Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Through 4 weeks, who is the league MVP? DPOY? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Phenomena
- Start date
Brady might be in the conversation by the end of the year, but right now he's not in the top 20. It's a season-long award, and over the first four games Tom Brady averaged just 5.8 yards per attempt with a passer rating under 80. That's atrocious. He's been En Fuego since then, but as of this very moment, those four atrocious games represent half of his season so far. You can't be in the MVP conversation if you were atrocious for half of the season.
Besides, you notice how Brady going all En Fuego happened to coincide with Rob Gronkowski getting healthy, back in shape, and earning back his full snap count? Brady wouldn't be my pick even if the "P" in MVP stood for "Patriot".
Edit: This handy chart pretty clearly shows the current leaders.
Last edited by a moderator:
For me, it's a combination of "RB is the least valuable position on offense" and "Murray has had four costly fumbles so far this season". He's the best choice among the RBs, but in my opinion the best choice among the RBs still doesn't enter the conversation unless it's a down year at QB.
Even if we're just limiting ourselves to non-QB offensive players, I think Rob Gronkowski has probably been more valuable to the Patriots than Murray has been to the Cowboys. Although a lot of that is "he shows his value in his absence"- i.e. part of the reason he's so obviously valuable is because of how bad New England was on offense when he was working back into shape.
I'm also not sure I would take Murray over Antonio Brown. He's definitely on the non-QB shortlist, I just tend to think a non-QB has to essentially be J.J. Watt to force his way into the MVP conversation, and while Murray has been amazing, he hasn't been Watt-amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
jurb26
Footballguy
4 costly fumbles? How costly can they really be when his team has only lost 1 game? Gronk and Brown, while amazing in their own right aren't even the MVP of their own teams. Watt most certainly is but its a 4-4 team not even in the playoffs right now.
skinsrule05
Footballguy
If they are not the MVP of their team then who is? I can't imagine anyone more valuable then Gronk. That team was garbage without him. Brady couldn't do a thing. As far as Brown I guess you could argue Bell or Roethlesberger. They are at least closer.
jurb26
Footballguy
Brady and Roeth are the MVPs.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Luck, Murray or Watt as MVP.
Watt as DPOY.
Watt as DPOY.
skinsrule05
Footballguy
That is following the NFL award to the letter. You know the MVP (as long as they are a QB). However, I meant who is really the MVP. Please don't say Brady when he was lost without Gronk there.
So nothing is costly if it doesn't result in a loss? In week 1, Murray's fumble was returned for 7 points. That seems pretty costly- it cost Dallas seven points in a game they ultimately lost by 11. In week 2, Murray fumbled at mid-field of a 0-0 game. Seems like a potentially costly fumble, though luckily Tennessee is terrible. In week 3, Murray fumbled with the Cowboys trailing by 7, and St. Louis scored on the ensuing possession to take a 14-0 lead. Was that not a costly mistake? In week 5, Murray fumbled in the red-zone of a 0-0 game, costing Dallas at least 3 points and potentially 7 points. Dallas was taken to overtime in that game- don't you think those 3 lost points were pretty costly?
Through the first four weeks of the season, Gronkowski played 50% of New England's snaps and did not look like himself. Tom Brady averaged 5.7 yards per attempt and had a passer rating under 80. Over the last four weeks, Gronkowski has played 75% of New England's snaps (really, more like 80% before he left yesterday's blowout win for dehydration), and has generally rounded into his typical form. Tom Brady has averaged 8.8 yards per attempt and had a passer rating of 129. Rob Gronkowski is the straw that stirs the Patriots' offensive drink.
Dallas' offense without Murray would be a heck of a lot better than New England's offense without Gronkowski.
OnTheReg
Footballguy
jurb26
Footballguy
Of course all turnovers are costly by some measure. You stated as if they were costly in a sense that was related to W/L, though. That's how I read it at least. Perhaps that wasn't the intent. Regardless, W/L are very critical to this conversation. It's directly impacting the MVP race like it or not. The fact that Murray has fumbled 4 times should not be erased but it is drowned out by the fact that his team is 6-1 ridding his back. I'd say his other accomplishments are far outweighing his fumbles. Gronk is a critical piece to the NE offense. I've never said otherwise. Again though, where would NE be without Brady? I'd say they are in worse shape than if they are minus Gronk.
There is no way for you to quantify that Dal offense would be better without Murray than NE without Gronk. It's a convent argument because we haven't seen Dal without Murray. The fact of the matter is Murray ranks a clear #1 at his position in DYAR with a +208 and #4 in DVOA at a +18.2%. Gronk ranks #14 in DYAR at +38 and #20 in DVOA at +2.7%. So, value vs. replacement heavily favors Murray.
Coincidentally, Dal when giving Murray 20 or more carries the past 2 years is 10-1. When given less than 20 carries they are 4-7. Feed ing Murray the ball is directly related to Dal becoming a significantly better team. Not just offensively, as a whole. You think Murray tearing things up on the ground hasn't played a major role in Dal transforming from a historically bad D, 415.3 YPG ranking #32 to a better than average one, 343.9 YPG Ranking #13?
Run It Up
Footballguy
Although I don't feel like Brady is in the running yet, if he plays out strong and is able to beat Manning and/or Rivers id think he's definitely near the top. Also this discussion of the first 5 weeks seems to be more focused on Gronk and less focused on their Oline. Brady looked like crap week 1-5 because he had less than 3 seconds to throw the ball every play.
Last edited by a moderator:
I never mentioned wins or losses. I said he had four costly fumbles. All four of his fumbles have come with his team tied or trailing, one was returned for a touchdown, the other happened in the red zone in a game that went to overtime. I stand behind that- Demarco Murray had four costly fumbles. And yes, his other accomplishments are far outweighing his fumbles, which is why I said Murray is my top pick at RB. But those fumbles happened, and in an MVP race, they matter.
When New Orleans gives Drew Brees three kneeldowns, they're undefeated. Like with your Murray example, the causal arrow runs the other way- winning teams tend to kneel down, and winning teams tend to run the ball to close out games.
Just how valuable is Murray? Dallas' offensive line is the best in the league. Tony Romo and Dez Bryant are studs, and Williams is an up-and-comer. Witten's having a very down year, but he's a future Hall of Famer. I remain firmly convinced that you could replace Demarco Murray with Randle and Dunbar and that offense would still be great. Not as great, of course, but still great. You like pointing to DVOA to make your point, but on a per-play basis (and, yes, this is a ridiculously small sample size), Randle has been substantially more efficient than Murray running the ball and Dunbar has been substantially more efficient receiving the ball. Given a bunch more work those numbers would come back to the pack a bit, and there's a lot of value in having both options in a single player, but it's not like Dallas would magically fall apart without Murray. They'd still probably be a top-5 offense.
Meanwhile, we've seen Gronk's on/off splits over the last two years. New England does not have a top-5 offense when Gronk is not on the field. They don't even have a top-16 offense when Gronk is not on the field.
Edit: besides, the same reason you believe that Tom Brady is more valuable than Rob Gronkowski is why no running back will ever be more valuable than the most valuable quarterback in the NFL. So even by your best Murray argument, he shouldn't be in the running for MVP over Rivers, Manning, Luck, and Rodgers.
Last edited by a moderator:
jurb26
Footballguy
A couple of things. First, Dal oline is ranked 4th in run blocking, not 1st. Yes, their oline is good and yes they deserve credit as well. They rank 18 in pass blocking however. NE ranks 11 in pass blocking but we don't hear anyone talking about them or giving them any credit. Yes, sample size matters. I mean Wright is better per play than Gronk according to DVOA so let's not base things tiny sample sizes that mean basically nothing. The example of Brees kneeling is again, a terrible one. Why even bring these things up?
Romo is a stud, huh? Strange that this team was a perennial bottom dweller the past few seasons while he was the primary focus of the offense then. We've seen what this team is when Dal relies heavily on Romo. It's average or bellow average. Dal has finally come to their senses and realized they have to play to their strength with icy is Murray, the oline and running the ball. Dal has run 52% of the time this year and is 6-1. Last year they ran 36%, 8-8. The year prior to that they ran 35%, 8-8. I'd argue that this year is Romo's best as a QB, though not fantasy, because of the change in philosophy and Murray's impact. Not the other way around.
It's kind of funny that the question about Brady keeps getting dodged. You bring up the supporting caste in Dal as a means to diminish Murray yet refuse to talk about the guy who is the largest catalyst in the conversation, Brady. You know the guy who is a sure HOF player and perhaps top 5 at his position, the most important position in football, of all time? Brady skews the deck. Also worth noting is that NE has a pretty darn good oline themselves. It's ranked 11 in pass blocking. It ranked 1st last year and 3rd the year prior.
OLine stats are whatever. Football Outsiders measures OLine quality indirectly, and indirect measurements are necessarily imperfect measurements. Their Pass Blocking measurement is, in particular, a terrible way to measure OL quality. FO assigns a pass blocking grade based on sacks allowed, adjusted for strength of schedule... despite the fact that FO itself acknowledges that QBs bear 50% of the responsibility for sacks allowed. Peyton Manning has never finished outside of the top 10 in sack%. Has Peyton Manning had a top 10 offensive line every year for his entire career? That seems like a remarkable run of good fortune, if true. This year's Pats are another great example- sure, they haven't given up a lot of sacks, but that's because Tom Brady is great at avoiding them. People who watch their line will tell you it's the worst line they've had during the entire Belichick era, and the unit has fallen apart after their long-standing coach retired.
PFF has Dallas 8th in pass blocking and 6th in run blocking, but there are known biases in PFF's grading system, too. I'm not talking about statistics, though- I'm talking about, if I could have any offensive line in the NFL today, I would want Dallas'. In my mind, they are the best offensive line in the league.
Yes, sample size matters. I said as much. But bringing up Gronk's season-long stats again and again is kind of irrelevant when I already acknowledged that (A) Gronk was ineffective and playing into game shape over the first four weeks, and (B) the fact that New England's offense was terrible when Gronk was ineffective and playing into game shape demonstrates how valuable Gronkowski is to that offense.
I brought up the example of Brees and kneeldowns to illustrate the difference between correlation and causation. You mentioned Dallas' winning percentage when Murray gets 20 carries. You didn't seem to realize that the causal arrow runs in exactly the opposite direction from the way you were suggesting.
8-8 is a bottom dweller? We must have very different definitions of "bottom dweller".
Dallas is 6-1 because their defense has taken a huge step forward, their offensive line has become the best in the NFL, and Demarco Murray is playing out of his mind- in that order. Murray has been playing fantastic, but I'm only about 70% sure that he's the most valuable running back in the state of Texas, let alone the most valuable player in the entire country. I would much, much rather watch the Cowboys sans Murray than the Texans sans Foster.
The last time Brady missed a season, New England went 11-5 and still had a top-10 offense. Contrast that with how New England has done when Gronk wasn't at full strength over the last three years.
New England's offensive line is pants, and any NE homer could tell you that. They rank 25th in pass blocking and 24th in run blocking according to PFF. Again, Football Outsiders' O-Line stats are indirect measures and therefore extremely unreliable, especially with respect to the pass protection.
I'm not dodging the Brady question, I just fail to see how it helps your point. Either you want to say that elite quarterbacks are always more valuable than any other offensive player, in which case... okay, sure. I concede the point. Now tell me again how Demarco Murray should be in the MVP discussion.
Or else you want to say that non-quarterbacks can mean as much to an offense as elite quarterbacks, in which case... okay, sure. I concede the point. Now let's talk again about how New England's offense has looked with a fully healthy Gronk vs. how it has looked with an injured-or-out Gronk. Dallas has consistently had an above-average without Berserko Murray on the field. New England hasn't had an above-average without Rob Gronkowski on the field in years. Take away Murray, and Dallas' offense is still pretty good. Take away Gronk, and New England's offense is suddenly pretty bad.
Again, maybe you want to make that argument for Tom Brady, too- if you take away Brady, New England's offense will be even worse. Like I said, they were just fine with Matt Cassel. But if we're using your "quarterbacks are more important than any other position", then there's definitely no room for Murray in the MVP discussion. San Diego would drop a lot more if you took away Rivers, Denver would drop a lot more if you took away Manning, Green Bay would drop a lot more if you took away Rodgers, and Indy would drop a lot more if you took away Luck.
jurb26
Footballguy
Dal is 6-1 because they've finally pulled their heads out of there butts and starting running the ball 52% of the time. I along with many others on this board pointed out last year that this was a playoff team if they did this. The rebuttal was pretty much Murray cant handle the load. It's their change in philosophy that has altered the results. From 36% run to 52%. I'm not sure how you look at those numbers and not recognize the impact. The last time Brady missed a season was 7 years ago. Gronk wasn't even on the team and neither was about half their roster. They had Moss in his prime,Welker in his prime and many other highly effective players they simply don't have now. I'm not sure why you are even going here. It was SEVEN years ago. It has almost nothing to do with today.
You choose to look at the Pro Focus oline rankings as justification that NE is poor in that area but also acknowledge it's a very unreliable measure. Well, why not use a more reliable one like DVOA which I have already referenced? It paints a much different picture. The Dal oline is good but it seems to be your preconceived notion that they are the best. The numbers don't reflect that. Either way, the oline as good as we want to argue it is doesn't change the fact that Murray leads all RBs in yards after contact averaging 2.86 and has created 42 missed tackles, 13 more than the next best RB. He has clearly been the best RB in the NFL to date. It's not even close.
In the conversation is not the same as winning. I don't think Murray wins or should win given current QB performances by guys like Manning, Luck and Rivers. He is in the conversation, though. He is above Gronk and every other non-QB as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
packer_junkie
Footballguy
Give me Arian Foster for MVP-- dude is single handily keeping Houstons offense afloat.
skinsrule05
Footballguy
I agree with what was said above that RBs should not be in the MVP discussion because of their importance level. Foster is the one RB that I would actually put in the conversation. He is basically doing what AP did for a few years in Minny.
jurb26
Footballguy
So Foster ahead of Watt now?
packer_junkie
Footballguy
Foster > Watt imo tough call though
It's not like I don't recognize the impact. Dallas is a top-5 offense with Demarco Murray playing this well. In previous years, Dallas' offense ranked more in the 8-12 range. Top-5 is better than 8-12, which is the impact that Demarco Murray has had on this offense. But it's not like the Houston Texans, where without Arian Foster they'd be the New York Jets. Murray turned an above-average offense into an elite offense. That's awesome. Other players have had bigger impacts.jurb26 said:
Yeah, it was a long time ago. We don't have a ton of evidence about how much New England would suffer without Brady. We do, however, have plenty of evidence about how much they'd suffer without Gronkowski.jurb26 said:
According to numbers compiled by NFL.com, Brady posted a 65.7 completion percentage, a 23-3 touchdown-to-interception ratio and a 106.6 passer rating with 7.9 yards per attempt on snaps with Gronkowski on the field. Those numbers plummeted to a 58.9 completion percentage, an 11-5 touchdown-to-interception ratio and an 87.1 passer rating with 7.1 yards per attempt on snaps without Gronkowski.
That was written after the 2012 season. 2013 was more of the same. Here are Brady's pace stats from the 7 games Gronk played vs. the 9 games Gronk missed.
W/O Gronk: 352/612 (57.5%) for 3796 yards (6.27 YPA) with 21 TDs and 11 INTs. (Passer Rating: 79.8)
With Gronk: 379/649 (58.4%) for 5038 yards (7.81 YPA) with 30 TDs and 11 INTs. (Passer Rating: 91.4)
EDIT: I initially had the attempts figure without Gronk wrong. I've edited the numbers and they should be correct now.
And here are Brady's splits from the first four games to the last four games this year, as Gronk got healthy:
First 4: 81/137 (59.1%) for 791 yards (5.77 YPA) with 4 TDs and 2 INTs. (Passer Rating: 79.1)
Last 4: 100/144 (69.4%) for 1268 yards (8.81 YPA) with 14 TDs and 0 INTs. (Passer Rating: 129.1)
I mean, just look at those numbers! For three years now, Tom Brady has basically been Mark Sanchez when Gronk is out and Aaron Rodgers when Gronk is in! How bad would New England be without Tom Brady? I don't know, but I do know how bad they would be without Gronkowski. And it's very bad. Not "bad by New England's standards", but "bad by anyone's standards". Outright, honestly, truly, genuinely BAD.
First and most importantly, I use Pro Football Focus as evidence, not as justification.jurb26 said:
Second, DVOA is not a more reliable measure of offensive line quality, and I've already explained why. Football, more than perhaps any other professional sport, suffers from massive entanglement problems. Analytics, in their current state, are pretty much incapable of detangling individual contributions. On a broad level, that doesn't matter- when measuring the effectiveness of an entire unit, it doesn't matter how much blame or responsibility gets assigned to each component member. But on a granular level, DVOA is terrible at measuring individual value.
By Football Outsiders' own admission, quarterbacks are responsible for as much of an offense's ability to avoid sacks as the entire offensive line combined... and yet they measure the pass-blocking ability of an offensive line by an offense's ability to avoid sacks. To some extent, there's really no help for it- entanglement is a beast, and that's pretty much the best you can do with numbers alone. But we have to acknowledge the limits of the metrics when it comes to assigning individual responsibility.
Scouting and grading, like what PFF does, suffers from problems and biases of its own... but it's really the only avenue we have available to us when it comes to cutting through entanglement issues and assigning individual responsibility. PFF is not perfect (which is why my opinion of Dallas' offensive line is a little bit higher than PFF's grades for Dallas' offensive line), but for exercises like this, it's going to be closer to reality than the raw metrics.
It's not my "preconceived notion" that Dallas' offensive line is the best. I didn't enter the season thinking they were going to be good. Quite the contrary- they've been so porous for so long I kind of just assumed it would keep up this year. My opinion that Dallas' offensive line is the best is one that I've reached after watching them play this year.
Murray's yards after contact figure is indeed impressive- the best in the NFL! There's more to being an NFL RB than just getting yards after contact, though. And, anyway, Arian Foster averages more yards after contact per rushing attempt (3.2 vs. 2.9). Forte and Bell don't break tackles or extend runs at anywhere near the same rate, but on the other hand, they dominate Demarco Murray as a receiver. I think Murray has been the best RB in the NFL this year, but it's not a runaway, and all four of those backs have a case.
If a guy doesn't even have an argument for winning, then he does not belong "in the conversation". The conversation is guys we think deserve to win. In my mind, there are arguments for Peyton, Rodgers, Rivers, Luck, and Watt. I would pick Peyton from that group, but I think each of those five can present compelling arguments as to why they are #1. Please note that I didn't even include Gronk in that group, even though I think Gronk is more valuable than Murray.jurb26 said:
Demarco Murray has some good arguments as to why he might be #3 in the race, but if he doesn't have an argument for #1, then he doesn't belong in the conversation.
Last edited by a moderator:
jurb26
Footballguy
You're losing me here. Murray has turned an above average oline into an elite one and other players have had bigger impacts? That's a bold statement. Not even one I'd make as a proponent of Murray's success this year. Turning an average group into elite is just about the definition of MVP, no? Especially on a team that is 6-1.
Sorry I can't get he multiple quotes thing working like you on iPad.
The oline thing we can agree on. There isn't a very good measure and it's all subjective to which you choose. Dal has a very good oline regardless of where we want to rank them. Their oline being good doesn't negate Murray being awesome, though. Ironically, Murray was also the #1 DVOA ranked RB last year with what was supposedly a much worse oline. It isn't a fluke that he's doing this well and it isn't contingent of his oline. This year he is the leading rusher, has the most runs over 10 yds, most runs for 1st downs, leading rusher in yards after contact and forcing the most missed tackles (by a wide margin) of any RB in the NFL. Some more food for thought, Murray has 124 carries on 1st down alone this season. That total alone would put him at 3rd in the NFL for rushes entering this week. Again, this is a far cry from the philosophy Dal has used in the past. So acting like the run ratio shift is caused by simply winning more games (as you alluded to earlier) just doesn't hold up. Dal has recognized that running earlier and more often helps them win, not just close out games. His season has been dominate thus far and the only player who can combats his performance vs. his positional peers is Watt. That alone doesn't make them MVPs. It should put them in the conversation. If Watt was on a team that was winning more he'd be much higher on the list IMO. FWIW I don't agree Foster is above Watt though Foster is closing the gap.
I'm not sure why Forte and Bell are entering this conversation. They are MVP candidates in your estimation? Really? The fact that they are performing better in the passing game is nice, but they aren't having anything near the impact of Murray (or Foster) this year. The RB mentioned who is supposedly in that conversation, Foster, is having a worse season receiving than Murray. Forte's season pace is to finish 2104/12 with Bell's 2172/4. Those are better than Murray at 2450/16? Let's not forget the Bears are 3-5, Pitt 5-3 and Dal 6-1. I'm not sure the case can be made for them in relation to Murray or even Foster.
Gronks a great player. No doubt. I concede he is vital to the Pats but I still don't think he is more vital than Murray is to the Cowboys right now. I think Brady is more important than Gronk. You think Dal can largely plug and play with other guys if Murray is out. I don't see that. His yards after contact, broken tackles and DVOA rankings would suggest otherwise. Maybe the other RBs in Dal are better than I'm giving them credit for.
In the conversation again doesn't equal winning. If the QBs continue their torrid pace then we know a QB will win. It's just that simple in the NFL today. Murray can be in the conversation because it's possible, maybe even likely, that the QBs don't continue that pace. Maybe Murray doesn't as well but if he sets a rushing record this year and leads Dal to the playoffs it's hard to imagine a scenario in which he isn't in the running. Even without setting records he can very much be in the final few.
SSOG, you flat out prove that the PFF stats need some tweaking.
If you think a QB leading the NFL in yardage and touchdowns will be rated less than any other QB in an MVP race....
This is not take the ol' QB rating system and make a new one. No one votes on some rating point system.
Cmon' now with Luck. I know you're averaging 341 yards per game, but your shoes were untied so I'm only gonna rank you fifth. Cmon.
The praise for Rivers is interesting with many good points. He won't keep it up. He doesn't get 300 yard games like the other dogs in this race. Matthews will return and grab a TD, and he'll go from his 280ish and 3 TDs to 240-250 and 2 TDs which is fairly regular.
Jim Brown is a legend with some things even bordering on mythical. DeMarco broke his record. He's "up there" in this race. I doubt he can continue since no one in NFL history has, but at this moment he sure is. You can't brush off breaking a Jim Brown record, it's like sacrilege or somesuch to so many fans.
If you're playing with stats in the manner you say then this week, Big Ben and Brady should have minimized how awesome the QBs are and the whole specialness of anything they accomplished.
Right now, in the press, JJ Watt is MVP. He has no contemporary and the adoration he's receiving is unlike anyone else.
If Peyton throws for 6 TDs, if Brady....the tide can turn, but IMO today he is it.
If you think a QB leading the NFL in yardage and touchdowns will be rated less than any other QB in an MVP race....
This is not take the ol' QB rating system and make a new one. No one votes on some rating point system.
Cmon' now with Luck. I know you're averaging 341 yards per game, but your shoes were untied so I'm only gonna rank you fifth. Cmon.
The praise for Rivers is interesting with many good points. He won't keep it up. He doesn't get 300 yard games like the other dogs in this race. Matthews will return and grab a TD, and he'll go from his 280ish and 3 TDs to 240-250 and 2 TDs which is fairly regular.
Jim Brown is a legend with some things even bordering on mythical. DeMarco broke his record. He's "up there" in this race. I doubt he can continue since no one in NFL history has, but at this moment he sure is. You can't brush off breaking a Jim Brown record, it's like sacrilege or somesuch to so many fans.
If you're playing with stats in the manner you say then this week, Big Ben and Brady should have minimized how awesome the QBs are and the whole specialness of anything they accomplished.
Right now, in the press, JJ Watt is MVP. He has no contemporary and the adoration he's receiving is unlike anyone else.
If Peyton throws for 6 TDs, if Brady....the tide can turn, but IMO today he is it.
It doesn't. It's a statistic. It measures what it measures, and you just have to keep in mind what that is. As I understand it, it works on a simple +/- system- good plays get graded with a +, bad plays get a -. Guys who are consistently good will grade well. Guys who show flashes of true brilliance mixed in among stretches of mediocrity might not grade as well, even if they might be more productive. Their goal isn't to perfectly encapsulate player skill or value, it's to give some sort of objective, consistent, and repeatable measure of a player's play to date, ideally independent of the play of his teammates, (although not even PFF escapes totally from the NFL's entanglement effects).
Further, all of a guy's responsibilities aren't necessarily normalized against each other. Blockers, for instance, make a lot more good plays than bad. Runners make a lot more mediocre-to-bad plays than good (the median gain of pretty much every RB in history over his entire career is 2 yards). This leads to silliness like Steven Jackson ranking ahead of Jamaal Charles in total grade (RB11 vs. RB12) because Steven Jackson has done a lot of quality work as a blocker. Even if that's true, teams pay and value RBs based on what they do in the running and passing game. There's no GM in the league who would rather have Steven Jackson to Jamaal Charles to this point of the season.
Again, this is a problem if you take PFF's stats as some sort of be-all measure of player value. But that's not what they are. As long as you keep in mind what the grades really represent, they're a good, mostly-objective, mostly supporting-cast-independent measurement of player execution to date.
PFF says that Dallas' offensive line has consistently executed at a top-10 level. That jives with my subjective impression of them so far this season. Still, PFF grades are a tool, a nice piece of data to consider in light of the broader argument.
There is no single stat that you will ever be able to point to that will fully encapsulate quality of play, or value, or worth. There are lots of little data points, each of which provide their own information, and each of which must be considered as part of a collective whole. Football is a deep and complicated game. It deserves nuanced and cautious analysis.
Drew Brees led the league in passing yards and TDs in 2008, 2011, and 2012. Brees did not receive a single vote in 2008, finishing behind Peyton Manning... and Chad Pennington, Michael Turner, Adrian Peterson, James Harrison, Philip Rivers, Chris Johnson, and Kurt Warner. That's right, in 2008 Drew Brees became the second player in history to top 5,000 yards and he finished with four fewer MVP votes than Chad Pennington, who threw for under 4,000 yards and under 20 TDs.
Brees finished second in MVP voting in 2011, (behind Aaron Rodgers), and made a serious push to actually win it late. Rodgers' dramatically superior efficiency eventually did him in. In 2012, Brees again didn't receiving a single vote; Peterson and Manning got them all, and Brady might have even been the third choice had anyone else received any.
Warren Moon led the league in passing yards and passing TDs in 1990 and lost out on the MVP to Joe Montana. Dan Fouts led the league in passing yards and passing TDs in back-to-back years in 1981 and 1982 (setting several records in the process), and won zero AP MVPs for his trouble (though he did win the PFWA MVP in the strike-shortened 1982 season).
Voters have traditionally much preferred elite efficiency stats to elite volume stats from QBs.
Luck ranks 8th in passer rating, 7th in yards per attempt, and doesn't even crack the top 10 in ANY/A. His 9 INTs stand well ahead of the other candidates (Manning, Rivers, and Rodgers have 11 combined). In ESPN's "QBR" statistic, Luck checks in at 7th. Huge volume numbers, but a half-dozen guys have been consistently more efficient across a whole range of stats, and that has historically mattered a lot to voters. If the season ended today, I don't think Luck wins the MVP. Who knows where we're at 8 weeks from now.
ZWK
Footballguy
In my opinion, PFF's run blocking grades are the best stat available for comparing teams' run blocking. They're the only publicly available stat which is based on watching each play (and not just the play-by-play data), which is pretty important if you're trying to disentangle a RB from his blockers.
PFF's pass blocking grades are probably the best single stat for comparing teams' pass blocking, although that one is a closer call. You can also get a pretty good picture by looking both at how long the QB holds the ball and the rate of sacks+hits+hurries (these stats also come from PFF; FO publishes versions of them but doesn't update them weekly or publish the complete dataset).
PFF's pass blocking grades are probably the best single stat for comparing teams' pass blocking, although that one is a closer call. You can also get a pretty good picture by looking both at how long the QB holds the ball and the rate of sacks+hits+hurries (these stats also come from PFF; FO publishes versions of them but doesn't update them weekly or publish the complete dataset).
Donnybrook
Footballguy
He should be the front runner for DROY at this point.
jurb26
Footballguy
Said it before the draft and still believe it now. No player outside of a Clowney has more raw talent than Barr this guy is going to be a force.
SSOG you're arguing how a line's effectiveness aids a runner and using that to minimize the success of Murray. Don't linemen block for QBs too? I don't see any mention of the time each guy had to throw and how if you give a QB "all day" anyone can complete a pass.
Since you asked, here's where Manning's, Rivers', Rodgers', and Luck's OLs rank according to a variety of metrics:
Matt Bitonti's OL Rankings (last updated week 5):
Manning- 2, Luck- 17, Rivers- 20, Rodgers- 25
PFF Grades:
Rodgers- 1, Manning- 3, Luck- 12, Rivers- 28
Football Outsider's Pass Block Efficiency%:
Luck- 5, Manning- 7, Rivers- 8, Rodgers- 22
So right away you're seeing the problem with trying to grade offensive line performance. Rodgers' offensive line is either the best pass-blocking unit in the league, or else it's the 22nd best, or else it's the 25th best. Luck's is either average or top-5. Rivers is either top 10, bottom 10, or middle of the pack.
Peyton Manning's offensive line grades well in pass protection across all three stats, but now we're getting into the second problem: entanglement. Is Peyton Manning's offensive line great? Or does Peyton Manning make his offensive line look great? In 2011, Denver's offensive line ranked 29th in pass protection according to Football Outsiders and 25th according to PFF. In 2012, Denver's offensive line ranked 2nd according to Football Outsiders and 1st according to PFF.
Now, in fairness, Denver did bring in a lot of help at the offensive line... oh wait, no they didn't. Five players started all 16 games for Denver in 2011. Those same five starters opened the season for Denver in 2012. Denver lost two of them to injury. And miraculously transformed from a bottom-5 offensive line to the best in the league, which I'm sure was 100% related to the play of the offensive line itself and 0% related to the fact that the quarterback was Peyton Manning and not Tim Tebow.
Peyton Manning has finished in the top 10 in sack% in every single season of his entire career. He has finished 1st or 2nd a whopping 10 times in 16 years. He owns seven of the top 40 single-season sack rates in NFL history, coming from 1999, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2013. Those seven years featured 20 different primary starters. He is, by all measures, the hardest-to-sack quarterback in NFL history. Is this because he's been blessed with elite offensive line play for his entire career? It's possible, but Occam's Razor suggests there's a much more compelling answer- it's because Peyton Manning himself makes his offensive linemen look like All Pros. All five of Peyton Manning's 2009 offensive linemen were off the team within two seasons... and yet Peyton Manning had a ridonculous 1.7% sack% behind them, the 6th-best single-season mark in NFL history.
In 2013, Denver lost its all-pro left tackle, a player management had decided that offseason was worth $50m, and Peyton Manning's sack rate... went down? Chris Clark, his backup, came in and earned himself a +12.2 grade from PFF, the 22nd-highest figure in the league. Because, of course, Chris Clark was such a good player that... Denver benched him for Paul Cornick, an undrafted practice-squadder who had previously been cut by the Jets? How on earth do we reconcile any of this?
The answer, of course, is that Denver's offensive line grades out fantastically because they very rarely give up any pressures. According to PFF, Peyton Manning has been pressured on just 22% of his dropbacks this year. And Manning has been pressured on 22% of his dropbacks because... Manning gets rid of the ball faster than any other quarterback in the NFL. From the snap to the end of the play, Peyton Manning holds the ball just 2.24 seconds, the best mark in the NFL. When Peyton Manning *DOES* get sacked, pressure gets to him in just 2.89 seconds, the fourth-fastest figure in the league. So his offensive line isn't capable of buying him much time after all, and the only reason they don't give up pressure is because they're not asked to. They also rarely make assignment mistakes, in large part because Peyton Manning is the best in history at pre-snap diagnosis and makes sure everyone's assignments are right. He knows pressure is coming ahead of time and checks into plays to beat it. In short, Peyton Manning is the ultimate entanglement.
You can put Peyton Manning behind any offensive line in the NFL and he'll make it look like a top-5 pass-protecting unit. Watching Denver's line in action, they've been pretty bad this year. That's why Denver's running game has struggled so much. That's why Denver is shuffling players around and benching starters. The line hasn't been performing. It wasn't performing very well last year, either, despite the lofty grades and statistics. And against quality competition in the Super Bowl, we all saw that first-hand. That underperformance doesn't show up in the stats or the grades, though, because Peyton Manning is a wizard.
Which is just one more reason why Peyton Manning is my pick for league MVP.
Tau837
Footballguy
So you are convinced that if they gave him exactly 20 carries they would have won? What if those carries were in place of his receptions?
Did you think Murray's fumble was important this time?
jurb26
Footballguy
Yes, I'm convinced with 2 more carries they win that game. I'll bet you can guess when those carries should have come. Regardless of that particular instance had they given more carries throughout the game it doesn't make it to OT and Dal wins. Murray is the catalyst for winning football in Dal right now.
FUBAR
Footballguy
further evidence that this is the best QB award.
Am I reading this wrong or is it really saying Stafford and Palmer are more valuable than Watt?
Stafford would almost certainly be picked in a startup before Watt. It's a QB-driven league.
I would rather have Stafford & Von Miller than Watt & 20th+ best QB.
They should be, but Manning will get votes because he is Peyton. Forget the stats. Forget any advance metrics. Manning has the reputation of being the greatest QB ever and Denver will have a round 1 bye. As long as Mannings numbers are in the top 5 for a QB, he will get the most MVP votes. Sorry.
I actually think the opposite is true. Manning's 2014 isn't going to be compared to the rest of the field, it will be compared to Manning's 2013. I also think "voter fatigue" is a real thing- sort of like how in basketball in the '90s they tried giving MVPs to guys like Charles Barkley just because all of the voters were sick of giving it to Jordan every year.
It's saying that Stafford has more WPA than J.J. Watt, though WPA is highly context dependent. WPA stands for "win probability added", and it measures exactly that. If Houston gets to a huge lead early and has a 90% chance of winning the game, then J.J. Watt could have infinitybillion sacks the rest of the way and he'd only get 0.10 WPA out of it (because the best he can do is increase the chances of winning from 90% to 100%).
Watt has more EPA (or "estimated points added") than Stafford, which measures just that- how many estimated points he added to the team. If J.J. Watt forces a fumble and returns it for a score in a 43-2 game, he's adding very little WPA, but he's adding 7 points of EPA, because 7 points are 7 points regardless of when they come. For a defensive end to have impacted his team's final score more than a pretty good quarterback is absolutely insane.
That's the other aspect- "value" doesn't just mean how much points or win probability you add, it's how much you add vs. what the team could have gotten from a replacement. If an average QB adds 10 EPA and Matt Stafford adds 12 EPA, then Stafford is providing 2 points over what you would expect from an average QB. If the average DE adds 2 EPA and J.J. Watt adds 10 EPA, then Watt is adding 8 points over what you would expect. Even though Stafford had more EPA (12 to 10), Watt was clearly more valuable.
It's probably best not to compare across different positions. You've got four QBs who have clearly separated themselves from the rest of the pack, and then when you compare Watt to the other DE's he's so far out of the stratosphere that he also gets in the MVP conversation.
Similar threads
