The MVP Discussion

johnmd20 · Nov 8, 2014

If Luck keeps up this pace, I can't see anyone passing him. Note, Hoyer. LOL. Were you just trying to see if people made it to the 10th spot?

riboflav · Nov 8, 2014

Luck is averaging one interception a game, which is much better than his career ratio but still. Can the MVP really go to a guy who is going to have 18 interceptions on the season?

EDIT: Funny, Luck always struck me as a very good QB who makes bad decisions at bad times and I thought he had more interceptions in his career but last season he only had nine. My bad. Still, he is on pace for 18 this year and in this Age of the QB, a guy with 18 cannot be in the top-3 or 5 for MVP.

Saints Rest · Nov 8, 2014

In the Super Bowl era, there have been three MVP's who weren't either a QB or an RB: LT in 86 (Hall of Famer), Mark Moseley in 82 (strike-shortened seasons and all, but still, WTF?), and Alan Page in 71 (another Hall of Famer). So I think you almost have to rule out Gronk and Watt. So that really leaves us with 5 QB's atop your list. IN all likelihood, barring multiple extraordinary things happening, we really only need to debate those 5.

Kliq · Nov 8, 2014

Murray is totally going to win OPOY, unless he cracks 2,000 yards and Dallas finishes with 10+ wins, then I could see him winning MVP. I gave Brady my MVP award, simply because nobody has done more with less. Yes, Gronk is a monster, but he lost his top RB, is playing with a riff-raff Offensive Line, and has turned a 7th round ex-QB and Brandon LaFell (never caught 50+ passes in a season) into a feared recieving duo.

Luck is going to win an MVP award sonner rather than later, but can you really argue he has been better than Brady this season, considering the talents around them? Ben has had a remarkable two weeks, but he has had great weeks in the past, and he never won an MVP award. I want to see his numbers at the end of the season. I don't know if you can discount Watt yet. LT won the thing in 86, and was that season really that much better than what Watt has done so far?

If Gronk were to win the MVP over Brady...I mean, Gronk is phenomenal, but giving him the MVP instead of Brady would be like giving the Nobel Prize in Medicine to Frankstein's Monster instead of Dr. Frankestein.

Oppo · Nov 8, 2014

I agree it's a 5 way race right now between the QBs.
Luck is 5th for me right now, same number of int's as brady, ben, and rodgers combined.
4th- Big Ben. 2 monster games does not an mvp make. However, if he continues half of what he's doing now, he's a real contender.
3rd- Manning, king of stats and media darling
2nd- Rodgers. Has all the stats, hasn't shown well against the top teams.
1st- Brady. This team goes as he does. Compare the first 4 weeks to the last 5, that's value.

I think head to head matchups will go a long way. Brady beat Manning and has Luck and Rodgers coming up. Ben beat Luck.

That being said, I see the Broncos winning out and manning is crowned again.

Old Fart Tree · Nov 8, 2014

Luck is going to win it. It won't be completely deserved. It is what it is.

Toe Nash · Nov 8, 2014

Luck has more yards and 2 more TDs than anyone else, but he has thrown 55 more passes than everyone else as well. Passer rating isn't perfect but he's 7th there and 8th if you include Kyle Orton. He just hasn't been that efficient. I don't see Luck winning unless he blows everyone out of the water in the counting stats, assuming he keeps similar rate stats.

Super Nomario · Nov 8, 2014

The reality is that there are enough quarterbacks with really good numbers at this point that the MVP will probably be determined by which team goes on a hot streak and goes 7-0 or 7-1 down the stretch. Right now, for instance, Ryan Tannehill has a 63.3% completion rate, 14 TDs and only 6 INTs, 1907 rush yards, and 245 pass yards. If he ends up with 63% completion, 30 TDs and less than 10 INTs, 4000 passing and 500 rush yards, a passer rating in the 95ish range, and Miami goes 7-1 down the stretch (and thus, 10-1 in their last 11 games) to win the AFC East, isn't he a real candidate? It's stunning to look at the numbers and see how many guys are in striking distance. Drew Brees probably isn't in anyone's top 20 because the Saints are 4-4, but he's completing almost 70% of his passes and is on pace for 5000 yards and 30 TDs. New Orleans plays just three more games against teams with winning records and two are at home. Rivers, Wilson, Kaepernick, or even Alex Smith could be viable if his team improves down the stretch and he's seen as the reason. I don't think anyone's going to distance himself in terms of stats, so this will come down to wins / team success more than anything.

coremiller · Nov 9, 2014

Is this supposed to be a "predict how the writers will vote" discussion or a "who should win" discussion?

I know this is a Pats board, but putting Brady first and Manning 7th is unsupportably blatant homerism. Brady has been great the last five games, but the first four games still count, and he was not very good in those games. Manning has been much more consistent over the whole season. Manning is leading the league in ANY/A and DVOA by pretty big margins, he's first in QBR and DYAR and second in passer rating. His ANY/A is more than a yard better than Brady's, and his stats are better in every important category except INTs (Brady has 3, Manning 5). There is no statistical case to be made that Manning is better than Brady this year.

Luck's case is built mostly on huge volume. Manning's rate stats are significantly better. Luck has a decent shot to win due to Manning fatigue, but he hasn't been better than Manning. Roethlisberger's stats are biased by the two extreme outlier games. Those games still count and he should get credit for them, but I don't think he can sustain anything like that level across the rest of the season.

riboflav · Nov 9, 2014

coremiller said:
Is this supposed to be a "predict how the writers will vote" discussion or a "who should win" discussion?

I know this is a Pats board, but putting Brady first and Manning 7th is unsupportably blatant homerism. Brady has been great the last five games, but the first four games still count, and he was not very good in those games. Manning has been much more consistent over the whole season. Manning is leading the league in ANY/A and DVOA by pretty big margins, he's first in QBR and DYAR and second in passer rating. His ANY/A is more than a yard better than Brady's, and his stats are better in every important category except INTs (Brady has 3, Manning 5). There is no statistical case to be made that Manning is better than Brady this year.

Luck's case is built mostly on huge volume. Manning's rate stats are significantly better. Luck has a decent shot to win due to Manning fatigue, but he hasn't been better than Manning. Roethlisberger's stats are biased by the two extreme outlier games. Those games still count and he should get credit for them, but I don't think he can sustain anything like that level across the rest of the season.

It's MVP, not player with best offensive stats. You think if Brady had that Denver offense, he wouldn't have comparable numbers? Did you watch last Sunday's game? Jeez.

coremiller · Nov 9, 2014

riboflav said:
It's MVP, not player with best offensive stats. You think if Brady had that Denver offense, he wouldn't have comparable numbers? Did you watch last Sunday's game? Jeez.

Ah, the teammates angle. Of course the same list above that has Manning at #7 has BOTH Brady and Gronk ahead of him. Pats fan can't simultaneously argue that Gronk is an MVP candidate AND Manning has better teammates.

I did watch last Sunday's game, and didn't think there was a large difference between the QBs. Anyway, it's only one game, the MVP award is for the whole season. Brady had a pretty crappy first four weeks, those games count too. Brady has probably been better than last five weeks, but Manning has been better over the whole season.

LuckyBen · Nov 9, 2014

coremiller said:
Ah, the teammates angle. Of course the same list above that has Manning at #7 has BOTH Brady and Gronk ahead of him. Pats fan can't simultaneously argue that Gronk is an MVP candidate AND Manning has better teammates.

Fine, Brady has the better teammate, manning has the better teammates.

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt · Nov 9, 2014

coremiller said:
I did watch last Sunday's game, and didn't think there was a large difference between the QBs.

Yeah, you were making a salient-ish argument, but then...right here you let things unravel. 'Cause this is just plain silly. Brady played a terrific game. Peyton played a poor, up and down game, his sparkling stats (and those hollowest 400+ yards passing) belying a rather inconsistent performance. Don't believe me? Ask him.

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
Yeah, you were making a salient-ish argument, but then...right here you let things unravel. 'Cause this is just plain silly. Brady played a terrific game. Peyton played a poor, up and down game, his sparkling stats (and those hollowest 400+ yards passing) belying a rather inconsistent performance. Don't believe me? Ask him.

Brady's game was not nearly as good as it looked. 33-53/333 is not especially remarkable by today's standards. The 4 TDs helped, obviously, but this was not a performance on the level of Aaron Rodgers last night, or Roethlisberger's last two weeks, or Brady's own performances against Chicago, Buffalo and Cincinnati. It was merely good rather than exceptional.

Manning was subpar only by his own extremely high standards. His efficiency numbers were almost the same as Brady's -- his AY/A (which includes TDs and INTs) was 6.81 to Brady's 6.94. The teams were relatively even on a per-play efficiency basis, and the game was decided mostly by special teams, field position, turnovers, and red zone/4th down efficiency. And of course HFA helped as well. Brady does get credit because the TDs and turnovers and 4th downs count, but in the context of the whole season it's a pretty small edge, something like 5 or 6 plays each, and not something that should determine the MVP award when they're each going to throw 500-700 passes and all the other evidence suggests Manning has had the better season.

TheMoralBully · Nov 10, 2014

There's a chance they miss the playoffs and this is all moot, but Rodgers has to be the frontrunner right now. He's statistically superior to the field and his two toughest remaining games (NE and DET) are at home where they have been great.

Stitch01 · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
Brady's game was not nearly as good as it looked. 33-53/333 is not especially remarkable by today's standards. The 4 TDs helped, obviously, but this was not a performance on the level of Aaron Rodgers last night, or Roethlisberger's last two weeks, or Brady's own performances against Chicago, Buffalo and Cincinnati. It was merely good rather than exceptional.

Manning was subpar only by his own extremely high standards. His efficiency numbers were almost the same as Brady's -- his AY/A (which includes TDs and INTs) was 6.81 to Brady's 6.94. The teams were relatively even on a per-play efficiency basis, and the game was decided mostly by special teams, field position, turnovers, and red zone/4th down efficiency. And of course HFA helped as well. Brady does get credit because the TDs and turnovers and 4th downs count, but in the context of the whole season it's a pretty small edge, something like 5 or 6 plays each, and not something that should determine the MVP award when they're each going to throw 500-700 passes and all the other evidence suggests Manning has had the better season.

I probably agree with your bigger picture argument (Gronk over Rodgers or Manning given the respective positions they play and an MVP candidate at QB isnt supportable), but It was garbage time pretty early last Sunday. Im not sure Id put much weight on AY/A.

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

Stitch01 said:
I probably agree with your bigger picture argument (Gronk over Rodgers or Manning given the respective positions they play and an MVP candidate at QB isnt supportable), but It was garbage time pretty early last Sunday. Im not sure Id put much weight on AY/A.

To the extent there was garbage time, it was in the 4th quarter after the Pats went up 41-23. Even the first 4th quarter drive for Denver (which gained 72 yards but ended in a failed 4th down) was probably not garbage time -- if they score a TD there, it's a two-score game with 11 minutes left.

I agree that Manning's total yardage stats were inflated by garbage time, but just skimming the play-by-play (I haven't gone through and calculated the quarter splits by hand, but would be interested in seeing the data if someone has it), he doesn't appear to have been markedly more efficient in the 4th quarter. There were a lot of incomplete passes -- by my rough count he was 11/20 in the 4th quarter, below his completion % for the rest of the game. So I don't think his rate stats got padded by racking up lots of completions against a prevent defense in garbage time.

crystalline · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
Brady's game was not nearly as good as it looked. 33-53/333 is not especially remarkable by today's standards. The 4 TDs helped, obviously, but this was not a performance on the level of Aaron Rodgers last night, or Roethlisberger's last two weeks, or Brady's own performances against Chicago, Buffalo and Cincinnati. It was merely good rather than exceptional.

Manning was subpar only by his own extremely high standards. His efficiency numbers were almost the same as Brady's -- his AY/A (which includes TDs and INTs) was 6.81 to Brady's 6.94. The teams were relatively even on a per-play efficiency basis, and the game was decided mostly by special teams, field position, turnovers, and red zone/4th down efficiency. And of course HFA helped as well. Brady does get credit because the TDs and turnovers and 4th downs count, but in the context of the whole season it's a pretty small edge, something like 5 or 6 plays each, and not something that should determine the MVP award when they're each going to throw 500-700 passes and all the other evidence suggests Manning has had the better season.

Umm.

You are saying that Brady and Manning's performances were similar because Brady's numbers were not amongst the top QB performances this year. Dozens of context-related factors make football "stats" flawed for this sort of argument.

Off the top of my head, I'd say.....
Most obviously, Brady was playing a good team. Citing performances against Chicago (twice) and Buffalo are really not helping your argument. And the game was out of hand early.

I love statistics, but I also appreciate that large sample sizes and independent events are necessary to make statistics more useful than human brains. The brain is a pretty good statistical pattern detector, on the whole. When it comes to football people should put away Excel and watch the teams.

Devizier · Nov 10, 2014

Honestly, any number of quarterbacks could win it and I wouldn't complain. Manning is clearly the frontrunner but his last two games were not that great, stat-padding aside. I don't see Brady winning it unless the Patriots roll their remaining opponents.

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

crystalline said:
Umm.

You are saying that Brady and Manning's performances were similar because Brady's numbers were not amongst the top QB performances this year. Dozens of context-related factors make football "stats" flawed for this sort of argument.

Off the top of my head, I'd say.....
Most obviously, Brady was playing a good team. Citing performances against Chicago (twice) and Buffalo are really not helping your argument. And the game was out of hand early.

I love statistics, but I also appreciate that large sample sizes and independent events are necessary to make statistics more useful than human brains. The brain is a pretty good statistical pattern detector, on the whole. When it comes to football people should put away Excel and watch the teams.

Check your facts. Buffalo is an excellent defense: they are ranked 4th in defensive DVOA, and 3rd in pass defense DVOA. Cincy is a very good pass defense: 4th in pass defense DVOA. Those were both much better performances. Chicago sucks, but Brady absolutely lit them up.

Anyway, you missed my point, which was responding to a ridiculous homerish argument that anyone who watched the DEN-NE game could see that Brady was the much better player and should therefore be the MVP front-runner. My point was just that while Brady was better than Manning that day, it wasn't by a whole lot, and certainly not by enough that it should make much difference w/r/t the MVP race in the context of the whole season.

Stitch01 · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
To the extent there was garbage time, it was in the 4th quarter after the Pats went up 41-23. Even the first 4th quarter drive for Denver (which gained 72 yards but ended in a failed 4th down) was probably not garbage time -- if they score a TD there, it's a two-score game with 11 minutes left.

I agree that Manning's total yardage stats were inflated by garbage time, but just skimming the play-by-play (I haven't gone through and calculated the quarter splits by hand, but would be interested in seeing the data if someone has it), he doesn't appear to have been markedly more efficient in the 4th quarter. There were a lot of incomplete passes -- by my rough count he was 11/20 in the 4th quarter, below his completion % for the rest of the game. So I don't think his rate stats got padded by racking up lots of completions against a prevent defense in garbage time.

The whole second half was quasi-garbage time, Denver never had the ball closer than 16 points down or greater than 10% win probability and the Pats were playing not to get beat over the top. If you can split AY/A by half, whatever the first half tells you should have about 95% weight for the game.

You are right in that special teams and other circumstances inflated the score difference and these teams probably dont end up 3 TDs apart very often playing like they did, but anything that happened in the second half of that game was basically useless from any sort of win equity or value add or predictive standpoint.

I do agree with your larger point.

Super Nomario · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
Brady's game was not nearly as good as it looked. 33-53/333 is not especially remarkable by today's standards. The 4 TDs helped, obviously, but this was not a performance on the level of Aaron Rodgers last night, or Roethlisberger's last two weeks, or Brady's own performances against Chicago, Buffalo and Cincinnati. It was merely good rather than exceptional.

Manning was subpar only by his own extremely high standards. His efficiency numbers were almost the same as Brady's -- his AY/A (which includes TDs and INTs) was 6.81 to Brady's 6.94. The teams were relatively even on a per-play efficiency basis, and the game was decided mostly by special teams, field position, turnovers, and red zone/4th down efficiency. And of course HFA helped as well. Brady does get credit because the TDs and turnovers and 4th downs count, but in the context of the whole season it's a pretty small edge, something like 5 or 6 plays each, and not something that should determine the MVP award when they're each going to throw 500-700 passes and all the other evidence suggests Manning has had the better season.

The devil's in the details when it comes to this comparison. The shape of the performances is different - Manning had a number of big plays (8 pass plays longer than 20 yards, Brady just 2) which ups his average yards per attempt. One 41-yard completion to Demaryius Thomas in the 4th quarter adds 0.7 to his YPA. Brady was a lot more consistent - his success rate was 51.6%, 7th-best for the week, while Manning's was just 42.2%, 7th-worst. And the distribution of Manning's performance hurt Denver - going 3 of 15 on 3rd and 4th down was brutal. As a consequence, Brady was much better by WPA (0.16 vs 0.02) and EPA (13.1 vs 2.3). You can argue that some of the 3rd-down stuff is unrepeatable and something like Y/A is more predictive, but when it comes to who actually played better you can't ignore context - it was Brady, by a sizable margin.

That said, I think you have a fair point that the whole body of work favors Manning. Ironically, in the minds of MVP voters the early-season struggles might actually help Brady, since the narrative becomes that he had to overcome more to achieve his / the Patriots' success.

TheMoralBully said:
There's a chance they miss the playoffs and this is all moot, but Rodgers has to be the frontrunner right now. He's statistically superior to the field and his two toughest remaining games (NE and DET) are at home where they have been great.

This is a good example of why it's premature to be talking about MVP. Two weeks ago Rodgers threw two picks and the Packers lost by three touchdowns to a 2-4 Saints team. A bye and a blowout win later and he looks like as good an MVP candidate as anybody. There are a bunch of guys with great numbers right now, and it's probably going to come down to which teams runs the table (or close) the rest of the way.

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

Super Nomario said:
The devil's in the details when it comes to this comparison. The shape of the performances is different - Manning had a number of big plays (8 pass plays longer than 20 yards, Brady just 2) which ups his average yards per attempt. One 41-yard completion to Demaryius Thomas in the 4th quarter adds 0.7 to his YPA. Brady was a lot more consistent - his success rate was 51.6%, 7th-best for the week, while Manning's was just 42.2%, 7th-worst. And the distribution of Manning's performance hurt Denver - going 3 of 15 on 3rd and 4th down was brutal. As a consequence, Brady was much better by WPA (0.16 vs 0.02) and EPA (13.1 vs 2.3). You can argue that some of the 3rd-down stuff is unrepeatable and something like Y/A is more predictive, but when it comes to who actually played better you can't ignore context - it was Brady, by a sizable margin.

That said, I think you have a fair point that the whole body of work favors Manning. Ironically, in the minds of MVP voters the early-season struggles might actually help Brady, since the narrative becomes that he had to overcome more to achieve his / the Patriots' success.

This is a good example of why it's premature to be talking about MVP. Two weeks ago Rodgers threw two picks and the Packers lost by three touchdowns to a 2-4 Saints team. A bye and a blowout win later and he looks like as good an MVP candidate as anybody. There are a bunch of guys with great numbers right now, and it's probably going to come down to which teams runs the table (or close) the rest of the way.

Sure, but 7th best vs 7th worst (before accounting for opponent adjustments, which probably wash out since both Ds are good, and HFA, which doesn't) is basically my point that the gap wasn't that big: a difference of 9% in success rate over a 53-play sample is something like four or five plays. Brady was good but not exceptional, Manning was mediocre, well below his usual, but not terrible. The idea that the gap between them was so big in that game that Brady is obviously the MVP is ridiculous.

TheMoralBully · Nov 10, 2014

Super Nomario said:
This is a good example of why it's premature to be talking about MVP. Two weeks ago Rodgers threw two picks and the Packers lost by three touchdowns to a 2-4 Saints team. A bye and a blowout win later and he looks like as good an MVP candidate as anybody. There are a bunch of guys with great numbers right now, and it's probably going to come down to which teams runs the table (or close) the rest of the way.

True, but if an off game for Rodgers is completing 70% of his passes for 400 yards and only two picks, his performance floor seems pretty low. He hasn't had the extreme dips Brady had early on and I think it's unlikely Brady or Manning outperform him significantly going forward given Rodger's schedule vs. their own. He would just be my best bet right now.

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
Brady's game was not nearly as good as it looked. 33-53/333 is not especially remarkable by today's standards. The 4 TDs helped, obviously, but this was not a performance on the level of Aaron Rodgers last night, or Roethlisberger's last two weeks, or Brady's own performances against Chicago, Buffalo and Cincinnati. It was merely good rather than exceptional.

Manning was subpar only by his own extremely high standards. His efficiency numbers were almost the same as Brady's -- his AY/A (which includes TDs and INTs) was 6.81 to Brady's 6.94. The teams were relatively even on a per-play efficiency basis, and the game was decided mostly by special teams, field position, turnovers, and red zone/4th down efficiency. And of course HFA helped as well. Brady does get credit because the TDs and turnovers and 4th downs count, but in the context of the whole season it's a pretty small edge, something like 5 or 6 plays each, and not something that should determine the MVP award when they're each going to throw 500-700 passes and all the other evidence suggests Manning has had the better season.

You are going purely by stats, which is often a bit short-sighted IMO. And yes, we agree, "TDs and turnovers and 4th downs count." They count a lot. And I'm not arguing against Manning over the entire season. I'm arguing the point that somehow the quality of their performances in that game were close. They were not.

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
you missed my point, which was responding to a ridiculous homerish argument that anyone who watched the DEN-NE game could see that Brady was the much better player and should therefore be the MVP front-runner. My point was just that while Brady was better than Manning that day, it wasn't by a whole lot, and certainly not by enough that it should make much difference w/r/t the MVP race in the context of the whole season.

If you're referring to me, I made no such claim - or at least didn't intend to. I was speaking specifically about the performance in the game. Didn't mean to suggest it meant anything about the season MVP race overall. If you're referring to a "ridiculous homerish argument" made by someone else, you're probably also wrong, but I hope my post wasn't this deeply misconstrued. If it was, you have my half-hearted, snarky-ish insincere apology.

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
If you're referring to me, I made no such claim - or at least didn't intend to. I was speaking specifically about the performance in the game. Didn't mean to suggest it meant anything about the season MVP race overall. If you're referring to a "ridiculous homerish argument" made by someone else, you're probably also wrong, but I hope my post wasn't this deeply misconstrued. If it was, you have my half-hearted, snarky-ish insincere apology.

I was referring to this post, which is how the discussion got focused on that one game:

riboflav said:
It's MVP, not player with best offensive stats. You think if Brady had that Denver offense, he wouldn't have comparable numbers? Did you watch last Sunday's game? Jeez.

Saints Rest · Nov 10, 2014

Looking to Wiki for "NFL MVP History" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Most_Valuable_Player_Award#Awardees), I learned that there are a number of organizations that award an MVP. But looking at the last 15 years, it was amazing how much consensus there was across/among those awards. Furthermore, it seemed like the MVP each year, with the exception of the co-MVP that went to Steve McNair (and even he led the league in QB Rating that year) went to someone who clearly had a truly standout, if not outright record-setting, season.

My point is that it doesn't seem like Won-loss record comes into play much, although there may be as much causation as correlation between one player's standout/record-breaking season, and overall team success, at least in the regular season. Adrian Peterson's 2012 MVP on a 6th-seed Vikings team is the only winner who wasn't on a top-level team.

Super Nomario · Nov 10, 2014

Saints Rest said:
Looking to Wiki for "NFL MVP History" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Most_Valuable_Player_Award#Awardees), I learned that there are a number of organizations that award an MVP. But looking at the last 15 years, it was amazing how much consensus there was across/among those awards. Furthermore, it seemed like the MVP each year, with the exception of the co-MVP that went to Steve McNair (and even he led the league in QB Rating that year) went to someone who clearly had a truly standout, if not outright record-setting, season.
My point is that it doesn't seem like Won-loss record comes into play much, although there may be as much causation as correlation between one player's standout/record-breaking season, and overall team success, at least in the regular season. Adrian Peterson's 2012 MVP on a 6th-seed Vikings team is the only winner who wasn't on a top-level team.

I see a lot of #1 seeds in the MVP winners - 2 of the 3 Rams teams ('99-'01), the '02 Raiders, Alexander in '05, Tomlinson in '06, both Brady MVPs ('07 and '10), 2 of Manning's 5 ('09 and '13), Rodgers in '11 - that's 10 of the last 15/16 (depending on whether you count the '03 split as 1 or 2). And even when the team wasn't a one seed, they were usually hot at the end of the season - the '12 Vikings won 4 straight to close the year, the '08 Colts on 8 straight, the '04 Colts won 8 straight before dropping a Week 17 Sorgifest.

The reason I think it's going to come down to team this year is that I think it will be hard for anyone to put up a historic season statistically. Manning, Luck, Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger, and even Rivers, Romo, and Brees all have monster numbers. Luck might break the yardage record, but he'll likely end up with more picks than Rodgers or Brady; Rodgers might be most efficient but doesn't throw enough to put up the big yardage numbers; Manning leads in TDs but if Denver doesn't get the #1 seed the season will be seen as a disappointment. Unlike '04 or '07 or '13 it seems unlikely there's going to be a clear-cut statistical best performance (at least based on stats the voters care about), and in the context of the numbers Manning put up last year, is it really going to be impressive if someone breaks the TD or yardage records again?

crystalline · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
Check your facts. Buffalo is an excellent defense: they are ranked 4th in defensive DVOA, and 3rd in pass defense DVOA. Cincy is a very good pass defense: 4th in pass defense DVOA. Those were both much better performances. Chicago sucks, but Brady absolutely lit them up.

Anyway, you missed my point, which was responding to a ridiculous homerish argument that anyone who watched the DEN-NE game could see that Brady was the much better player and should therefore be the MVP front-runner. My point was just that while Brady was better than Manning that day, it wasn't by a whole lot, and certainly not by enough that it should make much difference w/r/t the MVP race in the context of the whole season.

Your point is that Brady wasn't much better than Manning when they played each other.
And to support that point, you have gone to:
QBR, AY/A, ANY/A, percent completions and other counting stats, and DVOA.

I mentioned one important context adjustment: strength of opponent. Even you admit that this is important. I could start breaking down plays within game if you like (when it goes to garbage time). And then we could talk about adjusting to defenses. And then we could talk about whose offensive line played better, and whose receivers played better, etc etc.

So I think if one wants to make an argument about who was better when they played each other, talk about how they actually played. Don't rely on numbers, because most numbers in football are worse than flawed, they are misleading.

Personally, I saw Brady making a lot of great throws in a windy game into tight spaces, many low and many out to the sideline, taking advantage of his arm strength and really incredible accuracy. And I saw him react badly to pressure, throwing a high ball to Amendola that predictably deflected upward for a pick, and throwing the ball behind Gronk on his amazing catch. Both times rushers were coming. I saw him start throwing more screens as the run game failed to catch fire. He showed decent pocket awareness and moved a bit to save some plays.
I saw Manning throw a very very bad pick to Nink, and I saw him do a pretty poor job confusing the Patriots defense, which he normally excels at. Moreover I saw him get busted up by A-gap pressure and start to force throws.
All in all, Brady played better than Manning. In the most important game for either team this year. He wasn't as good as Rodgers against Chicago? Who cares?

Edit: I should also say that I know very little about football compared to many people here, and so some of what I described about the game could well be wrong. I'd love for someone more informed to weigh in based on looking at game tape. Which is why some of the articles at FC are so cool - it's fun to have plays explained.

Back to the MVP voting:

Devizier said:
Honestly, any number of quarterbacks could win it and I wouldn't complain. Manning is clearly the frontrunner but his last two games were not that great, stat-padding aside. I don't see Brady winning it unless the Patriots roll their remaining opponents.

I completely agree that Brady's unlikely to get it and this post captures my thinking pretty well. There's so much variation in QB performance that any number of players could win it by the end of the season, but Manning is the favorite.

I used to think MVP should go to the player with the best stats - Brees, then Brady, then Manning hit some big milestones.

But in 2014 I think stats are misguided. Who cares who throws a lot of yards, or a lot of TDs? Even though QBs can't control the whole game, the MVP should go to the QB that helps their team win in games that count. Yeah, that leads to small sample sizes. But that's the way football is designed; it's a whole bunch of SSS events, and the team that is most consistent in those events wins.

edit: removed snark. apologies.

DanoooME · Nov 10, 2014

crystalline said:
Your point is that Brady wasn't much better than Manning when they played each other.
And to support that point, you have gone to:
QBR, AY/A, ANY/A, percent completions and other counting stats.

And now, you're using DVOA to argue with me. Come on, man. I mentioned one important context adjustment: strength of opponent. Even you admit that this is important. I could start breaking down plays within game if you like (when it goes to garbage time). And then we could talk about adjusting to defenses. And then we could talk about whose offensive line played better, and whose receivers played better, etc etc.

Please. If you want to make an argument about who was better when they played each other, talk about how they actually played. Don't quote a bunch of numbers, because most numbers in football are worse than flawed, they are misleading.

Personally, I saw Brady making a lot of great throws in a windy game into tight spaces, many low and many out to the sideline, taking advantage of his arm strength and really incredible accuracy. And I saw him react badly to pressure, throwing a high ball to Amendola that predictably deflected upward for a pick, and throwing the ball behind Gronk on his amazing catch. Both times rushers were coming. I saw him start throwing more screens as the run game failed to catch fire. He showed decent pocket awareness and moved a bit to save some plays.
I saw Manning throw a very very bad pick to Nink, and I saw him do a pretty poor job confusing the Patriots defense, which he normally excels at. Moreover I saw him get busted up by A-gap pressure and start to force throws.
All in all, Brady played better than Manning. In the most important game for either team this year. He wasn't as good as Rodgers against Chicago? Who cares?

Edit: I should also say that I know very little about football compared to many people here, and so some of what I described about the game could well be wrong. I'd love for someone more informed to weigh in based on looking at game tape. Which is why some of the articles at FC are so cool - it's fun to have plays explained.

Back to the MVP voting:

I completely agree that Brady's unlikely to get it and this post captures my thinking pretty well. There's so much variation in QB performance that any number of players could win it by the end of the season, but Manning is the favorite.

I used to think MVP should go to the player with the best stats - Brees, then Brady, then Manning hit some big milestones.

But in 2014 I think stats are misguided. Who cares who throws a lot of yards, or a lot of TDs? Even though QBs can't control the whole game, the MVP should go to the QB that helps their team win in games that count. Yeah, that leads to small sample sizes. But that's the way football is designed; it's a whole bunch of SSS events, and the team that is most consistent in those events wins.

So that means Casron Palmer is your MVP this year?

crystalline · Nov 10, 2014

DanoooME said:
So that means Casron Palmer is your MVP this year?

He'd have to win more important games than he has so far. So if his ACL was intact and he led the team to the Super Bowl win, he'd be in the conversation, yes.

Toe Nash · Nov 10, 2014

crystalline said:
He'd have to win more important games than he has so far. So if his ACL was intact and he led the team to the Super Bowl win, he'd be in the conversation, yes.

The voting happens right after the season, so playoffs don't count even subconsciously.

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

crystalline said:
Even though QBs can't control the whole game, the MVP should go to the QB that helps their team win in games that count.

I really don't know what this means. Don't all the games count? It's by definition a regular season award. Do you mean late-season games should count more? Why should that be? If you just mean garbage time shouldn't count, that's fine so far as it goes, but I suspect there's a lot less garbage time stat accumulation than you think. True garbage time is pretty rare in the NFL.

tims4wins · Nov 10, 2014

I take it to mean in the games against upper echelon conference opponents - games that matter for seeding. When you are dumping 5 TDs on Oakland it really doesn't mean that much.

I think he is also getting at the point that QB stats are so inflated these days and that you could make a statistical argument for any of 4 or 5 guys - Luck has the most yards, Peyton has the most TDs, Rodgers has the highest passer rating, Brady has a ridiculous hot streak going and some blowout wins over AFC playoff teams and is currently in pole position for a 1 seed. So it comes down to softer measures such as who beat who, which team had the best record, which team finished playing the best, etc.

Bosoxen · Nov 10, 2014

crystalline said:
Your point is that Brady wasn't much better than Manning when they played each other.

That's not what I took his point to be. I took it to be that Brady wasn't so much better than Manning in that game as to be enough to completely overtake Manning in the MVP race. Perhaps it was worded clumsily when he said that Brady wasn't materially better than Manning, but in terms of the overall season, I can see what he's getting at.

rodderick · Nov 10, 2014

The only way Brady wins is if the Patriots are the number one seed in the AFC. They'll end the season playing a gauntlet and if he comes through, it'll be perceived as him dragging a solid but unspectacular squad to greatness. If the Broncos are the number one seed Manning and Rodgers will duke it out, but Aaron for all his prowess as a passer tends not to win as often as his skills as a QB would indicate, so at this point if I had to wager I'd say Manning will take it.

Stitch01 · Nov 10, 2014

rodderick said:
The only way Brady wins is if the Patriots are the number one seed in the AFC. They'll end the season playing a gauntlet and if he comes through, it'll be perceived as him dragging a solid but unspectacular squad to greatness. If the Broncos are the number one seed Manning and Rodgers will duke it out, but Aaron for all his prowess as a passer tends not to win as often as his skills as a QB would indicate, so at this point if I had to wager I'd say Manning will take it.

A major reason just got extended for several years, which is great for the NFC.

rodderick · Nov 10, 2014

Stitch01 said:
A major reason just got extended for several years, which is great for the NFC.

Yes, I'm not saying it's his fault or anything, but he's the best passer of the football I've seen, and it always surprises me how his teams seem to drop 5 games every year when he throws like 35 TDs and 7 picks a season.

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

rodderick said:
Yes, I'm not saying it's his fault or anything, but he's the best passer of the football I've seen, and it always surprises me how his teams seem to drop 5 games every year when he throws like 35 TDs and 7 picks a season.

Rodgers' weakness is that he takes a lot of sacks. It's part of his style -- he tries to extend plays and wait for downfield shots, rather than checking down more quickly. He led the league in sacks taken in 2009 and 2012, and even when he lit up the league in 2011 he was still 6th in sacks. This year, his sack rate is way worse than any of the other top QBs. It's an important difference between him and a guy like Manning, whose maybe most underrated skill his amazing ability to avoid them (Brady is good too, but not quite as good as Manning is -- Manning has been 1st in lowest sack rate 4 of the last 6 seasons, and was 2nd in the other year he played)

Super Nomario · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
Rodgers' weakness is that he takes a lot of sacks. It's part of his style -- he tries to extend plays and wait for downfield shots, rather than checking down more quickly. He led the league in sacks taken in 2009 and 2012, and even when he lit up the league in 2011 he was still 6th in sacks. This year, his sack rate is way worse than any of the other top QBs. It's an important difference between him and a guy like Manning, whose maybe most underrated skill his amazing ability to avoid them (Brady is good too, but not quite as good as Manning is -- Manning has been 1st in lowest sack rate 4 of the last 6 seasons, and was 2nd in the other year he played)

This is true, but Rodgers also gives you some running ability the others don't. He's at 19 carries for 112 yards this year; Manning has 13 rushes for -5. That counts kneeldowns (why does the NFL do this), but there's still over 100 yards there, whereas the difference in sack yardage is 64 yards.

Roethlisberger also takes more sacks (25 already), but he doesn't run much anymore (just 21 rush yards). Luck has managed to cut down on his sacks this year (sacked in 3.4% of his dropbacks after > 5% each of his first two years) while still making some plays with his legs (129 rush yards, 2 TDs).

coremiller · Nov 10, 2014

Super Nomario said:
This is true, but Rodgers also gives you some running ability the others don't. He's at 19 carries for 112 yards this year; Manning has 13 rushes for -5. That counts kneeldowns (why does the NFL do this), but there's still over 100 yards there, whereas the difference in sack yardage is 64 yards.

Roethlisberger also takes more sacks (25 already), but he doesn't run much anymore (just 21 rush yards). Luck has managed to cut down on his sacks this year (sacked in 3.4% of his dropbacks after > 5% each of his first two years) while still making some plays with his legs (129 rush yards, 2 TDs).

Roethlisberger has always taken a lot of sacks, too. It's a longtime weakness for him.

FO shows QB rushing without kneeldowns. They don't have Peyton Manning in the table, which I take to mean that he has zero actual rushing attempts this year. Rodgers has 15 runs for 115 yards. Green Bay has 21 sacks allowed, Denver 9.

Something else I would love to see charted but have no idea if it's available are passes that are thrown away specifically to avoid sacks with no chance of completion. If Manning is mostly avoiding sacks by completing short passes quickly, that's much more valuable than if he's mostly avoiding sacks by tossing the ball out of bounds. I have no idea which is more often the case.

Super Nomario · Nov 10, 2014

coremiller said:
Roethlisberger has always taken a lot of sacks, too. It's a longtime weakness for him.

FO shows QB rushing without kneeldowns. They don't have Peyton Manning in the table, which I take to mean that he has zero actual rushing attempts this year. Rodgers has 15 runs for 115 yards. Green Bay has 21 sacks allowed, Denver 9.

Something else I would love to see charted but have no idea if it's available are passes that are thrown away specifically to avoid sacks with no chance of completion. If Manning is mostly avoiding sacks by completing short passes quickly, that's much more valuable than if he's mostly avoiding sacks by tossing the ball out of bounds. I have no idea which is more often the case.

PFF tracks throwaways. They have Manning with just 4, one of the lowest totals in the league.

EDIT: looks like Manning has 3 rushes for 4 yards on the season - a four-yard scramble against the Pats, and two zero-yard runs.

crystalline · Nov 11, 2014

Even by my wishful-thinking, no-stats MVP standards, it's likely we are seeing Brady's season high point on the MVP voting right now. You're never as good as you look when you win, and never as bad as you look when you lose... commonly cited but true here, I think. Brady is coming off a big win over a top 5 team and I wouldn't be surprised if that was Manning's worst looking loss of the season.
Brady's going to face more adversity this year, especially over the next few weeks with a lot of good opponents.

I hope Brady wins every remaining game this year and gets the MVP, but I think that might be what it takes for him to win. That being said after KC I thought this team was washed up. Crazy turnaround, and no fluke- the team's play has improved all around.

Stitch01 · Nov 11, 2014

Brady does probably control his own destiny in a sense, if they have a 2010 like win out he's going to win the award. Hard to see him getting it over Manning if Denver is the one seed.

ehaz · Nov 18, 2014

I'd have to believe Rodgers is the frontrunner right now but that could change if the Pats come into Lambeau and win.

The MVP Discussion

captain obvious

mad dog

captain obvious

Member

Well-Known Member

captain obvious

Member

Member

the maven of meat

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

above replacement level

Member

Member

Member

PN23's replacement

Bounced back

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

captain obvious

Member