Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

SoSH NFL Awards


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

Poll: SoSH NFL awards (218 member(s) have cast votes)

Who is the NFL MVP?

  1. Tom Brady (30 votes [13.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.76%

  2. Peyton Manning (39 votes [17.89%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 17.89%

  3. Adrian Peterson (144 votes [66.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 66.06%

  4. J.J. Watt (4 votes [1.83%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.83%

  5. Aaron Rogers (1 votes [0.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.46%

Rookie of the Year

  1. Andrew Luck (42 votes [19.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.27%

  2. RGIII (141 votes [64.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 64.68%

  3. Russell Wilson (28 votes [12.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.84%

  4. Doug Martin (1 votes [0.46%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.46%

  5. Alfred Morris (6 votes [2.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.75%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 DrewDawg


  • SoSH Member


  • 8774 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:03 PM

Not you think will win, but who should win.

Edited by DrewDawg, 30 December 2012 - 09:09 PM.


#2 502 to Right


  • brandon spikes: child destroyer


  • 1201 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:06 PM

Aaron Rodgers should be the MVP. Without him, that team sucks.

#3 DrewDawg


  • SoSH Member


  • 8774 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:09 PM

I added him.

#4 Youkilis vs Wild

  • 304 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:12 PM

Doug Martin had an incredible season, but really hard to go against Griffin.

#5 SeoulSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 10986 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

Have to vote for Manning. As great as RGIII is, I think Russell Wilson has played even better.

Don't we get to vote for executive of the year or comeback player of the year?

#6 Dernells Casket n Flagon

  • 1371 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

Aaron Rodgers should be the MVP. Without him, that team sucks.


Without Peterson, the Vikings are much worse than the Packers without Rodgers.

#7 Helmet Head

  • 1152 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:01 PM

Aaron Rodgers should be the MVP. Without him, that team sucks.


Are you on drugs?

#8 DrewDawg


  • SoSH Member


  • 8774 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:03 PM

Are you on drugs?


Well done.

#9 Oppo

  • 316 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

Alfred Morris saying don't forget about me tonight

#10 Sportsbstn

  • 3807 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:48 PM

Im not sure the Vikings even win 5 games without AP. Manning has been great, but he isnt the MVP, AP quite easily. Everyone is the building every week knows he is going to get the ball and he had the 2nd best season of all time.

Edited by Sportsbstn, 30 December 2012 - 10:49 PM.


#11 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22016 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

Today's games were the deciding factors for me in favor of Peterson (over Manning) and Luck (over Griffin and Wilson).

I think Manning would have won if the Vikings lost and missed the playoffs.

I bet Manning wins the Comeback Player of the Year as a consolation prize.

I also would vote for Elway as Executive Of The Year given how well his Manning gambit worked.

Edited by 86spike, 30 December 2012 - 11:00 PM.


#12 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 14433 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:16 PM

I also would vote for Elway as Executive Of The Year given how well his Manning gambit worked.


Holy fuck. You want to give the man an award for having the stones to pursue one of the two best QB of all-time?! Well shit. That is brilliant.

And it's wonderful that at this moment, Peyton has more votes than TB, on this board. Well done, everyone. Everyone but 86spike that is. He's too busy recommending the guy who won the lottery last month get an award for turning in the ticket according to procedure.

#13 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10042 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:17 PM

Executive of the year should go to either the Seattle or Washington guy.

#14 bigsid05

  • 850 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:19 PM

Today's games were the deciding factors for me in favor of Peterson (over Manning) and Luck (over Griffin and Wilson).

I think Manning would have won if the Vikings lost and missed the playoffs.

I bet Manning wins the Comeback Player of the Year as a consolation prize.

I also would vote for Elway as Executive Of The Year given how well his Manning gambit worked.


What? There were a ton of teams in on Manning. This was more about Peyton picking Denver than Denver gambling on Peyton.

#15 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22016 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:22 PM

Holy fuck. You want to give the man an award for having the stones to pursue one of the two best QB of all-time?! Well shit. That is brilliant.

And it's wonderful that at this moment, Peyton has more votes than TB, on this board. Well done, everyone. Everyone but 86spike that is. He's too busy recommending the guy who won the lottery last month get an award for turning in the ticket according to procedure.


Did you forget the massive enormous gigantic fact that Peyton's health was a complete unknown and Elway went all in on a total question mark? Never mind the fact that Denver has the best record in the AFC and all that scoreboard pointing shit.

I guess it might be hard to remember things like that with all your attention focused on getting Brady's entire nutsack down your throat.

#16 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22016 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:23 PM

What? There were a ton of teams in on Manning. This was more about Peyton picking Denver than Denver gambling on Peyton.


Yeah, he picked Denver because John Elway talked him into it. Which is why he deserves the award.

#17 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6695 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:26 PM

Alfred Morris had one HELL of a year - and will likely finish 4th in ROY voting. What a year for rookies.

#18 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10042 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:27 PM

Yeah, he picked Denver because John Elway talked him into it. Which is why he deserves the award.


Washington and Seattle made unexpected playoff berths with rookie QB's. There GM's did a lot better job in both those locations.

#19 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41852 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:30 PM

Yeah, he picked Denver because John Elway talked him into it. Which is why he deserves the award.


Seattle and Washington clearly did more this offseason in more difficult situations. Manning picked Denver because they offered him the most money with a realistic chance to win. The alternative to Manning for Elway was Tebow. There were risks with Manning, but it was an obvious move given the alternative.

#20 crystalline

  • 2152 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:55 PM

Did you forget the massive enormous gigantic fact that Peyton's health was a complete unknown and Elway went all in on a total question mark? Never mind the fact that Denver has the best record in the AFC and all that scoreboard pointing shit.

I guess it might be hard to remember things like that with all your attention focused on getting Brady's Tebow's entire nutsack down your throat.


Perhaps you forget to whom you speak

#21 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12123 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:59 PM

Without Peterson, the Vikings are much worse than the Packers without Rodgers.


... and than the Broncos without Manning. Denver not only made the post-season last year, they won a game. I think it should be AP and it should not be close.

As for ROY, I went with Luck, but RGIII is right up there too.

#22 TheWalthamKid

  • Pip
  • 378 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:11 AM

Luck should run away with the ROY award. RG3 will win it because he is more entertaining, but Luck should really win it. Think about how much Luck was asked to do compared to RG3. RG3 just won the NFC East by completing 9 passes!

You can actually make the case for Luck as MVP. Think about how bad that team was without Luck. Compare him to Manning and the Bronco's. Last year, Denver went to the Divisional Round with a QB who couldn't throw a spiral. This year, the D played amazing and they had a nice soft schedule. Since both guys are new to their teams, we can compare their impacts on each of their teams.

Broncos: 2011: 8-8. 2012: 13-3. Manning +5 wins.

Colts: 2011: 2-14. 2012: 11-5. Luck +9 wins.

I know other things took place that effect the record, but also consider that Denver had an easier schedule and played in a cupcake division.

#23 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 5037 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:30 AM

Number 1 passing offense by DVOA. Highest DYAR in the NFL and best DVOA % for QB's. Your MVP is none other than Tom Brady. Second place by a hair is Peyton Manning. Just like a relief pitcher shouldn't win a Cy Young I don't think an RB should win the MVP. This is such a passing league that imo a QB by default has to win the MVP. I think AP would win my non-QB MVP. It would be either him or Calvin Johnson. I see I am in the minority, so be it.

#24 Fishercat


  • Svelte and sexy!


  • 4404 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:43 AM

The Colts had the easiest schedule in football and were 28th in DVOA (the next lowest team with an above .500 record was 16th and QBed by Christian Ponder). The Colts are a better team this year, but they are an exceedingly lucky team who pulled out a lot of close games and got beaten badly by good teams. I like Andrew Luck and love his future, but using the Colts record as an argument is nutty. The Colts were 18th in points scored, 22nd in points allowed. They were average with a weak schedule who severely outperformed their expected record (7-9 by pyth record).

I don't get the argument for Luck over Griffin III (who led a bad team to greatly improved offensive numbers against a tougher schedule) or Wilson.

For MVP, I voted Peterson. I rarely support RB picks, but he's carried Minnesota on his back.

#25 TheWalthamKid

  • Pip
  • 378 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:59 AM

The Colts had the easiest schedule in football and were 28th in DVOA (the next lowest team with an above .500 record was 16th and QBed by Christian Ponder). The Colts are a better team this year, but they are an exceedingly lucky team who pulled out a lot of close games and got beaten badly by good teams. I like Andrew Luck and love his future, but using the Colts record as an argument is nutty. The Colts were 18th in points scored, 22nd in points allowed. They were average with a weak schedule who severely outperformed their expected record (7-9 by pyth record).

I don't get the argument for Luck over Griffin III (who led a bad team to greatly improved offensive numbers against a tougher schedule) or Wilson.

For MVP, I voted Peterson. I rarely support RB picks, but he's carried Minnesota on his back.


I'll say it again, RG3 just clinched a playoff spot by completing 9 passes. Imagine if Luck only completed 9 passes per game. How bad would Indy be?

#26 502 to Right


  • brandon spikes: child destroyer


  • 1201 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:05 AM

Im not sure the Vikings even win 5 games without AP.


Without Aaron Rodgers the Packers probably win 5 games. With him, they won 11 (and it should have been 12 but for getting jobbed by replacement refs in Seattle). His line is crap, his back are crap, the defense isn't that good. Everyone says he has great receivers but it's the person throwing to them that makes them great.

I agree that AP is all the Vikings have. But AP's greatness barely gets the Vikings into the playoffs and Aaron Rodgers' greatness gets the Packers into the Super Bowl discussion.

Edited by 502 to Right, 31 December 2012 - 01:06 AM.


#27 Klostrophobic

  • 499 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:09 AM

Tom Brady, Russ Wilson.

No way anyone but a QB should win an MVP in the league as it's currently constructed, save for a D-Lineman who gets like fifteen interceptions and 25 sacks in a season or something completely without compare. Adrian Peterson is really great and all but CJ Spiller was 92 percent as valuable according to DYAR.

#28 Fishercat


  • Svelte and sexy!


  • 4404 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:17 AM

Without Aaron Rodgers the Packers probably win 5 games. With him, they won 11 (and it should have been 12 but for getting jobbed by replacement refs in Seattle). His line is crap, his back are crap, the defense isn't that good. Everyone says he has great receivers but it's the person throwing to them that makes them great.

I agree that AP is all the Vikings have. But AP's greatness barely gets the Vikings into the playoffs and Aaron Rodgers' greatness gets the Packers into the Super Bowl discussion.


I don't watch enough of the Packers to really judge this completely, but I know I've seen Matt Flynn play with Aaron Rodgers' team twice, once he put up a great fight against a playoff-bound NE squad and one he just decimated the Lions secondary. Aaron Rodgers is incredibly talented, but the Packers defense is ranked 7th in the league (before today, which doesn't help) in points allowed, and Cobb/Jones/Nelson/Jennings are all talented WRs. Would New England win five games if Ryan Mallett was QB? Would Denver win five games if Brock Osweiler was taking every snap? It's kind of impossible to say.

#29 Fishercat


  • Svelte and sexy!


  • 4404 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:24 AM

I'll say it again, RG3 just clinched a playoff spot by completing 9 passes. Imagine if Luck only completed 9 passes per game. How bad would Indy be?


In wins this season, Andrew Luck has had games with 14, 16, 16, 17, and 18 completions. In his five losses, he had 13 completions once, and no less than 20 the other four times.

It's almost as if the Washington Redskins have designed an offensive around the strengths of their team, an offense reliant on a diverse running attack from both their RBs and QB, and that Indianapolis has decided that Reggie Wayne is their best skill player and that throwing the ball is a path to winning for them. Go figure. If your argument is that RGIII doesn't deserve it since Washington runs so much, then I expect your vote is for Alfred Morris. It's worth noting in addition to 9 completions, he had six rushes for 63 yards and an important TD. And that his team was up through the fourth quarter where they leaned on Alfred Morris.

Edited by Fishercat, 31 December 2012 - 01:33 AM.


#30 Jungleland

  • 578 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:29 AM

I'll say it again, RG3 just clinched a playoff spot by completing 9 passes. Imagine if Luck only completed 9 passes per game. How bad would Indy be?


Higher completion %.
Lower interception %.
752 rushing yards for 6.6 a carry vs. 254 for 4.5.
One fewer passing td despite throwing it only 62% as many times.
Almost identical yards per attempt and per completion.

Are you trolling? Luck has been impressive, but outside of fumbling 2 additional times, Griffin has been almost universally better. After winning tonight (with some very clutch runs in addition to those 9 pass attempts), RG3 should have it locked up. He's more exciting to watch, sure. But because he's better.

Edited by Jungleland, 31 December 2012 - 01:31 AM.


#31 TheWalthamKid

  • Pip
  • 378 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:46 AM

Higher completion %.
Lower interception %.
752 rushing yards for 6.6 a carry vs. 254 for 4.5.
One fewer passing td despite throwing it only 62% as many times.
Almost identical yards per attempt and per completion.

Are you trolling? Luck has been impressive, but outside of fumbling 2 additional times, Griffin has been almost universally better. After winning tonight (with some very clutch runs in addition to those 9 pass attempts), RG3 should have it locked up. He's more exciting to watch, sure. But because he's better.


Take away Luck from Indy and RG3 from Washington and which team wins more games?

RG3 is also playing on a team that has a much more balanced offense, which negates some of his efficiency numbers.

The Skins can win games if Griffin plays badly, I don't think Indy can win games if Luck plays poorly.

#32 MN Dirt Dog

  • 433 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:05 AM

Washington and Seattle made unexpected playoff berths with rookie QB's. There GM's did a lot better job in both those locations.


Using that argument, does one have a case for Ryan Grigson in Indy?

T.Y Hilton, Vick Ballard and Coby Fleener led by Andrew Luck, and I don't think it would shock many here if they beat Baltimore next week and find themselves in a divisional game.

No one saw that coming week one.

Edit: Coby. Autocorrect

Edited by MN Dirt Dog, 31 December 2012 - 03:07 AM.


#33 lars10

  • 1944 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 06:34 AM

Take away Luck from Indy and RG3 from Washington and which team wins more games?

RG3 is also playing on a team that has a much more balanced offense, which negates some of his efficiency numbers.

The Skins can win games if Griffin plays badly, I don't think Indy can win games if Luck plays poorly.

This is such a cop out argument. RG3 is still better for all of the reasons that this post is supposedly responding to.

#34 j44thor

  • 4104 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:30 AM

Tom Brady, Russ Wilson.

No way anyone but a QB should win an MVP in the league as it's currently constructed, save for a D-Lineman who gets like fifteen interceptions and 25 sacks in a season or something completely without compare. Adrian Peterson is really great and all but CJ Spiller was 92 percent as valuable according to DYAR.


Which shows what a useless stat DYAR is in this case. CJ Spiller avg. 6.0 YPC because of his reduced workload. Anyone that watched a handful of BUF games would realize he isn't a feature back yet as BUF would routinely give him a breather after a series or two. AP had over 100 more att and avg the same exact YPC. If BUF gave CJ Spiller 100+ more carries his YPC would have almost certainly dropped off a cliff and he probably would have ended up closer to 70% as valuable when all is said and done. Spiller had only 3 games with 20+ carries compared to AP who did it 9 times. It probably isn't coincidental that his highest att game 24 was also his worst YPC 2.5.

Put this another way, would anyone equate a starting pitcher who throws 150 innings with one that throws 250 in a debate for Cy Young?

Alf and Lynch were the closest production wise to AP and they were probably 75% as effective as AP this year.

Edited by j44thor, 31 December 2012 - 08:31 AM.


#35 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 14433 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

... and than the Broncos without Manning. Denver not only made the post-season last year, they won a game.


THIS, plus Manning being one of the two best QB in the history of the league invaldates 86spike's argument.

Perhaps you forget to whom you speak


Bitch please. I voted Peterson. Then Manning.

Looks to me like Manning was worth 4 wins this season. Big number. Not as big as Peterson. And certainly not bigger than the improvement number that Washington or Seattle posted - which is my criteria for Executive of the Year (I'd vote SEA because I thought they were a 6 win team in the preseason).

#36 DrewDawg


  • SoSH Member


  • 8774 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:54 AM

I'll say it again, RG3 just clinched a playoff spot by completing 9 passes. Imagine if Luck only completed 9 passes per game. How bad would Indy be?


Luck clinched a playoff spot by completing 14 passes yesterday. Neither was brilliant.

#37 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7243 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:04 AM

The Skins can win games if Griffin plays badly, I don't think Indy can win games if Luck plays poorly.

They beat Cleveland with Luck going 16 of 29 for 186 yards and 0 TDs
They beat Detroit with Luck going 24 of 54 for 391 yards, 4 TDs, 3 INTs
They beat Tennessee with Luck going 16 of 34 for 191 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs
They beat Kansas City with Luck going 17 of 35 for 205 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs

#38 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 14433 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:25 AM

Sure, Luck can win games against poor teams. The question is whether he can win games while playing poorly against teams that weren't a combined 18-42 (or whatever).

#39 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4998 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:39 AM

Luck clinched a playoff spot by completing 14 passes yesterday. Neither was brilliant.


The Colts had already clinched a spot and their seed (they had the tiebreaker over Cincy if necessary). Their only motivation was winning for Chuck. I don't know how much we can read into Luck's performance in terms of clutch.

#40 Kenny F'ing Powers


  • posts 18% useful shit


  • 5218 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:00 AM

Sure, Luck can win games against poor teams. The question is whether he can win games while playing poorly against teams that weren't a combined 18-42 (or whatever).


Who cares? Why are people blending the qualifications for MVP and rookie of the year? I can understand how the "who has a worse supporting cast?" makes sense for the most valuable player. The rookie of the year is about who is the best fucking rookie.

RGIII blows Luck out of the water for one major reason. Completion %. And this isn't just about RGIII having an inflated % because he throws the ball so much less (which is a perfectly valid argument, by the way). It's about Luck having the second worst completion percentage in the NFL. Below Mark F'ing Sanchez (no relation). People adding the cumulative stats ("4300 yards!") is bogus. He throws the ball a shit ton, and does so at a very poor clip. He also has a 1.2:1 TD to INT ratio (compared to Griffins 4:1). Want to adjust those interceptions to the number of throws each QB makes? Griffin throws an interception once every 79 attempts. Luck throws an interception once every 35 attempts. That's more than twice as often. Oh yeah, and you can't blame that on a dink and dunk game either. RGIII leads the league with a 8.14 yards per attempt.

I'll even go out on a limb and say that, for all the hype Andrew Luck came into the league with ("he's a can't miss!", "Indy goes from one HoF QB to another!"), I'd say he may have underperformed expectation this year. That's not to say that he isn't a very good, young QB (he's very good). But I don't see how anyone can really argue Luck over RGIII without simply ignoring the numbers.

Edited by Kenny F'ing Powers, 31 December 2012 - 11:03 AM.


#41 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6695 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:05 AM

Some stats on Alfred Morris:

- Finished with the 3rd most ever yards for a rookie
- Finished 2nd in the NFL in yards
- Had more yards than last year's leading rusher

Luck was the #1 pick. RG3 was the #2 pick. Both had excellent years in different ways and got to the playoffs. But Morris had what I would call a fairly historic season. I honestly think he'd get my vote.

#42 DrewDawg


  • SoSH Member


  • 8774 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:13 AM

The Colts had already clinched a spot and their seed (they had the tiebreaker over Cincy if necessary). Their only motivation was winning for Chuck. I don't know how much we can read into Luck's performance in terms of clutch.


Ah, my bad, that's right. Anyway, it's dumb to look at a single game like RG3's last night and say he shoudn't win because he completed 9 passes. He struggled passing, but he wasn't 9-23 with 2 picks. He managed the game, and rushed for 60 yards.

I wouldn't hold up last night as a reason he shouldn't win.

#43 MarcSullivaFan

  • 1908 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

People arguing for Luck in the basis of the Colts winning 9 more games appear to be unaware of the massive roster, coaching, and front office overhaul the team made from last year. It's not the same team and it's not the same organization as last year. Plus, it's not hard to improve an offense when you've replace Curtis Painter, who has no business playing in the NFL. The Colts were markedly better once they benched him with Dan Orlovksy, who is probably replacement level himself.

#44 Morgan's Magic Snowplow


  • SoSH Member


  • 8910 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:51 PM

Manning for MVP. I've made about a thousand posts in the MVP thread detailing the case against AP (or any RB) for MVP in today's game and won't repeat it here.

RGIII for Rookie of the Year. He was just absurdly efficient and consistent both passing and running. The case for Luck, who had some very bright spots but some real stinkers as well, is pretty weak in comparison IMO.

Carroll for Coach of the Year. Their front office deserves a lot of credit as well but Carroll took a 7-9 team with a rookie QB and turned them into a powerhouse that nobody wants to face in the playoffs.

#45 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15437 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:00 PM

I don't get the whole "the Colts were so much worse than the situations in SEA or WAS last year" argument. The Colts were devastated by the loss of a franchise qb and a plethora of other injuries, but they were by NO means an empty cupboard. Freeney, Mathis, wayne.... decent rb. This was a 7-9 team that spiraled out of control and then pushed for the top pick.

Voted for Russell and Manning. But hobestly, cannot complain with any of the choices

Edited by bsj, 31 December 2012 - 01:01 PM.


#46 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41852 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:05 PM

The Colts were also tanking the season to get Luck last year.

Luck had a good year for a rookie QB, and he may well end up the best QB of the bunch over the long haul, but I can't see much of an argument for him winning over RG3, and I'd have to think for a long while before putting him over either Wilson or Morris, as well.

#47 dbn

  • 3168 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:57 PM

Luck should run away with the ROY award. RG3 will win it because he is more entertaining, but Luck should really win it. Think about how much Luck was asked to do compared to RG3. RG3 just won the NFC East by completing 9 passes!

You can actually make the case for Luck as MVP. Think about how bad that team was without Luck. Compare him to Manning and the Bronco's. Last year, Denver went to the Divisional Round with a QB who couldn't throw a spiral. This year, the D played amazing and they had a nice soft schedule. Since both guys are new to their teams, we can compare their impacts on each of their teams.

Broncos: 2011: 8-8. 2012: 13-3. Manning +5 wins.

Colts: 2011: 2-14. 2012: 11-5. Luck +9 wins.

I know other things took place that effect the record, but also consider that Denver had an easier schedule and played in a cupcake division.


The bolded is absurd.

Q: What do Blaine Gabbert and Nick Foles have in common?
A: A better passer rating than Andrew Luck.

#48 Hendu for Kutch

  • 3591 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

Luck should run away with the ROY award. RG3 will win it because he is more entertaining, but Luck should really win it. Think about how much Luck was asked to do compared to RG3. RG3 just won the NFC East by completing 9 passes!

You can actually make the case for Luck as MVP. Think about how bad that team was without Luck. Compare him to Manning and the Bronco's. Last year, Denver went to the Divisional Round with a QB who couldn't throw a spiral. This year, the D played amazing and they had a nice soft schedule. Since both guys are new to their teams, we can compare their impacts on each of their teams.

Broncos: 2011: 8-8. 2012: 13-3. Manning +5 wins.

Colts: 2011: 2-14. 2012: 11-5. Luck +9 wins.

I know other things took place that effect the record, but also consider that Denver had an easier schedule and played in a cupcake division.


Aside from the factual incorrectness and general absurdity of pretending that RGIII's superiority is in any way based solely on "entertaining" level, which has been addressed, the idea of using win-improvement as an actual metric in determining the MVP is similarly dumb.

Wouldn't that automatically disqualify anyone whose team was .500 or better last season? To match Luck's all-important win improvement mark, Manning would had to have gone 17 - -1 this season. Manning actually has to go back in time and win one game last year, which would of course mean he needs to win another game this year somehow ad infinitum. Pretty soon the universe is collapsing in on itself because of the rip in the space-time continuum created by the dumbness of this argument.

And pity Brady...the guy never had a chance! He'd need to go 22 - -6 this season to get a +9 improvement!

#49 URI


  • stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of life


  • 10081 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:17 PM

For Rookie of the Year, I can see an argument for Wilson over Griffin, or even Morris over Griffin.

But if someone says definitively that Luck was better than all 3 of them, I just recognize that you watch football differently than I do, and I can't comprehend what you're actually seeing on the field.

#50 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12123 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:59 PM

Without Griffin and the Shanahans, there is no Morris, who is a great story but was drafted where he was for a reason. System RB.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users