Who's the 2016 NFL MVP right now? (1 Viewer)

[Interseptopus]

ESPN after 15 weeks

Brady 54

Carr 36

Elliott 36

Ryan 33

Rodgers 13

Stafford 7

Prescott 6

Johnson 6

Bell 2

Tucker 1

Wilson 1

Brady... makes sense he has done quite well but his season is not even comparable to previous years where he won MVP. Maybe it's a sympathy vote for his suspension. afterall NE looked like they didn't miss a beat without Brady, and they look way different without Gronk. Maybe Gronk is the MVP in that offense

Carr... I can see it. He's had a great season. Turned the franchise around. Its not like Murray is winning them games. I would put him as a legitimate contender. Without him the Raiders are the same old Raiders

Elliot... Points made in here quite legitimately that the OL should get a lot of credit. He is a very good RB but that OL is exceptional. However, it does take talent to do what he is doing this season. I'd say he at least has to be in the conversation

Ryan... I don't know, maybe it's my lack of ownership in fantasy but I feel like he's quietly put together a great season. Not sure MVP worthy, but I can see how he's on the list

------
Rodgers... shouldn't be getting any votes
Stafford... my points are documented above. He should be above the line. I put him equal with Carr. He has done equally good things for his team as Carr has
Dak... Elliot makes Dak relevant. Dak shouldn't be on this list
Johnson... yes but AZ isn't doing that well so he shouldn't be considered
Bell... I'm surprised he only has 2. I'd think he'd be higher. Maybe if we take Rodgers and Dak out he'd be higher
Tucker.. .No
Wilson... No

 

[FUBAR]

Agree

I really think the Lions are about 2-14 without Stafford this season... 

One could make the same statement about Rodgers but he played so bad the middle of the season... there is no way he should be getting more votes than Stafford. And I'm a GB homer

The season Stafford has had, the 4th quarter come backs... man I can't believe I'm defending a Lion... but it's hard to find someone who is more valuable to their team than him, this season

In my opinion, nobody but a QB should ever win the MVP. It's far and away the most important position in the league. Poll every coach and GM in the league and not one of them would take Zeke over one of the top QBS given the choice.

That's my primary objection to the "remove x from his team" logic, it's (almost) always going to be the qb and imo it shouldn't be MVQB. 

You don't think a GM would take Zeke, a 21 year old specimen over Tom Brady's old deflated balls? 

For a one year deal?  Nope

 

[Interseptopus]

For a one year deal?  Nope

Ok, I agree, one year

 

[FUBAR]

Bell... I'm surprised he only has 2. I'd think he'd be higher. Maybe if we take Rodgers and Dak out he'd be higher

But for his suspension bell would be among the top 5.

 

[Interseptopus]

But for his suspension bell would be among the top 5.

Yeah I would agree. His season has been amazing. 

But even so... Brady had a similar suspension... 

 

[Anarchy99]

In the salary cap era (since 1994), there have been 18 QB's named MVP with an average W-L record of 13.1 - 2.9 (out of 24 MVP's).

The 6 RB's that were MVP averaged 2,228 yfs and 22.5 TD's.

This year, Johnson is on pace for 2,215 yfs and 19 TD.
Zeke is on pace for 2,174 yfs and 16 TD.
Bell is on pace for 2,065 yfs and 9 TD (and was suspended the first 3 weeks).
 

 

[kface]

You don't think a GM would take Zeke, a 21 year old specimen over Tom Brady's old deflated balls? 

No, I don't

Brady makes you an instant superbowl team

Zeke is a good rb with a great oline.  Teams that win draft rbs in the 4th round and pay them a pittance for 4 years

 

[Thunderlips]

Why is Wilson getting a vote?

12th Man. 

 

[Thunderlips]

No, I don't

Brady makes you an instant superbowl team

Zeke is a good rb with a great oline.  Teams that win draft rbs in the 4th round and pay them a pittance for 4 years

Meh.  He's not sniffing the Super Bowl if he's on CLE this year. 

 

[kface]

Meh.  He's not sniffing the Super Bowl if he's on CLE this year. 

Well Cleveland is a little bit of an exception because they gutted that team.  There is no talent anywhere.  You put him on 90% of teams and they become a great team that nobody wants to play.

Put Zeke on Cle this year and he has 700 yards and 6tds

 

[Hawkeye21]

No, I don't

Brady makes you an instant superbowl team

Zeke is a good rb with a great oline.  Teams that win draft rbs in the 4th round and pay them a pittance for 4 years

At this point in Brady's career I have to disagree that Brady makes any team an instant super bowl contender.  One of the reasons Brady is so great is because he's in Belichik's system.  It's like a perfect marriage.

There are some teams that are so dysfunctional that the greatest QB ever, in his prime couldn't help.  Maybe after being there for a few years they could be a contender, but not instantly.

 

[Thunderlips]

You don't think a GM would take Zeke, a 21 year old specimen over Tom Brady's old deflated balls? 

Depends on what they want/....what they need. I'd imagine DEN would take Brady over Zeke...just for the chance to win another SB or two.  I don't DAL would take him.  I don't think OAK, PHI, TEN or any other team who has a good QB prospect but who isn't QUITE ready to be an upper echelon/year in...year out team would take him. 

 

[kface]

At this point in Brady's career I have to disagree that Brady makes any team an instant super bowl contender.  One of the reasons Brady is so great is because he's in Belichik's system.  It's like a perfect marriage.

There are some teams that are so dysfunctional that the greatest QB ever, in his prime couldn't help.  Maybe after being there for a few years they could be a contender, but not instantly.

That's the old argument that is hard to parce out...did Montana make Rice?  Did Walsh make Montana or did Montana make Walsh?  Did Rice make them all?  Or was it just the right time and the right place for all of them?  

 

[Thunderlips]

Well Cleveland is a little bit of an exception because they gutted that team.  There is no talent anywhere.  You put him on 90% of teams and they become a great team that nobody wants to play.

Put Zeke on Cle this year and he has 700 yards and 6tds

I can agree that CLE is an outlier.  

 

[Hawkeye21]

Depends on what they want/....what they need. I'd imagine DEN would take Brady over Zeke...just for the chance to win another SB or two.  I don't DAL would take him.  I don't think OAK, PHI, TEN or any other team who has a good QB prospect but who isn't QUITE ready to be an upper echelon/year in...year out team would take him. 

The Bears would also rather have Brady over Zeke.  There are a lot more RBs that can come close to doing what Zeke is doing compared to what Brady could do for some teams.

 

[Hawkeye21]

That's the old argument that is hard to parce out...did Montana make Rice?  Did Walsh make Montana or did Montana make Walsh?  Did Rice make them all?  Or was it just the right time and the right place for all of them?  

I'm not a Brady fan but I know he's a great QB.  I think he found the perfect situation though.  I honestly don't think he'd be the QB he is today if he was with a different team.  That is a very well run organization that knows how to draft and how to game plan.  I think it's been proven when you see the Patriots win games with back up QBs.  They had a good season with Cassel as their starter and we all know he was not a very good QB.

 

[Thunderlips]

The Bears would also rather have Brady over Zeke.  There are a lot more RBs that can come close to doing what Zeke is doing compared to what Brady could do for some teams.

Brady can't play all 11 positions on O and some teams are so devoid of talent at the other positions that it probably wouldn't behoove them to take a 40 year old QB over a 21 year old stud RB.  To me, CHI is one of those teams.  

 

[Anarchy99]

I'm not a Brady fan but I know he's a great QB.  I think he found the perfect situation though.  I honestly don't think he'd be the QB he is today if he was with a different team.  That is a very well run organization that knows how to draft and how to game plan.  I think it's been proven when you see the Patriots win games with back up QBs.  They had a good season with Cassel as their starter and we all know he was not a very good QB.

Pats with Brady in 07 went 18-1 and went to the SB. With Cassel they went 11-5 and did not make the playoffs. You could make a case Cassel cost them 7 wins.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Brady can't play all 11 positions on O and some teams are so devoid of talent at the other positions that it probably wouldn't behoove them to take a 40 year old QB over a 21 year old stud RB.  To me, CHI is one of those teams.  

The Bears have a good RB right now.  Zeke wouldn't add much to the team.  Brady would be a huge upgrade at QB and a leader.  The Bears would be able to draft a QB and let him learn behind Brady for a couple years.  They would still have to fill all the other needs they have on the team, regardless of having Zeke or not.

I don't really understand your, "Brady not being able to play all 11 positions" analogy.  Zeke can't do that either, so what's your point?

 

[Anarchy99]

Brady can't play all 11 positions on O and some teams are so devoid of talent at the other positions that it probably wouldn't behoove them to take a 40 year old QB over a 21 year old stud RB.  To me, CHI is one of those teams.  

You can't play the what if game, as players are on their designated teams. That being said, it seems like there is a better case for teams being a QB away from making a deep playoff run than most teams being a RB away from making a deep playoff run. As I pointed out earlier, DeMarco Murray put up similar numbers two seasons ago (2261 yfs with 13 TD vs. Zeke on pace for 2,174 yfs and 16 TD).

Put Elliott on a team with a bad OL and his numbers might be half what they are in Dallas.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Pats with Brady in 07 went 18-1 and went to the SB. With Cassel they went 11-5 and did not make the playoffs. You could make a case Cassel cost them 7 wins.

That may be but they were still good enough to win 11 games.  I think you just proved my point.  Cassel was bad enough to cost them 7 wins yet the team and system itself is so good that it still managed to get 11 wins.  There are a lot of teams that would love to have that record and do it with a below average QB.

 

[Hawkeye21]

You can't play the what if game, as players are on their designated teams. That being said, it seems like there is a better case for teams being a QB away from making a deep playoff run than most teams being a RB away from making a deep playoff run. As I pointed out earlier, DeMarco Murray put up similar numbers two seasons ago (2261 yfs with 13 TD vs. Zeke on pace for 2,174 yfs and 16 TD).

Put Elliott on a team with a bad OL and his numbers might be half what they are in Dallas.

I agree.  How many teams have said, "If we just had a stud RB we would have won the Super Bowl."  Most teams are able to make do with what they have at RB but it's other positions that really kill a team.  The QB position is by far the most important position and the one position that teams are missing that keep them from winning it all. I don't think there is any other position that would put a team over the top.

 

[Zow]

By just the eye test and what each player means to his team in terms of value, I'd give it to Brady or Rodgers since there teams would be nowhere without them (whereas Dallas would still be decent if McFadden or Romo played) and they're both better players overall as compared to Ryan or Stafford. 

 

[kface]

You can't play the what if game, as players are on their designated teams. That being said, it seems like there is a better case for teams being a QB away from making a deep playoff run than most teams being a RB away from making a deep playoff run. As I pointed out earlier, DeMarco Murray put up similar numbers two seasons ago (2261 yfs with 13 TD vs. Zeke on pace for 2,174 yfs and 16 TD).

Put Elliott on a team with a bad OL and his numbers might be half what they are in Dallas.

I stand by the argument that having a great rb is a detriment to a team rather than a positive.  You can't pay that much money at that position as there just isn't enough benefit from it. I would rather pay a ton for a great qb and just have a great oline and just draft a rb every year.  

I wouldn't be surprised if the cowboys let Zeke walk in 3 years when his contract is up

 

[Weebs210]

Just rename the award to mvq. Such a dumb award now that QB will always be considered the MVP unless some non qb shatters records.

 

[kface]

By just the eye test and what each player means to his team in terms of value, I'd give it to Brady or Rodgers since there teams would be nowhere without them (whereas Dallas would still be decent if McFadden or Romo played) and they're both better players overall as compared to Ryan or Stafford. 

I think that packers are a 3 win team without Rodgers...

 

[Hawkeye21]

By just the eye test and what each player means to his team in terms of value, I'd give it to Brady or Rodgers since there teams would be nowhere without them (whereas Dallas would still be decent if McFadden or Romo played) and they're both better players overall as compared to Ryan or Stafford. 

You don't think the Patriots would not have a winning record without Brady?  They started 3-1 without him.  I bet they still have a winning record and maybe still make the playoffs.  The Packers are not a good enough team overall to win without Rodgers.

 

[Anarchy99]

That may be but they were still good enough to win 11 games.  I think you just proved my point.  Cassel was bad enough to cost them 7 wins yet the team and system itself is so good that it still managed to get 11 wins.  There are a lot of teams that would love to have that record and do it with a below average QB.

A QB can't be responsible for how the defense and special teams play. This year, for example, with Brady at QB, NE is averaging 8.5 points and 70+ more yards per game than when he was out. The defense has played the same throughout. Is that his fault?

NE's scoring dropped off by over 11 ppg from 2007 with Brady (against one of the tougher schedules) to 2008 with Cassel (against one of the easiest schedules). If people don't consider that a significant drop off, I don't know what to say.

 

[Hawkeye21]

A QB can't be responsible for how the defense and special teams play. This year, for example, with Brady at QB, NE is averaging 8.5 points and 70+ more yards per game than when he was out. The defense has played the same throughout. Is that his fault?

NE's scoring dropped off by over 11 ppg from 2007 with Brady (against one of the tougher schedules) to 2008 with Cassel (against one of the easiest schedules). If people don't consider that a significant drop off, I don't know what to say.

But they still managed to keep winning?  How is that?  Is it because the overall team was still pretty good or maybe it was because Belichik is amazing at game planning.  I can't stand the man but, WOW, he blows my mind with how well he prepares for a game.  Every game he has a different strategy based on the team he's playing and the players he has available to him.  This is how the Patriots still win games without Brady or without Gronk.  Does not having these players hurt them, of course it does but they still manage to overcome it.

 

[Anarchy99]

I stand by the argument that having a great rb is a detriment to a team rather than a positive.  You can't pay that much money at that position as there just isn't enough benefit from it. I would rather pay a ton for a great qb and just have a great oline and just draft a rb every year.  

I wouldn't be surprised if the cowboys let Zeke walk in 3 years when his contract is up

IMO, it's not just paying low dollars to RB's. Nowadays, teams that win are getting top production from players on their first contract or barely hanging around on their last contract (or one year prove it deal). Teams might win with a QB on his rookie contract (like Wilson) with some other Pro Bowlers playing for next to nothing. But once they start paying QB's $20 million and positional players $10+ million, there isn't a lot of cap money to go around.

Cap management is a huge deal these days, and guys like Suh are team killers.

 

[kface]

IMO, it's not just paying low dollars to RB's. Nowadays, teams that win are getting top production from players on their first contract or barely hanging around on their last contract (or one year prove it deal). Teams might win with a QB on his rookie contract (like Wilson) with some other Pro Bowlers playing for next to nothing. But once they start paying QB's $20 million and positional players $10+ million, there isn't a lot of cap money to go around.

Cap management is a huge deal these days, and guys like Suh are team killers.

I agree.  QB is really the only difference maker position out there.  

Suh is great but he's not that much greater than the next guy and if the team around him is awful it doesn't matter.  

As a guy like Brady has consistently done he makes wr's that would barely make other teams useful and that makes rb's that wouldn't make other teams good.  

Although I do think that rb, along with wr, is a place where teams need to look to save money.  Big contracts for the both lines makes more sense than a 60 million dollar rb

 

[Anarchy99]

But they still managed to keep winning?  How is that?  Is it because the overall team was still pretty good or maybe it was because Belichik is amazing at game planning.  I can't stand the man but, WOW, he blows my mind with how well he prepares for a game.  Every game he has a different strategy based on the team he's playing and the players he has available to him.  This is how the Patriots still win games without Brady or without Gronk.  Does not having these players hurt them, of course it does but they still manage to overcome it.

BB is a man possessed. It has been said he works 20 hours a day, 7 days a week. IMO, other teams should be better prepared if their QB goes down. Prescott doesn't seem to be hurting the Cowboys. Matt Moore just started this week and put up 236/4 on only 18 passes for Miami.

It surprises me how some teams fall apart without their stud QB (look at the Colts with Manning, the Cowboys prior to this year with Romo, etc.). I think a lot of teams give almost all the practice reps with the starter and the backup migh as well be the water boy.

 

[ShamrockPride]

How I view MVP is that if you subtract this one player, his team would fall apart. Hence the keyword 'Valuable'. Can you say that about Elliott? We saw the success this team has had running the ball the past 2 years before he arrived. We saw the Patriots win 3 games without Tom Brady. I try to think of a player who really put the team on his back and won games that they otherwise would not have without him. I think Matt Stafford is deserving of it. He had so many 4th Q comebacks that without him, or those comebacks, they could easily have one of the worst records in the league.

At it's core I agree with this. However in reality it penalizes teams with great depth and/or coaching. For example, the year Brady (temporarily) set the TD record, was there really a question who the best player was? No. But under this argument he could never really be MVP no matter his season because Belichick is always on that sideline and the team has never struggled without Brady under center.

 

[Anarchy99]

In the salary cap era (since 1994), there have been 18 QB's named MVP with an average W-L record of 13.1 - 2.9 (out of 24 MVP's).

The 6 RB's that were MVP averaged 2,228 yfs and 22.5 TD's.

This year, Johnson is on pace for 2,215 yfs and 19 TD.
Zeke is on pace for 2,174 yfs and 16 TD.
Bell is on pace for 2,065 yfs and 9 TD (and was suspended the first 3 weeks).
 

Forgot to mention that of the 18 MVP's who were QB's, 11 came from #1 seeds, 2 from #2 seeds, 3 from #3 seeds, and 2 were from #5 seeds (where they had really good records but there was a team in their division with an even better record).

Pretty much conforms to the model that the MVP is usually a QB from a bye week team.

 

[msudaisy26]

What are you talking about? He could break Dickersons record.

Sarcasm right? He needs like 600 yards his 2 games to break the rushing record. If he does that then he deserves the MVP.

 

[Tommy Collins]

At it's core I agree with this. However in reality it penalizes teams with great depth and/or coaching. For example, the year Brady (temporarily) set the TD record, was there really a question who the best player was? No. But under this argument he could never really be MVP no matter his season because Belichick is always on that sideline and the team has never struggled without Brady under center.

So under the definition, he would be better suited for Offensive Player of the Year.

 

[wodahSShadow]

Sarcasm right? He needs like 600 yards his 2 games to break the rushing record. If he does that then he deserves the MVP.

I think he is referring to Dickerson's rookie rushing record.

 

[msudaisy26]

I think he is referring to Dickerson's rookie rushing record.

We are talking about the MVP race here, rookie records really don't mean a lot unless they are the NFL record.

 

[RaiderBones]

My MVP is Derek Carr. The Raiders have a losing record without Carr at QB. 

 

[Anarchy99]

So under the definition, he would be better suited for Offensive Player of the Year.

OPOY is usually for an outstanding performance on a second tier team. For example, CJ2K on the 8-8 Titans, Jamal Lewis on the 10-6 Ravens, Drew Brees on the 8-8 Saints, Priest Holmes on the 8-8 Chiefs. The other typical OPOY winner is for an MVP candidate that didn't win (or sometimes even the MVP winner).

 

[Tommy Collins]

OPOY is usually for an outstanding performance on a second tier team. For example, CJ2K on the 8-8 Titans, Jamal Lewis on the 10-6 Ravens, Drew Brees on the 8-8 Saints, Priest Holmes on the 8-8 Chiefs. The other typical OPOY winner is for an MVP candidate that didn't win (or sometimes even the MVP winner).

Yeah, this is all foolishness. Stafford MVP and Brady OPOY makes more sense to me. But who am I?

 

[Anarchy99]

Yeah, this is all foolishness. Stafford MVP and Brady OPOY makes more sense to me. But who am I?

They need to change the MVP Award to the "Best Offensive Player on the Best Team Award." And if the Lions don't make the playoffs, Stafford will be a complete after thought (if he isn't already). (I am not suggesting he shouldn't be a consideration, but I doubt he will get much love for MVP.)

 

[Hawkeye21]

BB is a man possessed. It has been said he works 20 hours a day, 7 days a week. IMO, other teams should be better prepared if their QB goes down. Prescott doesn't seem to be hurting the Cowboys. Matt Moore just started this week and put up 236/4 on only 18 passes for Miami.

It surprises me how some teams fall apart without their stud QB (look at the Colts with Manning, the Cowboys prior to this year with Romo, etc.). I think a lot of teams give almost all the practice reps with the starter and the backup migh as well be the water boy.

Teams usually fail with their back up QB because their QB is usually terrible.  There is a lot of very bad QB play in the NFL lately.  There doesn't seem to be a ton of talent coming into the league either.  The whole spread offense craze in college has really set back the position in the NFL now.

 

[Interseptopus]

They need to change the MVP Award to the "Best Offensive Player on the Best Team Award." And if the Lions don't make the playoffs, Stafford will be a complete after thought (if he isn't already). (I am not suggesting he shouldn't be a consideration, but I doubt he will get much love for MVP.)

He wont' get any love. Because it's the Lions. 

If we want to look specifically at numbers... yeah Stafford doesn't really deserve to get it. Ryan smokes him in stats alone. 

The problem is many of us look at the most valuable player as the player that impacts his team the most in a way that the team would be nowhere near as good without them. That just isn't the case, over and over and over. 

You hit it on the head, it almost is certainly the best offensive player on the best team.

I think it's almost a certainty that Brady gets it. And I guess one could argue that he is performing at a high level even at an older age but I really think the Patriots are at least 10-6 without him. 

Take away Ryan, Carr, Rodgers, Stafford and those teams are probably 6-10 at best. 

I really hope Carr gets it. He deserves it most. Stafford does too, but I don't think he has a shot at this point

 

[ShamrockPride]

He wont' get any love. Because it's the Lions. 

If we want to look specifically at numbers... yeah Stafford doesn't really deserve to get it. Ryan smokes him in stats alone. 

So the next argument naturally is, look who Stafford has been throwing it to compared to Ryan.

 

[Interseptopus]

So the next argument naturally is, look who Stafford has been throwing it to compared to Ryan.

Right. Look at what Stafford has to work with as a whole.... WRs are pretty pedestrian. Running back is a mess. The fact that the Lions are looking at their first divisional wins in however long it's been is all on Stafford.  (And Prater)

This coming from the guy who said he'd eat his sock if DET won the division... 

 

[Anarchy99]

Right. Look at what Stafford has to work with as a whole.... WRs are pretty pedestrian. Running back is a mess. The fact that the Lions are looking at their first divisional wins in however long it's been is all on Stafford.  (And Prater)

This coming from the guy who said he'd eat his sock if DET won the division... 

Here are the Top 5 receivers (based on receptions) for each of the MVP candidates:

BRADY
Edelman (7th round draft pick), White (4th), Bennett (2nd), Hogan (Undrafted), Mitchell (4th)

RYAN
Jones (1st), Sanu (3rd), Freeman (4th), Gabriel (Undrafted), Coleman (3rd)

CARR
Crabtree (1st), Cooper (1st), Roberts (Undrafted), Murray (6th), Wohlford (3rd)

RODGERS
Nelson (2nd), Adams (2nd), Cobb (2nd), Montgomery (3rd), Rodgers (3rd)

STAFFORD
Tate (2nd), Boldin (2nd), Riddick (6th), Jones (5th), Ebron (1st)

PRESCOTT
Beasley (Undrafted), Witten (3rd), Bryant (1st), Williams (3rd), Elliott (1st)

 

[FUBAR]

Brady can't play all 11 positions on O and some teams are so devoid of talent at the other positions that it probably wouldn't behoove them to take a 40 year old QB over a 21 year old stud RB.  To me, CHI is one of those teams.  

Age doesn't matter for a one year award.

 

[wodahSShadow]

We are talking about the MVP race here, rookie records really don't mean a lot unless they are the NFL record.

There have been 18 different running backs to rush more than Dickerson's rookie total (1808 yards)....And there have been 18 total running back MVP's in NFL history...So...I would say it means something considering it is just as rare.

 

[Interseptopus]

Here are the Top 5 receivers (based on receptions) for each of the MVP candidates:

Eh, draft picks mean nothing really. What you're trying to say it seems is that Brady doesn't have 1st round draft picks to throw to yet he's doing so well. Yet Ryan and Stafford have some high draft picks. 

You can point to a QB with bad WRs and say that he is better than a QB with good WRs... but there are equally as many teams with good WRs who don't have QBs in the MVP discussion. I mean look at Minnesota and how many 1st round draft pick WRs they have there. Diggs is a 5th, but Patterson and Treadwell are 1sts. 

In hindsight do you believe Edelman would be drafted in the 7th round? Crabtree as high as he was in the 1st round? Tate round 2? probably no to all 3 of those. If you want to argue overall talent around them, let's do that. But let's not use draft picks as the benchmark. That's the worst argument anyone could possibly make. If that's the case then Cleveland should be loaded with MVP candidates with how many high draft picks they've had in recent years. Right? 



My point was, if you look at the depth charts, which group of WR/TEs would you rather have:
Tate/Jones/Boldin and Ebron (Honestly, a bunch of WR2/3s... a washed up Boldin and a bust TE)
or
Julio/Sanu/Gabriel and Hooper (a perennial pro bowler and Gabriel who is a OROY candidate- won't win). 
or 
Edelman/Hogan/Mitchell and Gronkowski (Edelman would be a WR1 on most NFL teams and Gronk is likely the best offensive TE we've seen in a very long time).

The least impressive of that group is Detroit's crew. I will conceed that Brady has less to work with overall, and still does well. We've seen that with good QBs (Rodgers comes to mind) where a good WR leaves (James Jones), and doesn't do anything. Comes back and is amazing again. 

Yes, Great QBs make their WRs, not the other way around. That's why I don't understand your point bringing up draft position. The draft is a total crapshoot. Especially WRs. Good WRs don't make good QBs... well, maybe in Kurt Warner's case