This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I wish I had the time, the contacts and the technology to do this properly, however that is just not possible. Instead I made an educated guess that if you did an in depth analysis of all these categories, Manning would be at the top of the list and therefore feel the voters got it right.
In other words you have no clue if Manning actually deserves to be all-pro (by your criteria)
Are you struggling with reading comprehension? Instead of getting into a pis sing match... why not offer some insight... I openly said I don't have the ability to do so and even continued to spell it out saying "I was maing an educated guess." In fact, no one on this board unless a voter can answer exactly their reasoning as to why they voted the way they did. This is a board of opinion and you can gladly share some as to why or why you don't think Manning who was the number 1 vote getter by the way should or should not be. In fact, your only 2 contributions to this thread so far have been asking me what I think the criteria should be and then after I gave you my answer you continued to try and discredit something I clearly said I was making an educated guess about.craxie said:
Then why didn't you stop right there?If you don't have the ability to do so, then don'tWhy did you state flat out "it is Manning and he rightfully recieved the most votes"Sure you hedged . . . later . . . after you got called on it
That's fine if you're honest about your reasons.Basically you said Manning deserves it because of your review of game film, talking to coaches and players etc, except you didn't actually do any of those things, but if you had, that's what you think it would show.Which is the same as saying, 'Manning is the best because I think he is', which is no argument at all
Nobody wants to a shot at defending he SJ selection?
I'm not saying I agree, but these were probably factors:1. Jackson got his 1738 YFS in 15 games; MJD got his 1765 YFS in 16 games. Small edge to Jackson.2. Jackson averaged more YFS despite playing in an absolutely horrific situation. Other than him, the team literally stunk at everything: #32 in points scored; #29 in offensive yards; #31 in points allowed; #29 in yards allowed. Just consider that the Rams' team QB rating was 64, and their opponents' QB rating was 97. MJD played for a 7-9 team that wasn't great but was much better than the Rams. I suspect the voters gave a big edge to Jackson for this.3. MJD plays in a small market and doesn't get on national TV too often. Of course, neither do the Rams. Perhaps I'm just forgetting, but I don't recall many MJD highlights from this year... like Sportscenter highlight runs, game break plays, etc. I remember a few for Jackson. Maybe this is a push, not sure.Not sure if looking deeper would reveal more that would support one side over the other, but I would have at least given MJD serious consideration if I had a vote.
Philip Rivers is my favorite NFL player. I think Peyton Manning is the best player in the NFL right now, and probably the most valuable player in the history of pro football.I agree, but you are gonna get the Rivers crew in here now pointing out every statistic where Rivers is superior to Manning, and ignoring the intangibles like Manning being like an OC on the field, his ability to affect the defense on literally every player by constantly changing the plays or whatnot, etc. But those things cannot be measured in statistics, and are only our opinions, so they don't matter.
He isn't even in the top 3 QBs right now.
QB: GarrardWRs: Holt, MSW, ThomasQBs: Bulger, Boller, NullWRs: Avery, Amendola, Gibson, Burton, RobinsonWow, that was easy. MJD did very well in a below-average offense on a 7-9 team. SJax did just as well in an offense that, outside of him, was far and away the worst in the entire league, on a team that went 1-15 with the only win coming against the Detroit Lions. Jacksonville ranked 7th in giveaways, while the Rams ranked 27th. Jacksonville was started a proven veteran QB, while the Rams went from a shell of a QB to a bust of a QB to a late-round rookie prospect. The Jags had great health among the receiving corps. The Rams lost several WRs to season-ending injuries (not that they had any good receivers in the first place). The fact that SJax put up comparable yardage and yard-per-touch figures (in one less game) in that situation is mind-bogglingly impressive, and the fact that MJD had a dozen more TDs can be written off to the fact that the Rams almost never even saw the red zone, thanks to the stellar QBing of Keith Null and Kyle Boller.MJD is my favorite player in the league, and I've gone on record here before calling him the best RB in the league (yes, better than ADP). SJax's season this year was just so impressive, though.
Heeeeeeeeeeere fishy fishy fishy fishy......... here fishy fishy......... heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere fishy fishy fishy...
Call it whatever you want, but he trails all 3 QBs in every single efficiency stat and his interception % is downright sad.He's been so dominant for so long, that people have trouble accepting that the rest of the league has caught up, but facts are facts
I'll buy that. I followed SJ closely this season and his production was amazing all things considered. But your argument goes a little deeper than you usually see with the voting. Following that pattern of voting Vernon Davis should have been first team TE for example. As a side note I would also point out that it's not that rare for bad/average teams to have successful running backs. 6 of the top 10 and 18 of the top 25 individual rushers didn't make the post season. So yea, SJax had a great year on a bad team. But RBs showing out on bad teams isn't that uncommon.SSOG said:
If it is as simple as that, then Manning leads the league in TD's, yards, completion percentages, wins... the end. But it is not that easy. If Manning had a bad completion percentage but just threw a ton of balls to get the second most completions in the league then so be it. But that is not the case.craxie said:SSOG said:Call it whatever you want, but he trails all 3 QBs in every single efficiency stat and his interception % is downright sad.He's been so dominant for so long, that people have trouble accepting that the rest of the league has caught up, but facts are facts
So, in other words, the three best QBs in the league are the 3 QBs with the best efficiency stats when you checked most recently? If one QB was #1, #4, #3, and #4 over the last four years, and another QB was #32, #18, #24, and #3 over the last four years, you'd say that the second QB was better because he was more efficient when last you checked?craxie said:SSOG said:Call it whatever you want, but he trails all 3 QBs in every single efficiency stat and his interception % is downright sad.He's been so dominant for so long, that people have trouble accepting that the rest of the league has caught up, but facts are facts
Showing out on a bad team is what MJD did. Showing out on a positively putrid team starting a rookie 6th rounder and their 3rd and 4th string WRs while finishing dead last in the league in points scored and second to last in the league in points allowed en route to a 1-15 finish is what SJax did. There's a difference.
Agreed.Raw totals from '07 to '09:So, in other words, the three best QBs in the league are the 3 QBs with the best efficiency stats when you checked most recently? If one QB was #1, #4, #3, and #4 over the last four years, and another QB was #32, #18, #24, and #3 over the last four years, you'd say that the second QB was better because he was more efficient when last you checked?craxie said:SSOG said:
He's been so dominant for so long, that people have trouble accepting that the rest of the league has caught up, but facts are facts
I don't know what arguments Romo has. Fewer yards, fewer TDs, worse TD:INT ratio, lower Comp%, lower QB Rating, lower ANYA, fewer wins, less "clutch"... regardless of what your favorite method for measuring QB play is, Romo falls short. Granted, he comes close, but I can't understand what arguments there are that a guy who is almost (but not quite) as good in every single category that people measure QBs by.Brees and Rivers I have no problem with. Rivers is clearly the most efficient of the trio, regardless of how you measure efficiency (QB rating or ANYA), but he's also got the lowest volume stats, which helps boost his efficiency numbers a touch. Manning and Brees are pretty much neck and neck- Manning's QB rating is 0.1 higher, Brees's ANYA is 0.01 higher, Brees has the best counting stats, Manning has wins and the awards. In my mind, those three guys are definitely a step above their peers, with Brady, Rodgers, Romo, and Roethlisberger right behind.
That just means he throws the ball a lot, which doesn't necessarily mean anything as was shown with Seattle leading the league in attemptsAs QBs don't 'wear down' with each throw the way a RB does with each run, throwing it a few more times a game isn't something that shows any special ability
Again we've already shown that completion percentage is only 'half a stat', meaningless without the context of its twin 'yard per completion'yards per attempt is the unification of these two halves and Manning trails everyone here, badly
wins is a team statand the Colts are a good team
yup, the end of Manning's statistical dominance of the league
You have to look at what we're discussing, which is awards for performance for the past yearSince QB2 performed better than QB1 the past year, yes, he deserves to be ranked aboveThis has nothing to do with what you think the QBs value will be in the future or which QB has the better history or which QB you would want to lead your team, it is about performance THIS YEARAnd this year, Manning's performance was not in the top 3
I think you've got it backwards; Rivers has the best efficiency numbers, which helps lower his volume stats.As for Romo, he's the most mobile of the group, and he's basically dead even with Manning in ANY/A.
I have no problem with a statement that Manning did not have one of the top 3 seasons this year. I'd disagree, but I can definitely see how a logical and well-thought-out argument could be made to that effect. What you originally said, however, was that Manning was no longer one of the top 3 QBs in the NFL. Personally, I think he's one of the top 3 QBs in NFL history, to say nothing of the NFL today.
And I think you've got it backwards. San Diego passed 54.9% of the time. Indy passed 62.2% of the time. Both running games were comparably pathetic (3.3 ypa for SD, 3.5 ypa for Indy). As a result, defenses knew that Indy was more likely to pass than San Diego on any given play, and so the DC called plays accordingly, and the defenders played accordingly.Thought experiment- imagine a team that ran 1000 offensive plays for the year, and 990 of them were runs. On the ten pass they called, how likely do you think it is the defense would be unprepared? How easily do you think Vincent Jackson would get open behind the safeties? How many YPA would you expect Philip Rivers to average over those attempts? Now, imagine a team that ran 1000 offensive plays all 1000 of them were passes. On any one of those passes, how likely do you think it is that the defense would be unprepared for a pass? How many YPA would you expect Rivers to average under such situations?The higher a percentage of a time a team runs a certain play, the less effectiveness one would expect from that play each time it was run. As a result, I think Rivers' higher efficiency stats are at least partly a result of the fact that San Diego passes a lower percentage of the time than Indy. How much of the efficiency boost is attributable to that? I have no clue, but I do know that it would have at least SOME effect.Edit: I also believe that the point you were trying to make is that Rivers' efficiency meant that the Chargers got off the field quicker after successful drives and he therefore didn't have the chance to pile up a lot of empty yards, yes? Because if so, I disagree with your main point that San Diego's offense was more efficient than Indy's. San Diego's offense was first in points per drive. Indy's was fourth despite having the third worst average starting field position in the league. Indy's was also first in TDs per drive (again, despite that terrible starting field position). According to FO's "drive success rate" stat, Indy was first and SD was fourth. According to DVOA, SD's offense was 5th and Indy's was 6th. I'd say both offenses were comparably efficient, so I don't think that Rivers' higher rate stats really impacted his volume stats all that much compared to Manning.
I would like to congratulate Willie Colon, who has apparently somehow earned the honor of casting a vote for the AP all-pro team.
It's not about getting off the field quicker. It's about getting the lead quicker. If Rivers gets his team a two touchdown lead by throwing for 140 yards on 15 passes, his team will stop passing. The better you are at passing the ball, the fewer attempts you need to score points, and once you score points, you stop passing (at least for teams like the Chargers). SD has almost no threat of a running game, so I don't think defenses are expecting the run (when the game still is in doubt) when Rivers is throwing. Do you really think the threat of the SD running game is the reason Rivers has good efficiency numbers?
Okay, I understand your argument better now. Like I said, though... Indy scored as easily as San Diego, and their running game was equally putrid. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. All other things being roughly equal (and, in this case, they are) the team that throws a lower percentage of the time will have a greater efficiency rating on those throws.
I don't agree with this. Maybe if we're talking about throwing on 5% of plays compared to 60%, but not in most normal cases.
I thought DeSean Jackson was too far down the list. He had an outstanding year.
Vincent Jackson?
Where's the cutoff? 5% vs. 60%? 15% vs. 60%? 25% vs. 60%? 45% vs. 60%? How about 55% vs. 62%?Do you think it's a coincidence that so many of the career leaders in YPA played in an era where runs were so much more common than passes, despite the fact that rules were actually tougher against the pass back then?Chase Stuart said:
Totally different game; for one, there were fewer games, too. And yes, in those cases, fewer attempts helps out a lot. Most of those QBs were big play guys, which leads to a high variance (which doesn't change the average, but over a short number of attempts, could (and did) lead to historically extreme YPA numbers).But for Rivers/Manning, I don't see it. At all. Brees tied Rivers for best ANY/A this year.
You keep calling me out on my opinion...... Can you at least offer why you feel this way. I think you are thinking Rivers was so much more efficeint than Manning, which I don't think is true. I think Manning ran his offense better than anyone in football this year.I think you are underestimating how efficient Manning and the Colts were. Although Manning had 85 more passing attmepts on the season than Rivers and averaged the 3rd morst attempts in the league the Colts were 30th in the league on 3rd down offensive attempts with 193 vs Rivers and the Chargers who were the league best with 187 and for comparison sake Brees and the Saints were 197. However, on those 3rd down attempts Manninng and the colts were a league best 49% vs Rivers and the Chargers 44% and Brees and the Saints were at 45%. This falls on Manning putting his team in positions to succeed on crucial 3rd down situations. Manning and the Colts were able to limit their 3rd down plays as good as anyone and then move the chains better than anyone. I don't get how this is not being as efficient as anyone in football. There are different ways to move up and down the field and Manning was as successful as anyone this year at leading the Colts up the field.
You are moving into the efficiency of the offense, not the QB alone, and you're giving full credit for that to Manning. Both offenses averaged 5.9 yards per play, but the Chargers scored more points and turned the ball over less often. I think that shows that the Chargers offense was more efficient. Based on your stance on Manning, you should be giving Rivers credit for that.On top of that, consider:QB rating: Rivers 104.4, Manning 99.9YPA: Rivers 8.8, Manning 7.9TD percentage: Rivers 5.8%, Manning 5.8%Interception percentage: Rivers 1.9%, 2.8%First down percentage: Rivers 42.8%, Manning 41.5%Throws for 20+ yards: Rivers 64, Manning 59 = Rivers 13.2%, Manning 10.3%Throws for 40+ yards: Rivers 12, Manning 8 = Rivers 2.5%, Manning 1.4%Poor throw percentage: Rivers 12.1%, Manning 12.6%Dropped percentage: Rivers 4.7%, Manning 4.2%Heck, Rivers even ran for 5 first downs and a TD, compared to 0 and 0 for Manning.Manning was great this year, no doubt about it. But there is really no credible argument that he was more efficient than Rivers.
Yep. That's how it works. Just the dude with the second most first-place votes; voters only cast one vote.
I agree, there are more than ints to playing DB.
What happens when someone's a unanimous selection?
No second-team All-Pro. This happened at QB in either '04 or '07, IIRC.
Nice to see Polite as the 1st team FB. In the few games I saw, he had far more impact than any other FB I saw all year.
Manning showed today why he could lock up a few more MVPs before he's done. What a performance. (altho he did look like he swallowed some sour patch kids on the sideline at one point.)
I have not heard much from Craxie or Chase after this playoff run. I think the stats show that Rivers is a great QB but he is not anywhere near Manning good at this stage.Yippee. craxie is now here, which means this thread will turn into a
Not even sure what that means.I think the stats clearly show that the Chargers have had the better passing offense the past two seasons relative to the Colts.From that, I think it's reasonable to infer that Rivers has been a better QB than Manning, unless you think the combination of Manning's supporting cast being weaker than Rivers and/or Manning's SOS being stronger than Rivers (neither of which I'm saying is true) is enough to overcome the fact that Manning plays in a dome and his numbers are worse. I'm not sure how Manning's great performance against the Jets changes things. It's not like you're arguing something different; his numbers against the Jets were INSANE. Manning averaged 11.21 AY/A against the Jets, since October, he's hit double digits in AY/A in only one other game. So Manning basically had the best game he's had in months, statistically speaking, against the Jets.Not sure how that argues against Rivers' being better than Manning. If Manning put up the sort of performances against the Jets every week, he'd be superman. If your argument is that "Rivers is better than Manning usually, but Manning has this superhuman ability to perform better than everyone when the game matters most", fine. But at least that's not what I think you're saying.I have not heard much from Craxie or Chase after this playoff run. I think the stats show that Rivers is a great QB but he is not anywhere near Manning good at this stage.Yippee. craxie is now here, which means this thread will turn into a
No, not only stats. The closer two player's stats are, the less important stats become. The farther away they are, the more important stats become.But I'm not really understanding what you're basing your choice of Manning on. It's ironic that Manning supporters used to always point to his stats, saying that those were proof of how good he is. Now they want to say stats are overrated.So why do you prefer Manning to Rivers?
I have already posted a number of things as to why I view Manning as favorable to Rivers.Why do you think Rex Ryan thinks Manning is better than Rivers?
I'm not Carter, and I know I've already weighed in, but I wanted to answer anyway. Like I said earlier, the fact that Indy throws a higher percentage of the time probably has an impact on their efficiency stats. What really impressed me about Manning this year, though, is that he once again made Indy an unstoppable offense with an endless parade of new faces. Indy is a team with an average defense, a pair of average (at best) RBs, and a below-average offensive line. They lost Gonzalez before the season started and were forced to roll with unheralded 2nd-year guy Garcon and unheralded rookie Collie. Despite all of that, Indy started the season 14-0 and probably could be facing a perfect season right now if they cared more. On paper, you're looking at a mediocre defense and an offense that'd be entirely mediocre if not for Manning and Wayne. Manning's probably the difference between 16-0 and 8-8.Manning's the ultimate NFL cure-all. Build a mediocre squad? Add Peyton Manning and you've got one of the best teams in the league. Play a game where you only have 15 minutes in ToP? Add Manning and walk away with a win. Field the second most injured team in the league? Add Manning and threaten perfection. Your offense gets the ball while trailing or tied 9 times on the season? Add Peyton Manning and score on 7 of those 9 drives. Rivers is awesome, but he hasn't yet reached that Peyton Manning "the answer to every question" level.
I do give Rivers plenty of credit.
