View Full Version : MVP
ninja33
01-01-2009, 03:30 PM
well, since the argument had started...may as well...
i might have forgot someone. oh well.
Obv it's Chad Pennington.
the creeps
01-01-2009, 04:31 PM
turner, ryan and warner. they all have right, on some level to the award.
I think Peyton Manning out of the group. Why? Because they had no running game, banged up O line and defense. He still lead them to a great record.
You can make claims for everyone but AP fumbles waaaaaaay too much.
Turner and Ryan both helped each other.
Pennington was helped by lots of things. He could be the MVP but I doubt it. Wildcat alone won a game or 2 when it first showed up.
Warner.......yeah Cards are awesome........
Defensive Player won't win it.
Rivers could be but I still believe out of this group it's Manning.
I forgot about Deangelo Williams.
He's been amazing the 2nd half. He had Stewart splitting time with him the first half. If he had been the man all season I think he'd win. They usually don't give out MVPs to one season wonders either. He'll have to blow up again next year to get any serious MVP talk going on about him.
heelsguy
01-01-2009, 08:54 PM
I would have to go with peyton. missing all that practice time with his injruy and all.
deangelo is probably the hottest running back in the NFL right now, but he is not even the MVP of his team. steve smith is.\:
only NFL receiver to avg over 100 yds receiving per game.
3rd in yardage...and did not even play the first 2 games of the year.
# 1 in avg. yds per catch
Brandon Jacobs, just think about it.
justhere
01-02-2009, 11:00 AM
Well, this wasn't a big surprise, but I love that he won by 28 votes.
Apparently, the rest of the field just wasn't as impressive as what Manning did with the Colts this year. ...
I think the award defaulted to him. Not to say the Colts didn't have a good year, but his reputation as a future Hall of Famer probably did a lot more convincing when looking at the list of candidates. I mean, this wasn't his best statistical year or anything.
redsox39
01-02-2009, 11:04 AM
No Eli Manning? :)
The Batman
01-02-2009, 11:14 AM
Well, this wasn't a big surprise, but I love that he won by 28 votes.
Apparently, the rest of the field just wasn't as impressive as what Manning did with the Colts this year. ...
I think the award defaulted to him. Not to say the Colts didn't have a good year, but his reputation as a future Hall of Famer probably did a lot more convincing when looking at the list of candidates. I mean, this was his worst statistical year in his career.
Thats not the point though. You are missing the point of MVP. Of anyone in the NFL who mattered most to their team. Its not about overall performance only. The colts would be 4-12 if Manning wasn't playing, and instead they are in the playoffs.
redsox39
01-02-2009, 11:21 AM
Which is why I voted for Chad P...
the dolphins would be a team with a decent running game watching the playoffs
ninja33
01-02-2009, 12:18 PM
Joey Porter and his 17.5 sacks and the rest of the defense probably didn't hurt either.
The Batman
01-02-2009, 12:22 PM
Which is why I voted for Chad P...
the dolphins would be a team with a decent running game watching the playoffs
Yeah but without Pennington they would be 8-8ish, with an okay QB. Without Manning the Colts would be 4-12.
Yeah but without Pennington they would be 8-8ish, with an okay QB. Without Manning the Colts would be 4-12.
Because you say so?
Value in any sport can be quantified in terms of points/runs/goals/whatever in such a way that you can create at least a rough picture of absolute value provided by a player. Once you start introducing team record into any individual award it stops being an individual award. A player is not more or less valuable based on the team he is on.
mongo
01-02-2009, 02:02 PM
Because you say so?
Value in any sport can be quantified in terms of points/runs/goals/whatever in such a way that you can create at least a rough picture of absolute value provided by a player. Once you start introducing team record into any individual award it stops being an individual award. A player is not more or less valuable based on the team he is on.
it's useless to argue w/ idiots.
The Batman
01-02-2009, 02:02 PM
it's useless to argue w/ idiots.
Go blow a donkey.
The Batman
01-02-2009, 02:11 PM
Because you say so?
Value in any sport can be quantified in terms of points/runs/goals/whatever in such a way that you can create at least a rough picture of absolute value provided by a player. Once you start introducing team record into any individual award it stops being an individual award. A player is not more or less valuable based on the team he is on.
Regardless of what you do as a player, if the rest of your team sucks there is very little you can do. For example, the QB/RB combination. Romo would have probably done a lot better in the Eagles game if Barber was in the game. Why? Because less attention would be paid to him, and having a good running back in the game keeps the defense close to the line, so that the QB can pass over them. If the Colts didn't have Manning and had an OK QB there is no way that the Colts would have come back in the Houston game or the Vikings game. And a player is more or less valuable based on the team he is on because of what they bring to the team. An example of that is Adrian Peterson. Yes, we know he is a good running back, but do you really think he could have the season he had if he had the Cardinal's O line? And if one player is the difference in the team winning or losing, of course the team record matters.
ruffdog
01-08-2009, 01:26 PM
FLACCOOOOOOOOOO