357 replies to this topic

[glennhoffmania]

Huh? I realize this is a Patriots board, but the persecution complex is really unnecessary. The "anti-Brady trolling" in this discussion is merely disputing whether he's obviously the most valuable player in the league, arguing that he doesn't really stand out from the other top candidates. Nobody doubts that he'll waltz into the Hall of Fame and deservedly so.

Yup. As a fan of neither the Pats or Peyton I've never understood the intense hatred for Manning. Yeah he gets a ton of attention. So does every other star QB, including Brady. And it's not undeserved. This backlash is more appropriate for guys like Eli or Vick- QBs whose ballwashing far exceeds their abilities.

[Stevie Janowski]

Thanks to the AIDs auction (seriously, thank you AIDs), I was able to get 2 tickets to the game last night.

They were in the 300's, and the bird's-eye view gave me one of the best seats in the house to really watch and breakdown the game (the kids behind be equated it to "watching a game of Madden").

I walked out of the game last night with one predominant thought.

Tom Brady is really fucking good at his job.

Having an overhead view gave me the ability to see the holes in the defense (based on offensive formation) before the ball was snapped. Houston didn't really try to confuse Brady, and he absolutely ate them up because of it. Nearly every single throw he made was in the soft spot of the defense. Playing a straight man/nickle defense against 3 wide? He chews up the soft middle of the field. Man straight up over the tight end? Here comes the flat dump. Lloyd lining up 2-3 yards tighter to the line (corner not angling off sideline)? Here comes the out route.

Brady looked over the defense and saw the soft spot almost every single time. Obviously, credit has to go to his receivers for making the right reads as well. But, I watched a QB last night that was just locked in. Brady's attention to detail is ridiculous. He knew where the soft spots were and he'd wait patiently in the pocket, pretending to survey the field so he wasn't staring down his receiver, until his man got there. He was getting pushed around, bodies were flying at his feet, and he never got rattled.

I've always thought Brady was good at what he did, but (thanks to AIDs and RGreeley) I got a whole new appreciation for his skill last night. It was some of the best play out of a quarterback I ever got to witness. Even if he doesn't win the MVP this year, I do believe he's the best QB in the league. I mean, how could you play any better?

Good post Kenny! I was wondering where you were last night!

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

[Hendu for Kutch]

He knew where the soft spots were and he'd wait patiently in the pocket, pretending to survey the field so he wasn't staring down his receiver, until his man got there.

This is a really interesting idea and one I hadn't ever really thought about, but it does match up with what I was seeing on TV last night. There were multiple times he'd be scanning one side of the field, then suddenly turned and threw to the other side before he'd even really had time to look over there.

[scott bankheadcase]

Interesting to see with all the J.J. Watt discussion here that no one has brought up Aldon Smith. If it's not clear cut, though I think it will go to Peyton, and Smith racks up 4 more sacks to give him the all-time single-season record, he should probably be in the conversation.

[coremiller]

Interesting to see with all the J.J. Watt discussion here that no one has brought up Aldon Smith. If it's not clear cut, though I think it will go to Peyton, and Smith racks up 4 more sacks to give him the all-time single-season record, he should probably be in the conversation.

I'm a 49er fan and I love Aldon Smith but it's questionable whether he's even the MVP of that defense, let alone the entire league. What makes what Watt is doing so impressive is that he's doing it as a 3-4 DE where his primary assignment is as much gap control as it is pass rush, and he's lining up as a down lineman without the running start or wide angle. Smith is a 3-4 OLB who can pin his ears back on obvious passing downs, which he faces a lot of because his team is usually ahead late in games.

[Tartan]

I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I believe Watt has huge margins over smith in tackles for loss (other than sacks) and passes defensed. I imagine that's a large reason why he's gotten more buzz than Smith.

[scott bankheadcase]

I'm a 49er fan and I love Aldon Smith but it's questionable whether he's even the MVP of that defense, let alone the entire league. What makes what Watt is doing so impressive is that he's doing it as a 3-4 DE where his primary assignment is as much gap control as it is pass rush, and he's lining up as a down lineman without the running start or wide angle. Smith is a 3-4 OLB who can pin his ears back on obvious passing downs, which he faces a lot of because his team is usually ahead late in games.

I agree with you in general, including the fact that Willis, Bowman and Justin Smith could all be argued as being the most important person on that D, but if he sets the record, I think the voters will be looking at him as the defensive choice over Watt and Miller (and I think Miller is probably the best defensive player in the league). Of course this discussion might illustrate how there's no clear-cut defensive MVP either, and further propels Manning or Brady in the argument.

[coremiller]

I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I believe Watt has huge margins over smith in tackles for loss (other than sacks) and passes defensed. I imagine that's a large reason why he's gotten more buzz than Smith.

Watt also got off to a hot start, which helped him build buzz and develop a narrative. Smith had only 5.5 sacks in the first seven games. In the six games since then he has 14.

Your points are good ones. Watt has 27 TfL, Von Miller has 24, Smith 17. Watt has 15(!) passes defended, Miller has 2, Smith 0. If you take the top 9 sack leaders, Watt has 15 passes defended while the other 8 guys combined have 16. Watt ranks 9th in the league overall, and is the only player in the top 50 who is not a corner or safety.

[ragnarok725]

Not that anyone with a vote would ever use DYAR or DVOA to justify an MVP pick, but there's really just one guy who jumps off the page when you look at the FO numbers. This is through last night's game.

DYAR:

• Brady - 1844
• Manning - 1367
• Romo - 973
• Rodgers - 908
• Stafford - 871

DVOA (per play)

• Brady - 42.9%
• Manning - 29.1%
• Griffin - 17.3%
• Rodgers - 17.2%
• Wilson - 17.0%

It's really Brady, then Manning, then everyone else when it comes to each stat. It's not even close. Brady has been close to doubly more valuable than any other QB in the league not named Peyton.

[crystalline]

Watt also got off to a hot start, which helped him build buzz and develop a narrative. Smith had only 5.5 sacks in the first seven games. In the six games since then he has 14.

Your points are good ones. Watt has 27 TfL, Von Miller has 24, Smith 17. Watt has 15(!) passes defended, Miller has 2, Smith 0. If you take the top 9 sack leaders, Watt has 15 passes defended while the other 8 guys combined have 16. Watt ranks 9th in the league overall, and is the only player in the top 50 who is not a corner or safety.

And those 15 are much more valuable than a pass defensed by a cornerback because they are much more likely to lead to a turnover. Though that's neither here nor there when comparing linemen.

Edit: also beyond stats they have additional value if the threat of Watt's arms changes a QB's approach.

Edited by crystalline, 11 December 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Bierman9]

If Tom plays out of his mind against SF he has a shot but Manning still has it right now thanks to the storyline.

Yes, Manning. Or, so says Peter King, between swallows....

;-)




Sorry for the insignificant post; love following this forum and learning chitloads....

Prosit!

[maufman]

There are four QBs essentially tied atop the QB rating standings -- RG3, Brady, (Peyton) Manning, and Rodgers.

Let's leave RG3 out of the equation, for three reasons:

-- If they gave out MVP awards based on stats, RG3 would be the clear front-runner -- in addition to being a prolific passer, he keys the league's #1 rushing attack and works with a supporting cast that's clearly inferior to any of the other three.

-- I think he's going to be hindered by that knee injury over the next three weeks.

-- Even if RG3 fights through the injury, produces at his current pace for the next few weeks, and leads the Redskins to the playoffs, the writers won't give the MVP to a rookie when there are other viable candidates.

Looking at the other three guys, Brady has the best running game supporting him. He has the worst completion percentage of the three. He leads Rodgers in yards per attempt, but trails Manning. Brady has thrown the fewest picks, though it's debatable which way that cuts -- INTs are accounted for in QB rating, and advanced analysis suggests that INT rate regresses to the mean much more than YPA and completion percentage. And it's pretty clear that Manning has the worst receiver corps of the three. In sum, I don't see any way you build a statistical case for Brady over the other two, particularly Manning.

But really, we're parsing small differences here. The MVP will be decided by how those three, and possibly AP, perform over the remaining three weeks.

[Stitch01]

I agree with your conclusion, I dont think there's a lot of difference between Brady and Manning when it comes to the MVP vote, but not the logic.

I dont see how INT rate regression matters that much in MVP discussions since its based on what actually happened. Interception rate doesnt cut both ways, lower INT's is definitely a positive all else equal.

DVOA has Brady head and shoulders above everyone else, so I dont find the argument that there is no statistical case for Brady compelling. I think ignoring DVOA or DYAR in favor of a super flawed stat like quarterback rating is really wrong.

EDIT: For another statistical measure, ANY/A has Brady at 7.96, Manning at at 7.65, Griffin at 7.64 and those three as the clear top three

Pro Football Focus has Manning just better than Brady.

I think its really close, you can make a case for either by narrative or by stats.

Edited by Stitch01, 12 December 2012 - 06:39 PM.

[coremiller]

I like DVOA for teams a lot but even the FO guys admit that using it to judge individual players is deeply problematic. It doesn't even try to remove team-contextual factors (coaching, protection, supporting cast, running game, etc.).

[Seels]

Brady has thrown the fewest picks, though it's debatable which way that cuts -- INTs are accounted for in QB rating, and advanced analysis suggests that INT rate regresses to the mean much more than YPA and completion percentage. And it's pretty clear that Manning has the worst receiver corps of the three. In sum, I don't see any way you build a statistical case for Brady over the other two, particularly Manning.

First, there's like maybe a 1% chance RG3 and Rodgers are even considered. Not happening. The narrative is Peyton and Brady, they have their history, have better teams, and the Brady v Manning makes for a more compelling storyline.

But, this int rate thing -- I don't buy it at all. There's a reason Brady is routinely around 2% int rate, and his career is the same, and it has nothing to do with adjusting anything to the mean / regression. He just makes better decisions. Brady's and Manning int % this year is right in line with what they typically do -- and this same argument can be said about their careers. Peyton will have some more volume stats, Brady is more efficient. This is the players in a nutshell.

As far as the worst receiver corps out of the 3, I think you're either splitting hairs, or really underselling Thomas. Thomas is an elite WR that was masked by the awfulness of the Georgia Tech offense and later Tim Tebow. He's every bit as good as the other elite WR in the game not named Megatron or AJ Green (yes, he is the equal Andre Johnson / Larry Fitzgerald / Roddy White). Manning isn't throwing to the NY Jets or St Louis Rams WR.

I think Brady has a slight edge on Manning for a few reasons:

Harder schedule
Performed better in this harder schedule
Out performed Manning in the head to head (disregarding some garbage time yards)
but the big one: Brady is easily the best player on what looks to be a top 3 offense ever. This isn't 2007 where he has Moss (and I love Welker, but this years version is a far cry from even last years version). He's doing this despite a rag-tag offensive line, and an offense that had to be changed as early as week two because of the Hernandez injury. The only guy that has been steady on now a 4th 500 point team is Tom Brady.

Manning's had a great year, but I don't know how an objective argument can be made for it being better than Brady's.

Also, one last thing; the run game. Yes, Brady has a better run game, but I don't get how that helps his stats. The team has 20 rushing TDs (including 3 by Brady) -- change even 5 of those to passing TDs and Brady's passer rating is now 107.6, and this is no longer a real discussion. DVOA accounts for this, and while QBR somewhat does it doesn't account for schedule difficulty.

[bowiac]

And it's pretty clear that Manning has the worst receiver corps of the three. In sum, I don't see any way you build a statistical case for Brady over the other two, particularly Manning.

The statistical case is pretty simple:
1) Brady leads the NFL in passer rating
2) Brady leads in every Football Outsiders stat.

I mean, I don't want to say that's dispositive or anything, but the Football Outsiders numbers are at least as compelling as any other purely statistical measure at least, no? Not saying this is all about numbers, but if we're looking just at the numbers, then it seems like it should be Brady's to lose. What am I missing?

As far as the interception regression to the mean issue - what of it? I agree, I don't think Brady's true talent is a 0.8% interception rate. But isn't the point kind of what they actually did do on the field, not whether they'll do it again? I think Mike Trout is likely to regress next year for a few reasons, but none of that takes away anything from what he actually did, and whether he should have been the MVP.

Regression to the mean is a projection thing, not a descriptive thing.

[rodderick]

There are four QBs essentially tied atop the QB rating standings -- RG3, Brady, (Peyton) Manning, and Rodgers.

Let's leave RG3 out of the equation, for three reasons:

-- If they gave out MVP awards based on stats, RG3 would be the clear front-runner -- in addition to being a prolific passer, he keys the league's #1 rushing attack and works with a supporting cast that's clearly inferior to any of the other three.

-- I think he's going to be hindered by that knee injury over the next three weeks.

-- Even if RG3 fights through the injury, produces at his current pace for the next few weeks, and leads the Redskins to the playoffs, the writers won't give the MVP to a rookie when there are other viable candidates.

Looking at the other three guys, Brady has the best running game supporting him. He has the worst completion percentage of the three. He leads Rodgers in yards per attempt, but trails Manning. Brady has thrown the fewest picks, though it's debatable which way that cuts -- INTs are accounted for in QB rating, and advanced analysis suggests that INT rate regresses to the mean much more than YPA and completion percentage. And it's pretty clear that Manning has the worst receiver corps of the three. In sum, I don't see any way you build a statistical case for Brady over the other two, particularly Manning.

But really, we're parsing small differences here. The MVP will be decided by how those three, and possibly AP, perform over the remaining three weeks.

Why does completion percentage matter? And honestly, are we really going to say Brady "trails Manning" in YPA, when the difference between them is 0.2 yards per attempt? Is that even statistically relevant? Brady has a higher percentage of throws that go for 1st downs than any other QB, and he's better than Manning and Rodgers on 3rd down too. Oh, and the Patriots have the second highest scoring offense in league history in terms of ppg. If his incompletions aren't leading to drives being stalled, and points being left on the board, why even bother bringing them up? Is a 0.2 yard advantge in YPA really enough to compensate for the 8 ppg the Patriots score more than the Broncos? Or how much better they are at converting third downs? Aside from that, Hernandez was out 5 games, Gronk has been out 4 games, and those two haven't played together since week 2. The Patriots have also had a huge amount of injury issues along the offensive line. Not to mention, the Patriots defense is considerably worse than Denver's. I just find it laughable that you so casually dismiss the fact that Brady has BY FAR the least amount of turnovers of the three quarterbacks. I mean, it is the single biggest statistical difference between them, and you just chalk it up to some kind of stat anomaly. Tom Brady has made a career out of avoiding turnovers and being efficient with the ball. Maybe you could say his INT% is flukish if he hadn't had a season in which he threw 4 picks, and another in which he had 8. Peyton Manning has had 7 seasons in which he has thrown 15 or more picks. Brady's had ZERO of those. Dude's pretty consistent on that aspect.

Edited by rodderick, 12 December 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[epraz]

I like DVOA for teams a lot but even the FO guys admit that using it to judge individual players is deeply problematic. It doesn't even try to remove team-contextual factors (coaching, protection, supporting cast, running game, etc.).

What stat does? Or can?

[j44thor]

If RGIII gets that rag-tag bunch of players that were largely responsible for a 5-11 season last year into the playoffs he has to get consideration.
I can't think of one position on either side of the ball where WAS has a significant edge over NE.

NE has massive advantages at WR/TE/OL and at best a push at RB with NE having much better depth.

NE was a 14 win team a season ago and will be at best a 13 win team this season. I'm just not seeing how Brady can be the MVP. Best player is another discussion all together but RGIII has figuratively* put that team on his back. His best WR was out for much of the year and would probably be between the 4-6th option in the passing game for NE.

*edited for clarity, no I have not actually seen RGIII carry 53 players on his back though he probably can.

Edited by j44thor, 13 December 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The statistical case is pretty simple:
1) Brady leads the NFL in passer rating
2) Brady leads in every Football Outsiders stat.

I mean, I don't want to say that's dispositive or anything, but the Football Outsiders numbers are at least as compelling as any other purely statistical measure at least, no? Not saying this is all about numbers, but if we're looking just at the numbers, then it seems like it should be Brady's to lose. What am I missing?

As far as the interception regression to the mean issue - what of it? I agree, I don't think Brady's true talent is a 0.8% interception rate. But isn't the point kind of what they actually did do on the field, not whether they'll do it again? I think Mike Trout is likely to regress next year for a few reasons, but none of that takes away anything from what he actually did, and whether he should have been the MVP.

Regression to the mean is a projection thing, not a descriptive thing.

Agreed on all points. Let's also note that Brady isn't just leading in the Football Outsiders stats, he's crushing. He's got about 33% more DYAR than Manning. Peyton is closer to Tony Romo than he is to Brady according to DYAR.

[snowmanny]

If RGIII gets that rag-tag bunch of players that were largely responsible for a 5-11 season last year into the playoffs he has to get consideration.
I can't think of one position on either side of the ball where WAS has a significant edge over NE.

NE has massive advantages at WR/TE/OL and at best a push at RB with NE having much
better depth.

NE was a 14 win team a season ago and will be at best a 13 win team this season. I'm just not
seeing how Brady can be the MVP. Best player is another discussion all together but RGIII has literally put that team on his back. His best WR was out for much of the year and would probably be between the 4-6th option in the passing game for NE.

I'm not sure why last year matters. All the Redskins have done is regress to the mean.

[Super Nomario]

RGIII has literally put that team on his back

So that's why he keeps getting hurt!

[Tartan]

If RGIII gets that rag-tag bunch of players that were largely responsible for a 5-11 season last year into the playoffs he has to get consideration.
I can't think of one position on either side of the ball where WAS has a significant edge over NE.

NE has massive advantages at WR/TE/OL and at best a push at RB with NE having much better depth.

NE was a 14 win team a season ago and will be at best a 13 win team this season. I'm just not seeing how Brady can be the MVP. Best player is another discussion all together but RGIII has literally put that team on his back. His best WR was out for much of the year and would probably be between the 4-6th option in the passing game for NE.

The Pats won 13 last year, but that doesn't even matter. Last year is completely, utterly irrelevant to this year's MVP discussion. So many factors come into play with year-to-year records. A team win 13 games, get a tougher schedule, then play just as well and win 10.

Brady has been, so far, the best quarterback in the NFL, and he plays for a team with a shot at having the best regular season record in the league. By your logic, Brady would have been undeserving of winning had he played all of 2008 simply by default: even one regular season loss would be a regression.

RGIII has had a great year. But this "he's put that team on his back" stuff is semantic silliness. So has Brady. To a tune of 36 points per game. No one else in the NFL can come close to saying that.

Edited by Tartan, 13 December 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[Ed Hillel]

NE was a 14 win team a season ago and will be at best a 13 win team this season. I'm just not seeing how Brady can be the MVP.

You realize that Tom Brady was also the QB of the 14 win team, correct?

MVP has traditionally gone to the best player in the league that happens to be on a playoff team. If you really want to argue that RG3 is having a better year than Tom Brady, go right ahead. You'd be insane, but go right ahead.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 13 December 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[Mystic Merlin]

Brady and the Pats being supremely consistent is a point AGAINST him? This is amazing.

[amarshal2]

And it's pretty clear that Manning has the worst receiver corps of the three.

I'm sorry, but I just can't get over this line. Demaryius Thomas is the second best WR in the AFC after AJ Green. Manning's receivers on the whole are better than what Rodgers has had healthy this year and not that far behind Brady when you consider Gronk and Hernandez have traded off being hurt all season. The only Patriots skill player I think is more valuable than Thomas in a vacuum is Gronk.

Manning's receivers have probably been inferior to Brady's this year but not by as much as you say.

Edited by amarshal2, 13 December 2012 - 12:28 AM.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Brady and the Pats being supremely consistent is a point AGAINST him? This is amazing.

Yeah, the scrambling for arguments against Brady are getting pretty comical. If things end as they stand, the only argument for Manning over Brady is the narrative about his neck. Brady is having a better year and so is his team. The only person I see passing him is AD if he runs for 2k and carries the Vikings into the playoffs. Then he deserves it.

[crystalline]

Looking at the other three guys, Brady has the best running game supporting him. He has the worst completion percentage of the three. He leads Rodgers in yards per attempt, but trails Manning. Brady has thrown the fewest picks, though it's debatable which way that cuts -- INTs are accounted for in QB rating, and advanced analysis suggests that INT rate regresses to the mean much more than YPA and completion percentage. And it's pretty clear that Manning has the worst receiver corps of the three. In sum, I don't see any way you build a statistical case for Brady over the other two, particularly Manning.

Others have addressed most of the rest of your points, but I'll take on the INT rate issue.

In this context, "regresses more to the mean" means "is more variable". As would be expected, because INT rate is based on a much smaller number of events than YPA or completion percentage, and therefore its standard error is higher. You'd expect to see a difference emerge over a career, as Brady has shown.
It's likely that Brady has a true skill in avoiding interceptions, and is better at it than others in the league. To my eyes and as has been discussed here before, a QB can avoid INTs by being conservative. And I think Brady does that; even downfield he tends to miss long rather than short, and over the middle of the field he misses low rather than high or behind the receiver (contrast to Eli, for example).

Inversely he could be less conservative, like Rex Grossman or your typical lower-tier QB: Skelton, McCoy, Palmer, Fitzgerald to name some guys I've watched lately, who throw more balls into tight spots to pump up the completion numbers, but that also means they make more dangerous throws which increase their interception numbers.

Summary: Brady has a better interception rate. Yes INT rate is variable. Brady still may be skilled at this. What that means is you have to evaluate him with your eyes, not directly use the INT numbers because they vary from year to year.

But really, we're parsing small differences here. The MVP will be decided by how those three, and possibly AP, perform over the remaining three weeks.

Agreed. Manning wins by default; if Brady beats SF and the Pats get a bye, I think he wins instead.

Edited by crystalline, 13 December 2012 - 12:56 AM.

[j44thor]

You realize that Tom Brady was also the QB of the 14 win team, correct?

MVP has traditionally gone to the best player in the league that happens to be on a playoff team. If you really want to argue that RG3 is having a better year than Tom Brady, go right ahead. You'd be insane, but go right ahead.

I'm not arguing he is having a better year as that is virtually irrefutable. What I am suggesting is that he is doing far more for his team than Brady is based on the talent around him. Is that not the definition of MVP?

Based on the talent around him I think you make the argument that a decent QB probably takes this same Patriots team to 10 wins and an AFC East title. This is by and large a better Patriots team this year on both sides of the ball. How does that not play into the conversation of who should be the MVP?

Obviously Manning/Brady/AP deserve any consideration they get but if we take the literal meaning of MVP I think the guy leading a team of more or less replacement level players should get some credence over the guy playing on a team with several pro-bowl worthy candidates.

[rodderick]

I'm not arguing he is having a better year as that is virtually irrefutable. What I am suggesting is that he is doing far more for his team than Brady is based on the talent around him. Is that not the definition of MVP?

Based on the talent around him I think you make the argument that a decent QB probably takes this same Patriots team to 10 wins and an AFC East title. This is by and large a better Patriots team this year on both sides of the ball. How does that not play into the conversation of who should be the MVP?

Obviously Manning/Brady/AP deserve any consideration they get but if we take the literal meaning of MVP I think the guy leading a team of more or less replacement level players should get some credence over the guy playing on a team with several pro-bowl worthy candidates.

If you think any decent quarterback could take this team to 10 wins, with the amount of points they have given up on defense and the amount of injuries they've had on offense, you are clinically insane. They are 10-3, and it's taken the second best offense in history in terms of ppg to get to that record. But sure, Andy Dalton could lead them to 10 wins, no problem. This is the type of shit that boils my blood whenever people talk about Brady. It's always "yeah, he's good, but...". RGIII is great, but if a combination of John Beck and Rex fucking Grossman could lead them to 5 wins a year ago, I'd wager a "decent" quarterback could very well hover around 8-8 this season, which is about where the Redskins will end up.

Edited by rodderick, 13 December 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[Infield Infidel]

Got this from the Grantland podcast, Peterson is averaging 6 ypc. Only once three times has a player had over 250 carries and avg 6ypc for a season.

Spoiler

Jim Brown, 1963, OJ Simpson, 1973, Barry Sanders, 1997

There's still a lot for him to do, but if he has over 2000 yards rushing, and 6 ypc, it might be a top five rushing season since the merger.
He'd need 134 ypg for the next three, which is 11 ypg over his current avg. But over his last seven his avg is 157 ypg, and 7.2 ypc.

He also has 38 catches for 211 yards.
He also has the narrative of blowing two ligaments in his knee less than a year ago

edit- grantland was wrong, there's three

Edited by Infield Infidel, 13 December 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[drleather2001]

I never heard the following argument when Manning was racking up MVPs in the 2000s:

"Well, The Colts were really good last year, so I don't see how Manning could be considered an MVP candidate for just doing what he normally does."

No. It was always: "Manning is always really good, but look at how good he is this year!" Which is, incidentally, what the pro-Brady people are saying about Brady's performance this year, yet now it's not a viable argument?

There definitely seems to be a double standard.

[Hendu for Kutch]

Obviously Manning/Brady/AP deserve any consideration they get but if we take the literal meaning of MVP I think the guy leading a team of more or less replacement level players should get some credence over the guy playing on a team with several pro-bowl worthy candidates.

Sure, a guy leading a team of more or less replacement level players to great success should get extra credit. However, I'm not sure that's relevant since Manning isn't that guy.

Are you oblivious to it or just pretending that the Broncos don't have the #4 scoring defense in the NFL? To the fact that this same team was .500 last year with a QB that's inferior to Mark Sanchez? Why are people pretending that it's Manning and a bunch of scrubs on the Broncos?

[Infield Infidel]

Hendu he was talking about RG3

[phragle]

Stop feeding the troll

[Hendu for Kutch]

Hendu he was talking about RG3

Ah...you're right. My apologies then j44thor.

[j44thor]

If you think any decent quarterback could take this team to 10 wins, with the amount of points they have given up on defense and the amount of injuries they've had on offense, you are clinically insane. They are 10-3, and it's taken the second best offense in history in terms of ppg to get to that record.

No it certainly has not taken the 2nd best offense in history to get to that record. They are +198 in point differential, the ATL Falcons and HOU Texans are +72 and +108 each with a better record. Whether you beat a team 21-10 or 51-10 doesn't impact the record. The Pats have only needed to score more than 30pts to win 2X this season. That equates to 390 pts over 13 games. The fact they have scored 472 is largely the cherry on a big sundae.

But sure, Andy Dalton could lead them to 10 wins, no problem. This is the type of shit that boils my blood whenever people talk about Brady. It's always "yeah, he's good, but...". RGIII is great, but if a combination of John Beck and Rex fucking Grossman could lead them to 5 wins a year ago, I'd wager a "decent" quarterback could very well hover around 8-8 this season, which is about where the Redskins will end up.

You honestly don't think Andy Dalton could take the NE Pats to a 10 win team? He is likely going to get the Bengals to 8-9 wins in a much tougher division with much less talent. I really don't think some people understand how fucking good the Pats team as a whole is. Brady is unquestionably the best player on the best team but does that make him the MVP or the offensive player of the year?

[drleather2001]

You honestly don't think Andy Dalton could take the NE Pats to a 10 win team? He is likely going to get the Bengals to 8-9 wins in a much tougher division with much less talent. I really don't think some people understand how fucking good the Pats team as a whole is. Brady is unquestionably the best player on the best team but does that make him the MVP or the offensive player of the year?

Yes. Unless you want to start bringing in a multitude of subjective measurements, then...yes. Clearly.

I'm not saying that other considerations shouldn't matter, but I think it would be insane if the person with the best stats is not the presumptive MVP. Everything else is secondary.

Edited by drleather2001, 13 December 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[Stitch01]

Man, Im cool with Manning, Brady, or ADP as MVP but Im really having a hard time understanding some of these arguments. Being the best player on the second best offense in history is an argument against being the MVP? Less interceptions are bad for MVP consideration? Using 2011 to determine 2012 MVP is relevant? (if we're doing this, isnt Andrew Luck the MVP? Which would be crazy, which should tell you the argument is crazy.)

Edited by Stitch01, 13 December 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[abty]

Can't cry if Peterson or RGIII win it. I saw the Patriots go 11-5 without Brady and the Broncos somehow made the post-seasno with Tebow. Are they viable/critical pieces? Sure. Will they win a SB without those qb's? No. But they CAN make the post-sesaon without them. Can the Skins or Vikings do that this year without RG3 and Adrian Peterson? No. /2 cents /hides

Not trying to troll, just trying to provide a unique angle to view this from. This is not meant to play down the impact of Brady/Manning so much as to show that sometimes other factors play into the world valuable. Those 2 men are legends, end of story. But some years, other people mean more to *their* team - and that's not a bad thing. I think it would be a great story if one of those 2 men won it. One being a rookie and the other a RB who literally carries his team. You simply cannot replace those 2 men and expect their team to recover. God forbid Peyton/Brady get hurt, they at least have a chance, with their overall talent, unless their backups are me or, even worse, Mark Sanchez.

[rodderick]

No it certainly has not taken the 2nd best offense in history to get to that record. They are +198 in point differential, the ATL Falcons and HOU Texans are +72 and +108 each with a better record. Whether you beat a team 21-10 or 51-10 doesn't impact the record. The Pats have only needed to score more than 30pts to win 2X this season. That equates to 390 pts over 13 games. The fact they have scored 472 is largely the cherry on a big sundae.



You honestly don't think Andy Dalton could take the NE Pats to a 10 win team? He is likely going to get the Bengals to 8-9 wins in a much tougher division with much less talent. I really don't think some people understand how fucking good the Pats team as a whole is. Brady is unquestionably the best player on the best team but does that make him the MVP or the offensive player of the year?

The Patriots offense have the least amount of punts in the league, the highest amount of points scored and the lowest amount of turnovers. Don't you think that all contributes to how the defense plays? If they win a game 45-24, you can't just say "well, they would've won had they scored 25, so the other 20 points are pretty much meaningless, just cherry on top". Most likely, had they scored 25, they would've given the opponent more possessions, and thus had a real chance of losing. Say they're winning 38-24 and Brady throws a pick-6. All of a sudden the game is 38-31, and not 45-24. You can't just subtract those points as if they don't matter on the grand scheme of things.

How do the Bengals have much less talent? Their defense is better than the Patriots' and their offense has guys like AJ Green, Jermaine Gresham, Mohamed Sanu and Andrew Hawkins. If Andy Dalton could win 10 games with the Patriots, how many games could he win with a team like the Broncos, who had an 8-8 record with Tim Tebow? Couldn't he also take the Redskins to about 9 wins, seeing as they won 5 games with John Beck and Rex Grossman? Had the Redskins been quarterbacked by a guy like Matt Hasselbeck, don't they win at least 7 or 8 games? Because if improvement over the previous year is your measure for who deserves the MVP, then Andrew Luck should win it hands down, RG III wouldn't even belong in the conversation. But, as we all know, the Colts had some of the worst quarterbacks in football starting for them in 2011, so their 2-14 record doesn't accurately reflect the team's talent level. Then again, couldn't the same be said of the Redskins?

Edited by rodderick, 13 December 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Stitch01]

Can't cry if Peterson or RGIII win it. I saw the Patriots go 11-5 without Brady and the Broncos somehow made the post-seasno with Tebow. Are they viable/critical pieces? Sure. Will they win a SB without those qb's? No. But they CAN make the post-sesaon without them. Can the Skins or Vikings do that this year without RG3 and Adrian Peterson? No. /2 cents /hides

Not trying to troll, just trying to provide a unique angle to view this from. This is not meant to play down the impact of Brady/Manning so much as to show that sometimes other factors play into the world valuable. Those 2 men are legends, end of story. But some years, other people mean more to *their* team - and that's not a bad thing. I think it would be a great story if one of those 2 men won it. One being a rookie and the other a RB who literally carries his team. You simply cannot replace those 2 men and expect their team to recover. God forbid Peyton/Brady get hurt, they at least have a chance, with their overall talent, unless their backups are me or, even worse, Mark Sanchez.

Its not really a unique angle, just a dumb one.

[BigJimEd]

Can't cry if Peterson or RGIII win it. I saw the Patriots go 11-5 without Brady and the Broncos somehow made the post-seasno with Tebow. Are they viable/critical pieces? Sure. Will they win a SB without those qb's? No. But they CAN make the post-sesaon without them. Can the Skins or Vikings do that this year without RG3 and Adrian Peterson? No. /2 cents /hides

I don't think anyone is going to cry either way with the possible exception of Giselle.

I think those two are having great years and deserve to be in the conversation but disagree with your argument. basically what you are saying is the MVP is the best player on a team with just enough talent to make the playoffs but not too much talent.

I don't see how helping turn a team into a possible playoff team is more valuable than making a team a legit SB contender?



And why should RG3 get bonus points because his team had one of the worst QBs in the league last year? Is he (and Luck) more valuable because their GMs didn't plan properly?

[Tartan]

I'm not arguing he is having a better year as that is virtually irrefutable. What I am suggesting is that he is doing far more for his team than Brady is based on the talent around him. Is that not the definition of MVP?

This is narrative-based horseshit. The Pats are scoring ten more points per game than the Redskins. How the hell is RG3 doing more than Brady? RG3 is doing quite a lot. But this "He's doing more with less!" argument is crap. He is doing less. Significantly less.

[MentalDisabldLst]

The only Patriots skill player I think is more valuable than Thomas in a vacuum is Gronk.

Presumably because he could hold his breath for longer.

[drleather2001]

Presumably because he could hold his breath for longer.

No, because he could punch his way out of the bag faster.

[MentalDisabldLst]

Others have addressed most of the rest of your points, but I'll take on the INT rate issue.

In this context, "regresses more to the mean" means "is more variable". As would be expected, because INT rate is based on a much smaller number of events than YPA or completion percentage, and therefore its standard error is higher. You'd expect to see a difference emerge over a career, as Brady has shown.
It's likely that Brady has a true skill in avoiding interceptions, and is better at it than others in the league. To my eyes and as has been discussed here before, a QB can avoid INTs by being conservative. And I think Brady does that; even downfield he tends to miss long rather than short, and over the middle of the field he misses low rather than high or behind the receiver (contrast to Eli, for example).

Inversely he could be less conservative, like Rex Grossman or your typical lower-tier QB: Skelton, McCoy, Palmer, Fitzgerald to name some guys I've watched lately, who throw more balls into tight spots to pump up the completion numbers, but that also means they make more dangerous throws which increase their interception numbers.

Summary: Brady has a better interception rate. Yes INT rate is variable. Brady still may be skilled at this. What that means is you have to evaluate him with your eyes, not directly use the INT numbers because they vary from year to year.

This is a good post. To bolster this argument, let's examine these "variable" interception rates. Here are the year-by-year rates for a few top QBs:



Brady was less good than Manning at avoiding INTs from 02-06. From 07-present, he's been much better than any other QB in the league at it.

[Al Zarilla]

Got this from the Grantland podcast, Peterson is averaging 6 ypc. Only once three times has a player had over 250 carries and avg 6ypc for a season.

Spoiler

Jim Brown, 1963, OJ Simpson, 1973, Barry Sanders, 1997

There's still a lot for him to do, but if he has over 2000 yards rushing, and 6 ypc, it might be a top five rushing season since the merger.
He'd need 134 ypg for the next three, which is 11 ypg over his current avg. But over his last seven his avg is 157 ypg, and 7.2 ypc.

He also has 38 catches for 211 yards.
He also has the narrative of blowing two ligaments in his knee less than a year ago

edit- grantland was wrong, there's three

Just curious, which of the three older running backs did Grantland have as averaging 6 ypc?

[amarshal2]

Presumably because he could hold his breath for longer.

Don't underestimate the value of being a one-man party when in a vacuum.