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!
The question wasn't who deserved the MVP; the question was who had better numbers.
He has a good point though Chase. I am still waiting for why measuring qb's on yards and Td's as two of the major statistics is a such a bad thing when to win a game you need yards and Td's... that is confusing to me. Manning is finiding a way to get those yards and TD's.
Because being efficient is better than being average. Having 400 yards on 30 attempts is better than 400 yards on 50 attempts. There have been 317 games of 300 passing yards or more since 2006. Let's broke those into thirds based on yards per attempt.In the 106 games with the "high YPA" QBs, they went 87-19 for a .821 winning percentage. On average, they scored 33.3 points and allowed 21.6 points. They averaged 10.7 Y/A, 351 passing yards and 33 attempts, threw 2.68 TDs and 0.56 INTs.In the 106 games the "low YPA" QBs, they went 41-64-1, for a 0.392 winning percentage. On average, they scored 23.0 points and allowed 26.5 points. They averaged 7.2 Y/A, 332 passing yards and 47 attempts, threw 1.78 TDs and 1.5 INTs.In the middle 105 games, the "average YPA" QBs went 60-45, for a 0.571 winning percentage. On average, they scored 27.7 points and allowed 24.1 points. They averaged 8.6 Y/A, 343 passing yards and 40 attempts, threw 2.10 TDs and 0.82 INTs.Now, is it a coincidence that the high YPA guys won the most games and the low YPA guys won the fewest? Is this a case of correlation but not causation? That's up for each person to decide. But it's obvious to me that efficiently throwing the ball leads to winning, and not efficiently throwing leads to losing. QBs that throw efficiently -- and make no mistake, Manning is one of the best -- score a bunch of points, take large leads, and can then ground the clock. QBs that don't throw efficiently are often losing later in games, and are forced to throw a lot while playing catchup. They may end up with a bunch of yards and a bunch of TDs, but low per attempt numbers.Rivers and Brees are the two best QBs this season. Manning is having a masterful season, and is third. If you want to argue that Manning's greatness isn't encapsulated by his stats, well: 1) it might be the first time that's ever been argued about Manning; and 2) that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that his stats aren't as impressive as Rivers. It's not like Manning is doing something super-special in order to get more attempts than Rivers this year. In what was Manning's best season, 2004, he had only 497 attempts, the second lowest of his career. Was Manning not doing something right that season, or was Manning just so good that he wasn't needed to pass for four quarters, but more like 2.5?
why is it ok to manipulate a QB's stats down to a per 100 attempts basis and not a running back's? Why does that same scaled down analysis simply dismiss TD's and completions? Why doesn't it factor in sacks?Wouldn't a QB that was throwing deep more often possibly end up taking more sacks?Oh yeah, those numbers don't help your case, so we throw them all out until we end up with some ridiculous barometer.
1) Because of how football works.2) It doesn't dismiss TDs.3) I always factor sacks into my analysis. Rivers is at 8.3 ANY/A, Manning at 7.6 ANY/A. In the discussion above, we were talking about just passing yards and passing TDs.4) Yes. Rivers does take more sacks than Manning. Just like with the TDs, it's an edge for Manning, but it's not a big enough edge to overcome the other things.5) It's funny how when I use stats to say Manning is better than Brady, everyone says I'm a Colts homer and/or need to stop looking at stats. When I use stats to say Rivers is better than Manning, it's that I'm a Colts hater and/or I need to stop looking at stats. The bottom line? If you don't agree with some analysis, you'll come up with whatever argument you like to help strike down the counterargument. When I use ANY/A to say how great Manning is, the Manning supporters like ANY/A. When I use ANY/A to say Rivers>>Manning, the Manning supporters call the stats ridiculous. Consistency is the most important part of any honest analysis.
Interesting breakdown - do you think its a coincidence that the points allowed just happened to work out that way? Why would QBs with a high YPA have defenses that allowed significantly less points than teams with a low YPA? Perhaps efficiency is more closely related to coaching than we think, thus these teams also have well-coached defenses. Do you mind listing the teams in each third?BTW, Rivers has been better than Manning this year, and he was better than Manning last year too. Doesn't matter, Manning will win anyway. I still think that Chris Johnson deserves the award if he goes over 2000 and break's Faulks record.
I don't think it's a coincidence. If QBs have a high YPA, they're keeping possession of the ball. They're moving the ball. They're not giving the opponent the ball in good field position after three and outs. They're also scoring points, which puts pressure on the other team to score and makes them one-dimensional (and perhaps easier to handle). They're also not throwing INTs, which often lead to points. I suspect that the average opponent of a QB with a high YPA has fewer possessions per game than the opponent of a QB with a low YPA. They're also grinding the clock late in games because they're winning. Remember, each of these games was a 300-yard game. So we're not dealing with very conservative offenses here.(I got all the games from the P-F-R play index; you could run the numbers yourself, but I doubt any one team comes up too often. Except those quarterbacked by guys like Rivers and Manning.
)
If this is the criteria Manning should have 6 MVPs and should win 3-4 more. He's the most valuable player in the history of the NFL.
Yeah, I think a lot of people that voted Brees when this poll was first posted would like to change their votes now.
Agreed, it appears New Orleans peaked to early
I don't know about that. I still think Manning deserves it, but...... It was a 3rd string QB in there playing with 2nd and 3rd strings guys. We do know that the colts are not very good with a 3rd string qb playing in his first game with reserve offensive guys against the number 1 defense in the league.
Play on a playoff team. The huge majority of the time if your team doesn't make the playoffs, you don't win the MVP. I agree that that's not right, just that usually it's how it's been.Jamal Lewis had 2K rushing yards and didn't win MVP. Marshall Faulk, Tiki Barber, LaDainian Tomlinson, Steven Jackson, and Edgerrin James all had 2,300 yfs and weren't MVPs.
Why isn't OPOY enough for Chris Johnson? It is hard to be the most valuable player in the league if your team doesn't make the playoffs.
Sadly, you're right. There is no doubt in my mind that the Titans don't sniff 8 wins this year without CJ, probably like 4-12. Not sure how the Colts do without Peyton, but they'd have at least 4 less wins, probably not even a .500 team. That's part of the reason QBs win this thing so often, it's easy to look at them and see them as the key to a team's success, it's much harder to look at a TE, WR, RB, OL or any defensive player and see them as the key.
It's probably "enough" along with the 2,000 yards and Faulk's record, but you can very easily be the most valuable player in the league and not be on a winning team - you just won't win the award.
It depends on what you feel is valuable.I am fairly confident the Titans could have opened the season 0-6 without Chris Johnson in the lineup.
