Vick vs. Brady for MVP (1 Viewer)

[parrot]

The conclusion, which nobody has challenged, is that when you look at yards gained instead of misleading scoring numbers, the Pats are the same offense- actually slightly worse- than the 2009 and even the 2008 Cassell-led Pats, while the Eagles have jumped from #11 to #1 in total offense under Vick.

I want to be sure I'm crystal clear on this; you're suggesting that this Pats offense, with the schedule they've played, leading the league in scoring, is a WORSE offense than the Patriots offense of 2007 under Cassel? Really?

 

[parrot]

However, using "scoring offense" is misleading. It brings turnovers, field goals, special teams and other non-offense-related (i.e. non-Brady-related) factors into the equation. Total yards is the far superior measure of a team's offensive prowess in my opinion.

The Patriots have scored more offensive touchdowns than any other team in the league, and Brady has thrown more TD passes than any other QB. I don't think those factors are "non Brady-related". The Pats have also scored as many red zone tds as any other team and are third in red zone td efficiency. Those are all pretty Brady-related.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The conclusion, which nobody has challenged, is that when you look at yards gained instead of misleading scoring numbers, the Pats are the same offense- actually slightly worse- than the 2009 and even the 2008 Cassell-led Pats, while the Eagles have jumped from #11 to #1 in total offense under Vick.

I want to be sure I'm crystal clear on this; you're suggesting that this Pats offense, with the schedule they've played, leading the league in scoring, is a WORSE offense than the Patriots offense of 2007 under Cassel? Really?

No. What I said was that they're about the same or slightly worse when you look at yardage totals as your barometer. I don't know how there's much argument about that- the 2008 Patriots averaged more yards per game than the 2010 Patriots. It's right there in black and white.Furthermore, I think what I meant is pretty clear from what I wrote- just read my sentence that you qouted. Having looked now at DVOA, which I consider better than both yardage and scoring as a gauge of offensive efficiency, I think the 2010 Patriots are more impressive than they looked at first blush when I considered the yardage totals, which are a better gauge of offense IMO than scoring but not as good as DVOA. Is this really confusing you? I think I've been pretty clear.

 

[TobiasFunke]

However, using "scoring offense" is misleading. It brings turnovers, field goals, special teams and other non-offense-related (i.e. non-Brady-related) factors into the equation. Total yards is the far superior measure of a team's offensive prowess in my opinion.

The Patriots have scored more offensive touchdowns than any other team in the league, and Brady has thrown more TD passes than any other QB. I don't think those factors are "non Brady-related". The Pats have also scored as many red zone tds as any other team and are third in red zone td efficiency. Those are all pretty Brady-related.

True. Those things are, as you put it, "pretty Brady-related." What is your point?

 

[Anarchy99]

In the real world, on real ballots, for the AP 2010 NFL MVP, it will be Brady. And I doubt it will be close. Whether that's who it should be is entirely a horse of a different color. But Brady will take it going away.

Veiled racism in this post

You might want to refrain from calling staff members racist.My point in all of these MVP threads is that in the actual MVP balloting has nothing to do with people bickering on message boards. Historically, voters almost always vote for:- The QB on the team with the best or second best record (Brady, check)- The QB on the highest scoing team in the league (Brady, check)- The QB with the highest (or near highest) passer rating (Brady, check)- A guy setting some sort of record (Brady for most passes without an INT; Brady TD to INT ratio, most games without a turnover, etc., check)- A guy that plays all the time (Brady, check)That's the core of the voting. All the other stuff that people have been debating is mostly irrelevant. But as far as message board material goes, people would also point out that the Pats will have had 10 games against Top 10 defenses, have played half their games against playoff teams, and have won with one of the worst defenses in the league. Offensively, they have been doing it with relative unknowns.And here's the other part of this . . . what Vick did this year won't matter, as Brady already has all the bases covered for all the things that voters care about. He's going to be head of the class in everything that matters. Whether he is truly the most value player in the league doesn't matter. I'm not saying that's what I think, I'm saying that's how the voters vote.As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite. The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

That's kind of my feeling, too. Brady has a far superior OL, too, which is huge.

 

[parrot]

Brady's offense has changed, but really it has only lost one substantial piece.

Maroney, Taylor, Faulk, and Watson accounted for 2,182 yards from scrimmage last year between them, or 34% of the team's total.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Reading through this I have not seen it mentioned:

Vick has not played a full season; not even most of a full season. That is just typically a disqualifier. I voted for Brady for that reason.

However, let's face it, Vick has truly been the most valuable player this season in the whole league for the games he's played in.

No, I don't like the guy (putting it mildly), but I'm leaving the personal stuff out of it.

The Pats mustered a 10-6 (?) season with Matt Cassell. The Eagles would be nowhere without Vick and the guy quite simply dominates every single game. What he did vs a great Giants defense in the 4th was just sick. I might add that I think Andy Reid's offensive genius has helped make that happen, but so what Belichick has helped make Brady, Payton has helped make Brees, Tom Moore helped make P. Manning, etc. In Reid's hands Vick has changed the offensive rules of the game.

The Washington performance belongs in the category of Ernie Nevers, Paul Hornung, Gale Sayers, and Sid Luckman with the 1940 Bears. I absolutely hate to say it but that's the fact of the matter: it was one of the all time great single game performances ever.

A couple of points I disagree with here. 1. The 2007 - 2008 Patriots: NE had one of the best teams assembled in the NFL in 2007, then with the same cast except Brady, went 11-5 ( a 5 game Regular season swing ). And that was being led by what has proven to be a decent NFL caliber QB (Cassel). Add to that, the current NE defense has only 2 starters from the 2007 season, and one receiver from that team, its safe to say the '07-'08 year teams don't resemble this current year's team. To assume that NE would be winning without Brady this year based on what happened in '07-'08 is off the mark.

2. The 2009 Eagles went 10-4 with McNabb, who was just benched for Rex Grossman. Kolb has looked like a decent NFL caliber QB in his time. To assume the Eagles would be a sub-500 team without Vick has no merit, IMO. This is a good team, and Vick has made the offense more dynamic than it had been, but this is not a cellar dwelling team without him.

Vick has had a tremendous season, and has grown as a QB in a manner I never thought we'd see. He is no longer the athlete that takes one read then runs. He is doing a great job in the pocket and using his legs as a weapon rather than a crutch. He's a worthy MVP contender. But I don't think his performance, even on a per game basis, has outdone Brady this year.

Ok, fair enough. I can't dispute the Pats commentary from a Pats fan especially, & in my book Brady's a great player and as I said I voted for him for MVP.

I know this is pure opinion only, but the Eagles are 8-1 in games that Vick has started and played through, with only a 5 point loss to what is now seen as a very good Bears team at Chicago. I think Kolb looked pretty good too, but...

With Kolb the Eagles beat San Fran by 3 points.

With Kolb they lose to a mediocre Titans team by 18.

With Kolb they were losing 13-3 at half to the Pack at Philly.

With Kolb the Eagles muster 6 second half points vs the Skins. (We know what Vick did vs the Skins later).

You really think the Eagles would have been 8-1 in those games with Kolb playing a full season? I was thinking overall more like 7-9 to 9-7 with Kolb in there, not so much "cellar dwelling"; good, decent, but not great and probably not beating out the Giants for the NFC East crown and maybe not the Pack for the No. 2 Wildcard spot, but perhaps in contention right after them.

I like the convienantly forgotten Kolb domination win over the best team in the NFC. With Kolb, the Eagles would be a 9-7 or 10-6 team. With Vick they are 11-5 or 12-4.

No, you're right, that's a great point. It was inadvertent though.

It was a signature, impressive win. But it did fall into the mix of some mediocre performances. All in all is it fair to say that in games that Kolb got decent playing time they went 2-3?

GB - L

SF - W (3 points)

TEN - L

ATL - W

WAS - L

That looks like the makings of a 7-9 to 9-7 season to me.

Vick was 8-1 in games that he started and finished. To me that translates to something more like 11-5 to 13-3 over a full season).

 

[parrot]

However, using "scoring offense" is misleading. It brings turnovers, field goals, special teams and other non-offense-related (i.e. non-Brady-related) factors into the equation. Total yards is the far superior measure of a team's offensive prowess in my opinion.

The Patriots have scored more offensive touchdowns than any other team in the league, and Brady has thrown more TD passes than any other QB. I don't think those factors are "non Brady-related". The Pats have also scored as many red zone tds as any other team and are third in red zone td efficiency. Those are all pretty Brady-related.

True. Those things are, as you put it, "pretty Brady-related." What is your point?

My point is that their scoring numbers are primarily related to the offense's performance and not the other factors you are trying to use to discount the scoring numbers.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Brady's offense has changed, but really it has only lost one substantial piece.

Maroney, Taylor, Faulk, and Watson accounted for 2,182 yards from scrimmage last year between them, or 34% of the team's total.

You think those guys were "substantial pieces" that were lost? I sure don't. heck, the fact that the entire running game plus the primary TE target and primary pass-catcher out of the backfield only accounted for 34% of of the offense tells me that those guys kinda sucked. They traded Maroney and a sixth round pick for a fourth round pick. That should tell you what front offices around the league thought of Maroney's value. And he was the most significant "talent" of the four you listed, aside from Watson (and I would argue they upgraded the talent at his position with a second and a fourth round pick).I'll ask again- what point are you trying to make?

 

[TobiasFunke]

However, using "scoring offense" is misleading. It brings turnovers, field goals, special teams and other non-offense-related (i.e. non-Brady-related) factors into the equation. Total yards is the far superior measure of a team's offensive prowess in my opinion.

The Patriots have scored more offensive touchdowns than any other team in the league, and Brady has thrown more TD passes than any other QB. I don't think those factors are "non Brady-related". The Pats have also scored as many red zone tds as any other team and are third in red zone td efficiency. Those are all pretty Brady-related.

True. Those things are, as you put it, "pretty Brady-related." What is your point?

My point is that their scoring numbers are primarily related to the offense's performance and not the other factors you are trying to use to discount the scoring numbers.

Of course. All scoring totals are "primarily" a function of offensive performance. So what? I'm discounting scoring numbers because, while they are a good indicator of offensive performance, they're not as good as yardage totals. Which in turn are not as good as DVOA numbers. I've explained all this in the thread. I assume this position is not really controversial at all. If you disagree, say so and explain why. If you don't ... I ask again, what's your point?

 

[Road Warriors]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite. The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

That's kind of my feeling, too. Brady has a far superior OL, too, which is huge.

I'm far less convinced of this this season than previously. Hoyer is a complete unknown and doesn't come with much of a resume. I haven't seen enough of his preseason play to argue for or against how well Hoyer does by the eyeball test. This offense works on timing and picking the right receiver. Its a system, but one that requires a very heady QB that can process coverage and find the mismatch, both presnap and after. Brady has years of experience in this system, and is one of the league's best at reading coverages and finding the open guy. Add his accuracy and timing with the receivers, and it's hard to imagine many QBs in the league being as successful with this version of the NE offense.On top of that, while the Patriots had a championship caliber team back in '08, coming off a Super Bowl loss and undefeated season, they do not have that type of team in '10. It was probably < 50% of experts picking the Patriots to win the East ( Jets ) and most didn't have them progressing deep in the playoffs. They have won this year with one of ( if not the ) worst statistical defenses under Belichek, and one of the lowest ranked D's in the NFL. To say they would continue to outscore teams with Hoyer under center is a reach, IMO.I haven't seen enough of the Eagles to discuss their OL, but the Patriots have a pretty pedestrian OL this year. Light is solid in pass protection, with some weakness against speed edge rushers, Koppen is a solid but unspectacular center. Vollmer is likely to be very good, but it's too early to tell right now. Mankins is the only top level ( NFL wise ) OL they have, and he's only been in there for 3 weeks (?). The RG has been a bit of a revolving door this year. To be honest, I would say the OL has looked better since week 5 when the Patriots revamped their offense to almost exclusively short and medium range passing. Brady has excellent timing with his receivers and they are on the same page when reading zone coverage, allowing the ball to come out to the right guy on time, significantly reducing the amount of time the OL has to hold up the pocket. One part of me thinks one underreported factor in moving Moss back in week 4 was the need to lessen the burden on the OL by reducing the downfield passing game to almost exclusively play action. I can't cite a particular game or play, but my recollection is that in nearly all the cases of Brady sitting back with loads of time, it all started with a hard play-action fake that held the rush and LB. I recall the '07 year, and in the early part of the year, the would spread the field with 5, with no threat of run, and still Brady would have all day to pick whoever was open, or more often the case, until Moss came open down the field. He has not had that sort of time this season.

 

[Insein]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite. The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12. Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

 

[spider321]

Chargers are 0-14 this season without Rivers.

 

[parrot]

Brady's offense has changed, but really it has only lost one substantial piece.

Maroney, Taylor, Faulk, and Watson accounted for 2,182 yards from scrimmage last year between them, or 34% of the team's total.

You think those guys were "substantial pieces" that were lost? I sure don't. heck, the fact that the entire running game plus the primary TE target and primary pass-catcher out of the backfield only accounted for 34% of of the offense tells me that those guys kinda sucked. They traded Maroney and a sixth round pick for a fourth round pick. That should tell you what front offices around the league thought of Maroney's value. And he was the most significant "talent" of the four you listed, aside from Watson (and I would argue they upgraded the talent at his position with a second and a fourth round pick).I'll ask again- what point are you trying to make?

I'm making the point that they lost a major portion of their offense from last year, and whether you feel those guys sucked or not, they have had to integrate new guys into those positions, and that's not an easy thing to do. Two of them were brought in after the season started, - no training camp, nothing. If you add Moss in there they have lost the guys who accounted for nearly half of their offensive production. They have replaced these guys with rookies (yes talented rookies, I never said otherwise, but rookies nonetheless), castoffs, and forgotten players. And with the loss of Moss they have largely had to revamp their offensive approach. The way Brady has handled these changes - not just handled but thrived to the tune of making them the #1 scoring offense (an important offensive statistic any way you want to slice it) - has been pretty impressive to me, and helps lend to the argument for him being MVP over Vick, IMO. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this position.

 

[Ghost Rider]

8 of 14 Brady's games have been against a top 10 defense.

Guess how many of Vick's have been? 3 1/2 (the 1/2 being the GB game where he came in in relief of Kolb).

 

[TobiasFunke]

Brady's offense has changed, but really it has only lost one substantial piece.

Maroney, Taylor, Faulk, and Watson accounted for 2,182 yards from scrimmage last year between them, or 34% of the team's total.

You think those guys were "substantial pieces" that were lost? I sure don't. heck, the fact that the entire running game plus the primary TE target and primary pass-catcher out of the backfield only accounted for 34% of of the offense tells me that those guys kinda sucked. They traded Maroney and a sixth round pick for a fourth round pick. That should tell you what front offices around the league thought of Maroney's value. And he was the most significant "talent" of the four you listed, aside from Watson (and I would argue they upgraded the talent at his position with a second and a fourth round pick).I'll ask again- what point are you trying to make?

I'm making the point that they lost a major portion of their offense from last year, and whether you feel those guys sucked or not, they have had to integrate new guys into those positions, and that's not an easy thing to do. If you add Moss in there they have lost the guys who accounted for nearly half of their offensive production. They have replaced these guys with rookies (yes talented rookies, I never said otherwise, but rookies nonetheless), castoffs, and forgotten players. And with the loss of Moss they have largely had to revamp their offensive approach. The way Brady has handled these changes - not just handled but thrived to the tune of making them the #1 scoring offense (an important offensive statistic any way you want to slice it) - has been pretty impressive to me, and helps lend to the argument for him being MVP over Vick, IMO. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this position.

I don't have a problem with that position. I wonder why you are feeling the need to make it in response to my posts as if I disagree, though. I'm also not sure how it's relevant to a comparison of Vick vs. Brady. If you want to give weight to Brady's ability to adjust to new environs, you kind of have to give a lot more weight to Vick's ability to do the same, no? After all, Vick hadn't started a game in years before this season. At least Brady had been starting and throwing the ball to Welker and friends in the same basic offense for years. Degree of difficulty/adjustment to new challenges shouldn't matter in an MVP conversation in my opinion, but if you want to introduce it, I'm pretty darn sure it cuts in Vick's favor.

 

[gandalas]

Brady as MVP...

Vick as Offensive player of the year (do they still have this?)

 

[thatguy]

It seems many in here are penalizing Vick because his backup is good while Brady's and Rivers' respective backups are not. I don't think this is a fair way to look at things. If we swap Vick's backup with Brady's backup, does that make what Brady has done somehow less impressive? Does it make what Vick has done more impressive?

 

[thehornet]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite. The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12. Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

I have no idea if the Eagles are a 10 win team with Kolb. I dont think so though.I do know that BB made Cassell a winner.

 

[parrot]

I don't have a problem with that position. I wonder why you are feeling the need to make it in response to my posts as if I disagree, though.

Jeez I don't know maybe it was

Vick has played great, but he inherited the #5 scoring offense from last year, almost wholly intact, the only real missing part being Westbrook, who missed half of their games last year due to injury. Brady's offense on the other hand, has been cobbled together from spare parts. Brady gets my vote due to that, but I wouldn't feel it was any kind of injustice if it were given to Vick; he has been pretty incredible.

The Eagles were 11th in total yards last year. They are first this year despite losing Westbrook and not getting a single offensive player out of the 2010 draft. The Patriots were 3rd last year, and were 5th two years ago when Matt Cassell was the starting QB. They are 9th this year despite adding two of the most highly regarding TEs in college football in the 2010 draft (obviously they lost Moss after a few games, but that was by choice).I don't think this line of reasoning helps you as much as you think it does.

Or maybe it was;

The post about the TEs was to contrast a post claiming that the Pats were using cobbled-together pieces to form the league's best offense out of rubble, while the Eagles were basically the same team they were last year so Vick shouldn't get the credit.

Yeah, that's a completely fair encapsulation of what I posted; other than the fact that I never called the Patriots the league's best offense, I called them exactly what they are, the #1 scoring offense. And yeah, I completely discounted Vick's contributions this year; which do you think was the bigger slam on Vick, the part where I said he has played "great" this year, or the part where I said he's been "incredible"?

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Vick

Brady

Rivers (sorry but team record/playoff seed matters, at least as a tiebreaker)

 

[two_dollars]

It seems many in here are penalizing Vick because his backup is good while Brady's and Rivers' respective backups are not. I don't think this is a fair way to look at things. If we swap Vick's backup with Brady's backup, does that make what Brady has done somehow less impressive? Does it make what Vick has done more impressive?

People are penalizing Brady for having a better o-line. When has that ever mattered before? It's like penalizing a cy young winner for having good run support. People are grasping at straws to prop up Vick.

 

[atl3695]

It seems many in here are penalizing Vick because his backup is good while Brady's and Rivers' respective backups are not. I don't think this is a fair way to look at things. If we swap Vick's backup with Brady's backup, does that make what Brady has done somehow less impressive? Does it make what Vick has done more impressive?

People are penalizing Brady for having a better o-line. When has that ever mattered before? It's like penalizing a cy young winner for having good run support. People are grasping at straws to prop up Vick.

Offensive line affects actual performance on the field. Backup QB does not. The backup QB has absolutely no bearing on who should be MVP.

 

[imagroid]

It seems many in here are penalizing Vick because his backup is good while Brady's and Rivers' respective backups are not. I don't think this is a fair way to look at things. If we swap Vick's backup with Brady's backup, does that make what Brady has done somehow less impressive? Does it make what Vick has done more impressive?

People are penalizing Brady for having a better o-line. When has that ever mattered before? It's like penalizing a cy young winner for having good run support. People are grasping at straws to prop up Vick.

Yesterday you said the '07 pats went 16-0 and then 11-5 the following year with Cassel, therefore Brady is worth 5 games. Talk about grasping at straws.

 

[two_dollars]

It seems many in here are penalizing Vick because his backup is good while Brady's and Rivers' respective backups are not. I don't think this is a fair way to look at things. If we swap Vick's backup with Brady's backup, does that make what Brady has done somehow less impressive? Does it make what Vick has done more impressive?

People are penalizing Brady for having a better o-line. When has that ever mattered before? It's like penalizing a cy young winner for having good run support. People are grasping at straws to prop up Vick.

Yesterday you said the '07 pats went 16-0 and then 11-5 the following year with Cassel, therefore Brady is worth 5 games. Talk about grasping at straws.

I'm just going by the facts, not the what-ifs.

 

[imagroid]

It seems many in here are penalizing Vick because his backup is good while Brady's and Rivers' respective backups are not. I don't think this is a fair way to look at things. If we swap Vick's backup with Brady's backup, does that make what Brady has done somehow less impressive? Does it make what Vick has done more impressive?

People are penalizing Brady for having a better o-line. When has that ever mattered before? It's like penalizing a cy young winner for having good run support. People are grasping at straws to prop up Vick.

Yesterday you said the '07 pats went 16-0 and then 11-5 the following year with Cassel, therefore Brady is worth 5 games. Talk about grasping at straws.

I'm just going by the facts, not the what-ifs.

Yeah, you can do simple math, fascinating. Forget that the logic behind that statement is totally flawed.

 

[eaglesfan7]

2 reasons Vick is the MVP (call me a homer if you want).

Brady has Bellichek who can game plan against any defense in the league. I'm no pro but to dink and dunk all day is NOT throwing downfield.

We have seen the Eagles without Vick and we would not be in first place if he was on the bench. We might be .500 if we're lucky. The last time the Patriots were without Brady I think they went 10-6 and just missed the playoffs. Can't remember exactly but Vick is special with everything he can do.

 

[two_dollars]

I'm no pro but to dink and dunk all day is NOT throwing downfield.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=QBBrady: 6.8 AYPA

Vick: 6.6 AYPA

Next argument please.

 

[eaglesfan7]

I'm no pro but to dink and dunk all day is NOT throwing downfield.

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=QBBrady: 6.8 AYPA

Vick: 6.6 AYPA

Next argument please.

Try looking beyond the stats. Numbers don't give you the whole picture. If you go by just the stats you are probably trying to get Rex Grossman on your team after his "awesome" game this past weekend.

 

[Fensalk]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite.

The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12.

Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.

Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

Its so difficult to believe that given what we saw the Patriots do with Cassel at QB.

 

[shortbow]

In the real world, on real ballots, for the AP 2010 NFL MVP, it will be Brady. And I doubt it will be close. Whether that's who it should be is entirely a horse of a different color. But Brady will take it going away.

Veiled racism in this post

You might want to refrain from calling staff members racist.My point in all of these MVP threads is that in the actual MVP balloting has nothing to do with people bickering on message boards. Historically, voters almost always vote for:- The QB on the team with the best or second best record (Brady, check)- The QB on the highest scoing team in the league (Brady, check)- The QB with the highest (or near highest) passer rating (Brady, check)- A guy setting some sort of record (Brady for most passes without an INT; Brady TD to INT ratio, most games without a turnover, etc., check)- A guy that plays all the time (Brady, check)That's the core of the voting. All the other stuff that people have been debating is mostly irrelevant. But as far as message board material goes, people would also point out that the Pats will have had 10 games against Top 10 defenses, have played half their games against playoff teams, and have won with one of the worst defenses in the league. Offensively, they have been doing it with relative unknowns.And here's the other part of this . . . what Vick did this year won't matter, as Brady already has all the bases covered for all the things that voters care about. He's going to be head of the class in everything that matters. Whether he is truly the most value player in the league doesn't matter. I'm not saying that's what I think, I'm saying that's how the voters vote.As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

Logic, this man has it.

 

[David Yudkin]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite.

The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12.

Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.

Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

Its so difficult to believe that given what we saw the Patriots do with Cassel at QB.

For starters, the Pats roster is dramatically different from the 2008 team. But the main reason why Cassel was such a great replacement is that the Pats had a cupcake schedule.The 2010 Pats will end up playing 10 games against Top 10 defenses and may end up playing 8 games against playoff teams and winning 9 games against teams .500 or better.

The 2008 Pats had only two wins against top tier teams (MIA and NYJ) . They got so many wins because they faced the AFC West and NFC West. And for the most part, Cassel got to face a TON of bottom 10 pass defenses. Yes, he did well, but it was nowhere near against the quality of competition that Brady is facing this season.

 

[Insein]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite. The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12. Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

I have no idea if the Eagles are a 10 win team with Kolb. I dont think so though.I do know that BB made Cassell a winner.

And Andy made a washed up Jeff Garcia and Aj Feeley 10 game winners. Nough said.

 

[Insein]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite.

The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12.

Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.

Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

Its so difficult to believe that given what we saw the Patriots do with Cassel at QB.

Being as Cassel put up some damn good numbers in KC of all places, I think it was more him than people want to admit. Hoyer is no Cassel.

 

[eaglesfan7]

im right, you're wrong. wow, what a great conversation.

/unsubscribe

 

[Sundog]

Wait... not Favre??

Vick. We've never seen this before, and may never see it again.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

2 reasons Vick is the MVP (call me a homer if you want). Brady has Bellichek who can game plan against any defense in the league. I'm no pro but to dink and dunk all day is NOT throwing downfield. We have seen the Eagles without Vick and we would not be in first place if he was on the bench. We might be .500 if we're lucky. The last time the Patriots were without Brady I think they went 10-6 and just missed the playoffs. Can't remember exactly but Vick is special with everything he can do.

In your opinion how many games should a MVP candidate be allowed to miss yet be MVP? There has to be some right....I mean you don't think Rex Grossman should be MVP nor would you select Vincent Jackson. I know the Eagles are in 1st place in an average division but there is more to a season than that. The Eagles may finish 3rd in their conference where the Patriots are most likely going to be the No. 1 seed and probably the faovorite to win the SB right now.Brady has Belichick but Vick has Reid. Reid's been to the Bowl, he's been to the playoffs a ton of times so acting like Brady's got everything and Vick has nothing doesn't work.You mention without Brady the Pats went 10-6......but you didn't mention they missed the playoffs. What was the record of the Eagles last year when Vick wasn't the QB? It was pretty similar and they did make the playoffs. It's not like Vick has taken this horrible team and now turned them into a playoff team.Personally, I think Tom Brady is the MVP. If there wasn't a great candidate like Brady, then someone like Vick who's missed a few games and then played outstanding the other games he was in could win it. But when you have a candidate who has played a great year for 16 games and his team is the No.1 seed in their conference, he's the guy.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Chargers are 0-14 this season without Rivers.

This kind of stuff doesn't matter.......then AJ should get a better backup. Rivers has played great but they didn't do enough as a team to beat out someone like Tom Brady who has 2 losses against a very tough schedule. How do you give it to Rivers over Brady, you just can't, it wouldn't make any sense from what we know about how the NFL works.

 

[Tau837]

In the real world, on real ballots, for the AP 2010 NFL MVP, it will be Brady. And I doubt it will be close. Whether that's who it should be is entirely a horse of a different color. But Brady will take it going away.

Veiled racism in this post

You might want to refrain from calling staff members racist.My point in all of these MVP threads is that in the actual MVP balloting has nothing to do with people bickering on message boards. Historically, voters almost always vote for:- The QB on the team with the best or second best record (Brady, check)- The QB on the highest scoing team in the league (Brady, check)- The QB with the highest (or near highest) passer rating (Brady, check)- A guy setting some sort of record (Brady for most passes without an INT; Brady TD to INT ratio, most games without a turnover, etc., check)- A guy that plays all the time (Brady, check)That's the core of the voting. All the other stuff that people have been debating is mostly irrelevant. But as far as message board material goes, people would also point out that the Pats will have had 10 games against Top 10 defenses, have played half their games against playoff teams, and have won with one of the worst defenses in the league. Offensively, they have been doing it with relative unknowns.And here's the other part of this . . . what Vick did this year won't matter, as Brady already has all the bases covered for all the things that voters care about. He's going to be head of the class in everything that matters. Whether he is truly the most value player in the league doesn't matter. I'm not saying that's what I think, I'm saying that's how the voters vote.As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

/thread

 

[thehornet]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite. The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12. Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

I have no idea if the Eagles are a 10 win team with Kolb. I dont think so though.I do know that BB made Cassell a winner.

And Andy made a washed up Jeff Garcia and Aj Feeley 10 game winners. Nough said.

jeff garcia is a good qb. but still dont get your point. it doesnt mean kolb is a 10 game winner.

 

[kyoun1e]

In the real world, on real ballots, for the AP 2010 NFL MVP, it will be Brady. And I doubt it will be close. Whether that's who it should be is entirely a horse of a different color. But Brady will take it going away.

Veiled racism in this post

You might want to refrain from calling staff members racist.My point in all of these MVP threads is that in the actual MVP balloting has nothing to do with people bickering on message boards. Historically, voters almost always vote for:- The QB on the team with the best or second best record (Brady, check)- The QB on the highest scoing team in the league (Brady, check)- The QB with the highest (or near highest) passer rating (Brady, check)- A guy setting some sort of record (Brady for most passes without an INT; Brady TD to INT ratio, most games without a turnover, etc., check)- A guy that plays all the time (Brady, check)That's the core of the voting. All the other stuff that people have been debating is mostly irrelevant. But as far as message board material goes, people would also point out that the Pats will have had 10 games against Top 10 defenses, have played half their games against playoff teams, and have won with one of the worst defenses in the league. Offensively, they have been doing it with relative unknowns.And here's the other part of this . . . what Vick did this year won't matter, as Brady already has all the bases covered for all the things that voters care about. He's going to be head of the class in everything that matters. Whether he is truly the most value player in the league doesn't matter. I'm not saying that's what I think, I'm saying that's how the voters vote.As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

/thread

Exactly.The voters aren't crunching numbers like all the geeks in here.Brady will get it.Vick probably deserves it.KY

 

[Insein]

Pats Fan here, but this is all Vick. Eagles are barely a .500 team with Kolb. With Vick, they are elite. The pats could win 10 or 11 with their backup. BB is the man with the plan.

What backup? Hoyer? Really? Not with that Defense. Eagles are a 9 or 10 win team with Kolb. With Vick they win 11 or 12. Pats are a 13 or 14 win team with Brady. Without they are 6 or 7.Vick has been great but Brady is the MVP going away. That team isn't even relevant without him this season the way their Defense is.

I have no idea if the Eagles are a 10 win team with Kolb. I dont think so though.I do know that BB made Cassell a winner.

And Andy made a washed up Jeff Garcia and Aj Feeley 10 game winners. Nough said.

jeff garcia is a good qb. but still dont get your point. it doesnt mean kolb is a 10 game winner.

Then why do you bring up Cassel's season 2 years ago as evidence that BB is great and Brady is a by product? Kolb won 3 games this year, lost one and was injured in another. He's not as talented as Vick for sure but he still would win 10 games with this team.

 

[bostonfred]

As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

I agree with your whole post except possibly this last line. That may not play against him as much as you'd think. I think the Vick/Mora interview did a lot to change people's minds. It was a very successful PR piece during Vick's best season. They changed the conversation successfully from "Vick killed dogs" to "Vick's done his time and he deserves a second chance". There's a clear feeling that he's changed, and that appeals to a lot of Americans. If anything, Vick may have a chance at getting co-MVP honors because of his comeback. There are a lot of people who want him to get the award, and I'm sure the NFL would love to have an Eagles/Patriots Superbowl matchup between the co-MVPs.

 

[David Yudkin]

As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

I agree with your whole post except possibly this last line. That may not play against him as much as you'd think. I think the Vick/Mora interview did a lot to change people's minds. It was a very successful PR piece during Vick's best season. They changed the conversation successfully from "Vick killed dogs" to "Vick's done his time and he deserves a second chance". There's a clear feeling that he's changed, and that appeals to a lot of Americans. If anything, Vick may have a chance at getting co-MVP honors because of his comeback. There are a lot of people who want him to get the award, and I'm sure the NFL would love to have an Eagles/Patriots Superbowl matchup between the co-MVPs.

I'm not sure the chances or the methodology to get a co-MVP out of the balloting. IIRC, 50 voters vote for only one player. There are no secord or third place votes. Whoever gets the most votes win. Yes, voters can give half a vote to PLAYER A and half a vote to PLAYER B, but I suspect the likelihood of it ending in a dead heat is pretty remote.

 

[renesauz]

This race isn't over. Vick's heroics Sunday leave the matter unsettled. But if one had to vote today, it's got to be Brady.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

I agree with your whole post except possibly this last line. That may not play against him as much as you'd think. I think the Vick/Mora interview did a lot to change people's minds. It was a very successful PR piece during Vick's best season. They changed the conversation successfully from "Vick killed dogs" to "Vick's done his time and he deserves a second chance". There's a clear feeling that he's changed, and that appeals to a lot of Americans. If anything, Vick may have a chance at getting co-MVP honors because of his comeback. There are a lot of people who want him to get the award, and I'm sure the NFL would love to have an Eagles/Patriots Superbowl matchup between the co-MVPs.

I'm not sure the chances or the methodology to get a co-MVP out of the balloting. IIRC, 50 voters vote for only one player. There are no secord or third place votes. Whoever gets the most votes win. Yes, voters can give half a vote to PLAYER A and half a vote to PLAYER B, but I suspect the likelihood of it ending in a dead heat is pretty remote.

The AP award- which I think is probably the one people think of first when they're talking about MVPs- has been split twice in the last 15 years. Once for Manning and McNair in 2003, and once for Favre and Sanders in 1997.

 

[David Yudkin]

As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

I agree with your whole post except possibly this last line. That may not play against him as much as you'd think. I think the Vick/Mora interview did a lot to change people's minds. It was a very successful PR piece during Vick's best season. They changed the conversation successfully from "Vick killed dogs" to "Vick's done his time and he deserves a second chance". There's a clear feeling that he's changed, and that appeals to a lot of Americans. If anything, Vick may have a chance at getting co-MVP honors because of his comeback. There are a lot of people who want him to get the award, and I'm sure the NFL would love to have an Eagles/Patriots Superbowl matchup between the co-MVPs.

I'm not sure the chances or the methodology to get a co-MVP out of the balloting. IIRC, 50 voters vote for only one player. There are no secord or third place votes. Whoever gets the most votes win. Yes, voters can give half a vote to PLAYER A and half a vote to PLAYER B, but I suspect the likelihood of it ending in a dead heat is pretty remote.

The AP award- which I think is probably the one people think of first when they're talking about MVPs- has been split twice in the last 15 years. Once for Manning and McNair in 2003, and once for Favre and Sanders in 1997.

Twice in 53 years.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As for THE VOTERS, I think they will be gun shy to vote for a convicted felon for MVP, but even if he were squeaky clean Brady would still win. Unless the Patriots completely fall off the edge of the earth in the next two weeks, Brady is going to be the MVP, no matter how well Vick and the Eagles do. Sadly, I doubt the NFL wants Vick to be the MVP, as they would want to distance themselves from him. Brady makes a better poster boy for the league than Vick does (not that the NFL can tell people who to vote for).

I agree with your whole post except possibly this last line. That may not play against him as much as you'd think. I think the Vick/Mora interview did a lot to change people's minds. It was a very successful PR piece during Vick's best season. They changed the conversation successfully from "Vick killed dogs" to "Vick's done his time and he deserves a second chance". There's a clear feeling that he's changed, and that appeals to a lot of Americans. If anything, Vick may have a chance at getting co-MVP honors because of his comeback. There are a lot of people who want him to get the award, and I'm sure the NFL would love to have an Eagles/Patriots Superbowl matchup between the co-MVPs.

I'm not sure the chances or the methodology to get a co-MVP out of the balloting. IIRC, 50 voters vote for only one player. There are no secord or third place votes. Whoever gets the most votes win. Yes, voters can give half a vote to PLAYER A and half a vote to PLAYER B, but I suspect the likelihood of it ending in a dead heat is pretty remote.

The AP award- which I think is probably the one people think of first when they're talking about MVPs- has been split twice in the last 15 years. Once for Manning and McNair in 2003, and once for Favre and Sanders in 1997.

Twice in 53 years.

Sounds about right. If it's really 50 voters voting for only one player, as you say, I would except a split every now and then. Not bothering to do the work and just looking at a couple bell curves on the internet, looks like maybe 1 in 7 if the candidates are even, so once every 26 years seems reasonable.

 

[Snotbubbles]

My point in all of these MVP threads is that in the actual MVP balloting has nothing to do with people bickering on message boards. Historically, voters almost always vote for:- The QB on the team with the best or second best record (Brady, check)- The QB on the highest scoing team in the league (Brady, check)- The QB with the highest (or near highest) passer rating (Brady, check)- A guy setting some sort of record (Brady for most passes without an INT; Brady TD to INT ratio, most games without a turnover, etc., check)- A guy that plays all the time (Brady, check)

Steve McNair 2003- The QB on the team with the best or second best record (McNair, no)- The QB on the highest scoing team in the league (McNair, no)- The QB with the highest (or near highest) passer rating (McNair, check)- A guy setting some sort of record (Don't know about this one)- A guy that plays all the time (McNair, no)