk. I do agree that, with a little less luck, the Colt's could be 10-6 (and out of the play-offs) and, with a little more luck, the Chargers could be 10-6. I know "you are what you are"... just pointing out that sometimes there is very little difference between victory and defeat. Its somewhat fitting they'll get to decide this head-to-head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brees isn't on there because you've got to be amongst the top NFL teams to get the award. Honestly though, I think the Colts mid/late season success is more directly linked to the return of Bob Sanders than Peyton doing his usual thing but what Sanders contributes on the field is more difficult to measure with statistics. He just makes plays when plays need to be made.
As a Saints fan, I love Brees.However, it some critical close games he threw Ints down the stretch. Not just one game. So, while he piled up the yards, that clutchness factor was missing this year.This is not meant to denigrate Brees in any way. I like him, and I am glad he is the Saints QB. However, he just didn't get it done in some crucial situations this year. That has to be taken into account.
 
azngangster said:
Didn't Manning have a crazy amount of victories won in the 4th quarter when they were trailing if I remember correctly?I think the right guy won the award. He was money this season when it counted, and by the first few games, the Colts could have easily tanked.
:hot:
 
jesseasi said:
Rivers 11INT + 4 Lost Fumbles = 15 TurnoversManning 12 INT + 0 Lost Fumbles = 12 Turnovers
lost fumbles brings up an interesting point: the OLRivers: sacked 25 timesPManning: sacked 14 timesso Rivers did what he did with a worse OL, making it even more impressive
jesseasi said:
It really comes down to what their teams did - 8-8 vs 12-4.
1. we all know it's 9-7 vs 12-4 :bag: 2. the QB can only be responsible for the offense, which as we all know is only 1/2 a football teamso let's compare offenses:SD: 433 points - 4 Def/ST TDs = 405 pointsIND: 373 points - 5 Def/ST TDs = 338 pointsso SD's offense significantly outperformed IND's offenseon a more basic level, you can look at what each offense does per driveSD: 2.52 pts/drIND: 2.41 pts/drit's undeniable that SD's offense is performing at a higher level than IND's offense despite having a worse offensive line
jesseasi said:
Trust me, if Manning were in closer games and playing from behind - just as the Chargers were all season long - he would have thrown for way more TD's.
irrelevant, we can only judge players on what they did do, not what they could shoulda woulda doneif Manning were in closer games and playing from behind he would have thrown riskier passes and had more interceptions
jesseasi said:
Plus head to head - at San Diego - Manning is the one that led the Colts to victory over Rivers.
so . . . if the Chargers win this game, you'll agree that Rivers should have gotten the MVP?
His team adds NO merit as a 'top' team. Its a mediocre regular season team.
it was actually a very unlucky team while Indy was a very lucky teamthe point differential (+92) was very good and better than Indy's (+79)according to the PFR Expected W-L, they are both exactly the same (10.2-5.8)according to FO, Indy and SD are ranked 7th and 8th respectively in total DVOA (SD OFF rank = 3, IND OFF rank = 4, SD DEF rank = 22, IND DEF rank = 14)what we see are two fairly evenly matched teams except one has been very lucky and one has been very unluckyperhaps luck is random and perhaps it's not (coaching and whatnot), but in raw ability, there is no reason to think one team is substantially better than the other
If you want to bring up football outsiders stats their DVOA is Rivers 35.6% and Manning 36.0% which is close but in favor of Manning and DYAR shows 1,709 for Manning and 1,504 for Rivers, not even close. If you add in the "clutchness" factor of teams record in close games, which I'm not a big fan of but the media is, along with their teams records the choices isnt really that close. On top of that Manning had the third best season of any QB since 1995 in 2006 and lost to LT because he broke a TD record that was a whole 1 year old so I don't buy him winning just "because of his name" either.
 
All I have to add is Rivers led his team to first in their division Manning led his team to 2nd in their division.

 
All I have to add is Rivers led his team to first in their division Manning led his team to 2nd in their division.
So what.The Broncos or Chargers could have easily both finished at, and won, the division at 6-10. whooppeee
So What? I'd rather have a division title at 6-10 7-9 or 8-8 than not have a division title. Do they give awards for 2nd, oh yeah thats right they do when Peyton Manning is involved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about we try it from this angle:

Peyton Manning led his team to the 2nd best record (along with three other teams) in the NFL this season.

Philip Rivers led his team to the 17th best record (along with four other teams) in the NFL this season.

:confused:

 
jesseasi said:
Trust me, if Manning were in closer games and playing from behind - just as the Chargers were all season long - he would have thrown for way more TD's. Plus factor in the final week of the season were Manning only played the first series.
Manning was in close games or playing from behind quite often. The Colt's actually came real close to losing 6 of their first 7 games as the Vikings and Texans were a little inept in close games. After that, most Colt's games were very close, 18-15, 24-20, 33-27, 23-20, 10-6.... Don't let the facts cloud your judgement.You really want to discuss whet he "could have done" in week 17 against a team that isn't trying? Sitting down and staying healthy is as much part of the game as weather conditions.ETA... I'm no big fan of Rivers and think he is somewhat of a punk. I do agree that, with a little less luck, the Colt's could be 10-6 (and out of the play-offs) and, with a little more luck, the Chargers could be 10-6. I know "you are what you are"... just pointing out that sometimes there is very little difference between victory and defeat. Its somewhat fitting they'll get to decide this head-to-head.
I've found that teams, coaches, front offices and players that blame bad luck on losses are generally the teams, coaches, front offices and players that are just plain losers. The fact of the matter is that the margin of error in the NFL is EXTREMELY small. The difference between an elite player and a scrub is surprisingly small. A tenth of a second or 2 inches of separation for a receiver are big deals at this level of play.Earlier this season, the defensive coordinator for the Lions made a comment saying that their defense really wasn't that bad. He said that the only difference between the Lions and the top defenses was that the Lions made 2 or 3 bad plays that accounted for like 30% of the yards that they gave up each game. But that's exactly the point. The top teams in the league DON'T make those mistakes. They DON'T give up those plays. It's not luck that they don't give up those plays. They're just good enough that they don't.So the Colts may have won a bunch of close games, but the fact is that they won them. That's what good and great teams do. They win close games. For instance, the Bears lost 3 games by 4 points or less. That's why they finished 9-7 and are sitting at home.
 
How about we try it from this angle:

Peyton Manning and a very good defense led his team to the 2nd best record (along with three other teams) in the NFL this season.

Philip Rivers led his team to the 17th best record (along with four other teams) in the NFL this season in spite of his team's poor defense.

:unsure:
Fixed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about we try it from this angle:Peyton Manning led his team to the 2nd best record (along with three other teams) in the NFL this season. Philip Rivers led his team to the 17th best record (along with four other teams) in the NFL this season. :unsure:
He still led them from 4-8 to the division title + had better overall numbers than Manning. If you want to go with records and ignore QB numbers Chad Pennington took Miami from 1-15 to 11-5 + won their division but he is not the MVP. Look I think Manning is a damn fine upstanding guy who is a great player....just not the league MVP for 2008
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about we try it from this angle:Peyton Manning led his team to the 2nd best record (along with three other teams) in the NFL this season. Philip Rivers led his team to the 17th best record (along with four other teams) in the NFL this season. :unsure:
So.... just give the QB of the team with the best winning % the MVP every year? I thought this was an individual award, not a team award.
 
How about we try it from this angle:Peyton Manning led his team to the 2nd best record (along with three other teams) in the NFL this season. Philip Rivers led his team to the 17th best record (along with four other teams) in the NFL this season. :popcorn:
So.... just give the QB of the team with the best winning % the MVP every year? I thought this was an individual award, not a team award.
Then why shouldn't Brees deserve it over Rivers? Same number of TDs, Brees had 6 more INTs, but over 1000 more passing yards. He threw for the 2nd most passing yards in a season. That's more impressive than Rivers's numbers IMO.
 
How about we try it from this angle:Peyton Manning led his team to the 2nd best record (along with three other teams) in the NFL this season. Philip Rivers led his team to the 17th best record (along with four other teams) in the NFL this season. :popcorn:
So.... just give the QB of the team with the best winning % the MVP every year? I thought this was an individual award, not a team award.
Then why shouldn't Brees deserve it over Rivers? Same number of TDs, Brees had 6 more INTs, but over 1000 more passing yards. He threw for the 2nd most passing yards in a season. That's more impressive than Rivers's numbers IMO.
Depends on whether you value efficiency and thus which statistics you value. Rivers was much more efficient than Brees.
 
How about we try it from this angle:

Peyton Manning and a very good defense led his team to the 2nd best record (along with three other teams) in the NFL this season.

Philip Rivers led his team to the 17th best record (along with four other teams) in the NFL this season in spite of his team's poor defense.

:goodposting:
Fixed.
How about Indy's awful running game. SD averaged almost 30 yards more per game than Indy, so Rivers had a lot more help on offense than Manning did. Also, suggesting that the best player from an 8-8 team was more valuable than a player from a 12-4 because the 8-8 players won a crappy division would be like saying Troy's best player was more valuable than Colt McCoy because Troy won the Sun Belt and McCoy's team didn't win their conference. Okay, maybe not exactly :goodposting: :thumbup: , but I think you get the point. The best player from the 17th best team should not be rewarded as the league's MVP just because he was fortunate enough to play in a horrible division.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The best player from the 17th best team should not be rewarded as the league's MVP just because he was fortunate enough to play in a horrible division.
No. That would be some very odd criteria. Who suggested that?However, the MVP could very well be on the 17th (or even worse) team. Once again, it's an individual award, not a team winning percentage award. I doubt very much much that the Colts would have made the playoffs without Manning's performance. I doubt the Chargers would have won more than 3 or 4 games without River's performance.
 
The best player from the 17th best team should not be rewarded as the league's MVP just because he was fortunate enough to play in a horrible division.
No. That would be some very odd criteria. Who suggested that?However, the MVP could very well be on the 17th (or even worse) team. Once again, it's an individual award, not a team winning percentage award. I doubt very much much that the Colts would have made the playoffs without Manning's performance. I doubt the Chargers would have won more than 3 or 4 games without River's performance.
I agree, but I think it was Chase Stuart who pointed out a while back that the MVP almost always comes from a player from a team on one of the best teams (record-wise) in the NFL. If a player is gonna win the MVP while playing on a team that goes 9-7 or 8-8, they had better outrun the competition by a lot and break some records. See: Barry Sanders in '97.
 
The entire debate in this thread has been around whether or not the Chargers are a top team at 8-8. That is absolutely ridiculous considering that we are debating between two players. Earlier in the thread, people were debating whether or not SD was at least a top 12 team considering they made the playoffs. I can't believe how many people can't see the forest for the trees here, inclduing the AP voters. The focus of this debate should be around who was the better player, or the more valuable player, not which team was arbitrarily "good."

A lot of people have said that historically, the MVP doesn't go to a team as bad as 8-8. So how good does the team have to be? What if they were 9-7? Shouldn't we give some credit for winning the division? Here are the stats so we can put an end to this:

My apologies if anyone who presented this argument already presented these stats...

08 Manning 11-5

07 Brady* 16-0

06 Tomlinson 14-2

05 Alexander 13-3*

04 Manning 12-4

03 Manning/McNair both 12-4

02 Rich Gannon* 11-5

01 Warner* 14-2

00 Faulk 10-6

99 Warner* 13-3

98 Terrel Davis* 14-2

97 Brett Favre* 13-3

Barry Sanders 9-7

96 Brett Favre* 13-3

95 Brett Favre 11-5

94 Steve Young* 13-3

93 Emmitt Smith* 12-4

92 Steve Young 14-2

91 Thurman Thomas* 13-3

90 Joe Montana* 14-2

89 Joe Montana 14-2

Wow. Kind of kills my argument. Not only does 8-8 look bad, Mannings 11-5 wildcard team looks pretty bad, too! I've put all the teams in bold that didn't win their division. I've also starred all of the players that went on to play in the super bowl that year. 60% of the time, the MVP played in the Super Bowl? That just doesn't seem right.

 
All I have to add is Rivers led his team to first in their division Manning led his team to 2nd in their division.
Is this shtick, or are you really this clueless?
ooops somebody's apple cart just got upset. That sucky 8-8 team and QB just beat the superior 12-4 team and the MVP to boot.
Did you watch the game, or are you still being clueless and spouting nonsense? The Chargers won because of Darren Sproles, their defense and Mike Scifres. Rivers was outplayed quite a bit by Manning.
 
All I have to add is Rivers led his team to first in their division Manning led his team to 2nd in their division.
Is this shtick, or are you really this clueless?
ooops somebody's apple cart just got upset. That sucky 8-8 team and QB just beat the superior 12-4 team and the MVP to boot.
Did you watch the game, or are you still being clueless and spouting nonsense? The Chargers won because of Darren Sproles, their defense and Mike Scifres. Rivers was outplayed quite a bit by Manning.
Who won again? :shock: Why don't you wipe yor nose you little baby, you're embarrassing yourself with your juvenile behavior. Sleep tight!
 
All I have to add is Rivers led his team to first in their division Manning led his team to 2nd in their division.
Is this shtick, or are you really this clueless?
ooops somebody's apple cart just got upset. That sucky 8-8 team and QB just beat the superior 12-4 team and the MVP to boot.
Did you watch the game, or are you still being clueless and spouting nonsense? The Chargers won because of Darren Sproles, their defense and Mike Scifres. Rivers was outplayed quite a bit by Manning.
Who won again? :own3d: Why don't you wipe yor nose you little baby, you're embarrassing yourself with your juvenile behavior. Sleep tight!
:thumbup:
 
All I have to add is Rivers led his team to first in their division Manning led his team to 2nd in their division.
Is this shtick, or are you really this clueless?
ooops somebody's apple cart just got upset. That sucky 8-8 team and QB just beat the superior 12-4 team and the MVP to boot.
Did you watch the game, or are you still being clueless and spouting nonsense? The Chargers won because of Darren Sproles, their defense and Mike Scifres. Rivers was outplayed quite a bit by Manning.
Who won again? :thumbup: Why don't you wipe yor nose you little baby, you're embarrassing yourself with your juvenile behavior. Sleep tight!
Good God man. Manning outplayed Rivers tonight.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top