The MVP Discussion

[jasail]

I'd flip flop Brady and Rodgers after this past week. Brady mixed one of the worst halves of his career with a solid second half, but he was pretty pedestrian and the Pats won in large part to their defense and the execution of a very good offensive game plan. Whereas Rodgers was unstoppable again as GB trounced the Eagles. Looking forward, Brady has to face the Lions fantastic front, GB on the road, the Chargers (meh), Miami and NYJ who give Brady fits, and Buffallo who Brady has exploited but has a good pass rush. Rodgers, otoh, faces only 3 good defensive teams (Lions, Pats, Bills) and gets to go up against the Vikings, Falcons and Bucs. IMO, based on play so far and strength of schedule, it's Rodgers to lose.  
 
Watt and Gronk are 3 and 4 for me as well. These two are the most dominant offensive and defensive players in the league and possibly two of the most dominant players to ever field that position. While I love Watt, Gronk is my dark horse to win it. First, he's an offensive player and they tend to have a better shot. Second, much of Brady's resurgence is at minimum tied to Gronk being healthy. Lastly, he has a outside possibilty of breaking all the TE single season records this season. Right now, Gronk has 53 receptions for 734 yards and 9 TDs. Gonzalez holds the single season record with 102 receptions, and Gronk holds the single season record with 1,327 yards and 17 TDs. It would likely take him having one or two huge games, but an average of  8 receptions, 100 yards and 2 TDs per game would give him the best single season at TD has ever had. Made even more remarkable by the fact that he really wasn't at full strength until Week 5.  

 

[tims4wins]

Picking a nit, but 9-11 for 173 and 2 TDs and a perfect passer rating is better than a "solid" second half

 

[rodderick]

I'd flip flop Brady and Rodgers after this past week. Brady mixed one of the worst halves of his career with a solid second half, but he was pretty pedestrian and the Pats won in large part to their defense and the execution of a very good offensive game plan. Whereas Rodgers was unstoppable again as GB trounced the Eagles. Looking forward, Brady has to face the Lions fantastic front, GB on the road, the Chargers (meh), Miami and NYJ who give Brady fits, and Buffallo who Brady has exploited but has a good pass rush. Rodgers, otoh, faces only 3 good defensive teams (Lions, Pats, Bills) and gets to go up against the Vikings, Falcons and Bucs. IMO, based on play so far and strength of schedule, it's Rodgers to lose.  
 
Watt and Gronk are 3 and 4 for me as well. These two are the most dominant offensive and defensive players in the league and possibly two of the most dominant players to ever field that position. While I love Watt, Gronk is my dark horse to win it. First, he's an offensive player and they tend to have a better shot. Second, much of Brady's resurgence is at minimum tied to Gronk being healthy. Lastly, he has a outside possibilty of breaking all the TE single season records this season. Right now, Gronk has 53 receptions for 734 yards and 9 TDs. Gonzalez holds the single season record with 102 receptions, and Gronk holds the single season record with 1,327 yards and 17 TDs. It would likely take him having one or two huge games, but an average of  8 receptions, 100 yards and 2 TDs per game would give him the best single season at TD has ever had. Made even more remarkable by the fact that he really wasn't at full strength until Week 5.  

 
eidt: nevermind, misread your post.

 

[coremiller]

New Top 5 in my MVP rankings:
 
1.  Brady.  Not an A+ performance on Sunday, but really, it was one bad throw.  The deep ball that got picked off wasn't great, but he was under a ton of pressure.  Actually, both INTs, he was pressured.  But the second one was just a horrible decision.  In the second half he was surgical.  And the overall line was still very good.  Plus, you know, the Patriots annihilated a top team in their building.  Peyton Manning would have turned at least 2 Gray TDs into TD passes.  Brady's last 6 games:  152-227 (67.0%), 1858 yds, 20 td, 3 int, 115.8 rating.  Oh, and the Pats are 6-0 over that stretch, averaging 40.5 points scored per game.
 
2.  Rodgers.  Just playing incredible football.  His last 7 games:  145-211 (68.7%), 2051 yds, 23 td, 2 int, 132.2 rating.  Holy crap.  GB is 6-1 in their last 7, and have scored 108 points in the last two games.  Wow.  
 
3.  Watt.  Another game, another touchdown.  He's been ridiculously great.  Utterly dominant player.  
 
4.  Gronkowski.  Run blocking this weekend against the Colts was off the charts great.  Ho hum game of 71 yds and a spectacular TD.  Now with merely 53 rec, 734 yds, and 9 td on the year - which projects to 85 rec, 1174 yds, and 14 td.  But his mere presence as a healthy player opens up EVERYTHING for the Patriots.
 
5.  Roethlisberger.  A fairly pedestrian game last night, but another big win for the Steelers, and Big Ben is having a great, great season.  
 
Wither Peyton Manning?  Well, a pretty poor game this week in St. Louis, combined with a Denver loss, really hurts him here.  I wonder how many WRs he's going to get injured this year too.

 
Brady has a 115.8 rating and a 9.38 AY/A in the last six games, when he has been excellent; Rodgers has a 120.1 rating and a 10.1 AY/A for the whole season.  I prefer ANY/A to AY/A (since it includes sacks) but can't find game-by-game splits: for the season, Rodgers' ANY/A is 9.11 (ranks first) and Brady's is 7.48 (ranks 6th), a huge difference -- the difference between Rodgers and Brady (1.63) is the difference between Brady and Ryan Tannehill (who ranks 23rd).  Rodgers' 9.11 ANY/A would be the third-best ever for QBs who started all 16 games, trailing only Manning's 2004 and his own 2011.  [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Rodgers is having a [/SIZE]much [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]better year than Brady so far, there's not really much question about it.  [/SIZE]

 

[Stitch01]

Yeah, sort of hard to have a mediocre to bad quarter season and be the best player in the league for a season.  I think Brady wins it if the Pats win out, but Rodgers has been the best player in football so far this year by a decent margin.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Brady has a 115.8 rating and a 9.38 AY/A in the last six games, when he has been excellent; Rodgers has a 120.1 rating and a 10.1 AY/A for the whole season.  I prefer ANY/A to AY/A (since it includes sacks) but can't find game-by-game splits: for the season, Rodgers' ANY/A is 9.11 (ranks first) and Brady's is 7.48 (ranks 6th), a huge difference -- the difference between Rodgers and Brady (1.63) is the difference between Brady and Ryan Tannehill (who ranks 23rd).  Rodgers' 9.11 ANY/A would be the third-best ever for QBs who started all 16 games, trailing only Manning's 2004 and his own 2011.  [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Rodgers is having a [/SIZE]much [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]better year than Brady so far, there's not really much question about it.  [/SIZE]

I think Rodgers has probably been better than Brady, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making it. The Packers have scored just seven more points than the Patriots on the season, and the Patriots have actually scored more points on offense once you factor in that Green Bay has five return TDs versus three for the Pats. Despite Sunday night's outburst, the Packers are actually averaging more yards per carry (4.1 vs 3.9) than the Patriots, so it's not like the New England rush attack is making up the difference. The Pats have had seven more drives than Green Bay and average about two yards better field position, so that's part of it, but if the difference between the QBs is as much as you and the numbers suggest, I'd expect to see that translate more at the team level.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I think the MVP race comes down to the winner of the Pats/Packers match up in two weeks.

 

[Stitch01]

I think Rodgers has probably been better than Brady, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making it. The Packers have scored just seven more points than the Patriots on the season, and the Patriots have actually scored more points on offense once you factor in that Green Bay has five return TDs versus three for the Pats. Despite Sunday night's outburst, the Packers are actually averaging more yards per carry (4.1 vs 3.9) than the Patriots, so it's not like the New England rush attack is making up the difference. The Pats have had seven more drives than Green Bay and average about two yards better field position, so that's part of it, but if the difference between the QBs is as much as you and the numbers suggest, I'd expect to see that translate more at the team level.

The gap isnt as big as ANY/A suggests, but its pretty clear-cut for the whole season.  Brady is probably slightly better since the KC game.

 

[coremiller]

I think Rodgers has probably been better than Brady, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making it. The Packers have scored just seven more points than the Patriots on the season, and the Patriots have actually scored more points on offense once you factor in that Green Bay has five return TDs versus three for the Pats. Despite Sunday night's outburst, the Packers are actually averaging more yards per carry (4.1 vs 3.9) than the Patriots, so it's not like the New England rush attack is making up the difference. The Pats have had seven more drives than Green Bay and average about two yards better field position, so that's part of it, but if the difference between the QBs is as much as you and the numbers suggest, I'd expect to see that translate more at the team level.

 
That could also just be the result of random clustering -- perhaps NE has been lucky to bunch their successful plays together to produce points (e.g. one 80 yard drive and three 3-and-outs produces more points than four 20-yard drives).  Through last week, according to FO's drive stats, NE is 13th in yards/drive but 5th in points per drive, while Green Bay is 5th in yards/drive and 1st in points/drive.  Both will likely go up when FO updates their data since both had big offensive games this weekend.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
That could also just be the result of random clustering -- perhaps NE has been lucky to bunch their successful plays together to produce points (e.g. one 80 yard drive and three 3-and-outs produces more points than four 20-yard drives).  Through last week, according to FO's drive stats, NE is 13th in yards/drive but 5th in points per drive, while Green Bay is 5th in yards/drive and 1st in points/drive.  Both will likely go up when FO updates their data since both had big offensive games this weekend.

Pro Football Reference (see the bottom) has Green Bay 5th in yards per drive (34.4), Pats 7th (33.3). I'm not sure whether what you describe is luck or not, or whether we should consider clustering "fortune" in an MVP discussion, which I would think would be more descriptive rather than predictive. You can go pretty far with this stuff, though - the Pats are scoring on a higher percentage of drives (49.1% vs 47.7%) than Green Bay, but fewer points per drive (2.78 vs 2.60). Is that random, or New England having a better kicker, or Green Bay being better in the red zone (and if so, in a "real" way or a random one)? I guess my overarching point is, offensive success in the NFL has a lot of ingredients, and we can't just look at even what appears to be a significant difference in a stat like YPA (which is one of my favorites) and say what it means. And of course, we should be thinking about supporting cast / opponent adjustments, too (I think you could make an argument for either Brady or Rodgers on this basis).

 

[coremiller]

Brady is probably slightly better since the KC game.

 
This I don't agree with.  Like Brady, Rodgers had a slow start (in part because GB played Seattle and Detroit, two of the league's best defenses, on the road in the first three games).  Starting in Week 4, Rodgers has been absolutely on fire: in his last 7 starts, he has 23 TDs against 2 INTs and has 9.7 Y/A and 11.47 AY/A with a rating of 132.2.  GB is averaging 41.7 points over that stretch.  It helps that they've played Chicago twice, but they also have games against Miami (1st in pass defense DVOA) Philly (9th), and Minn (10th).  
 
Basically, Brady has been playing at what has traditionally been an MVP level for 6-7 weeks, but Rodgers has been playing at a historically good level, one of the best 7-game stretches a QB has ever had.  By QB rating and AY/A, his performance over the last 7 games is as good as or better than any 7 game stretch in Rodgers' 2011 or Brady's 07 or Manning's 2004 or Warner's 99 or Young's 94 or Montana's 89 or Marino's 84.  Of course, [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]that doesn't account for opponent and era adjustments, and [/SIZE]it's only 7 games,and strange things can happen in smallish samples (see 2013 Nick Foles), but it's still historically impressive.

 

[Stitch01]

Yeah, his NO game wasn't as bad as I remembered it I guess.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

I think the MVP race comes down to the winner of the Pats/Packers match up in two weeks.

 
That's my thought as well.  I think they're 1 and 2 on most people's list and a late-season narrative definer is something the media (read: voters) eats up.  Unless one of them lights it up and loses while the other one sucks and wins, I think the winner of that game takes it.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
This I don't agree with.  Like Brady, Rodgers had a slow start (in part because GB played Seattle and Detroit, two of the league's best defenses, on the road in the first three games).  Starting in Week 4, Rodgers has been absolutely on fire: in his last 7 starts, he has 23 TDs against 2 INTs and has 9.7 Y/A and 11.47 AY/A with a rating of 132.2.  GB is averaging 41.7 points over that stretch.  It helps that they've played Chicago twice, but they also have games against Miami (1st in pass defense DVOA) Philly (9th), and Minn (10th).  
 
Basically, Brady has been playing at what has traditionally been an MVP level for 6-7 weeks, but Rodgers has been playing at a historically good level, one of the best 7-game stretches a QB has ever had.  By QB rating and AY/A, his performance over the last 7 games is as good as or better than any 7 game stretch in Rodgers' 2011 or Brady's 07 or Manning's 2004 or Warner's 99 or Young's 94 or Montana's 89 or Marino's 84.  Of course, [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]that doesn't account for opponent and era adjustments, and [/SIZE]it's only 7 games,and strange things can happen in smallish samples (see 2013 Nick Foles), but it's still historically impressive.

Rodgers has better statistics over that span (by QB rating and Y/A at least, which it's important to note double-counts Y/A since it's once of the elements of QB rating), but it's hard for me to say he's actually playing better or is more valuable. Is Rodgers' 18/27 for 315 and 6 TDs (11.67 Y/A) in a 55-14 stomping of the Bears really better than Brady's 30/35 for 354 and 5 TDs ("just" 10.11 Y/A) in NE's 51-23 stomping of the Bears? How about Rodgers' 19/22 for 255 and 3 TDs (11.59 YPA) in a 38-17 domination of Carolina vs Brady's 27/37 for 361 and 4 TDs (9.76 Y/A) in a 37-22 win at Buffalo? Once we're looking at these kind of ridiculous performances, I think it's splitting hairs. And if we look at their worst performances over the respective spans, Rodgers' 28/39 for 416 and 1 TD, 2 INTs (10.72 Y/A) at New Orleans looks a lot better than Brady's 19/30 for 257 and 2 TD, 2 INTs (8.57 Y/A) at Indy, until we consider that Green Bay lost the Saints game by 21 points and the Pats won the Colts game by 22. The Pats' run game was obviously a huge factor in that outcome, but so was converting 9/11 3rd downs, vs 1/7 for the Packers in their loss.

 

[coremiller]

Rodgers has better statistics over that span (by QB rating and Y/A at least, which it's important to note double-counts Y/A since it's once of the elements of QB rating), but it's hard for me to say he's actually playing better or is more valuable. Is Rodgers' 18/27 for 315 and 6 TDs (11.67 Y/A) in a 55-14 stomping of the Bears really better than Brady's 30/35 for 354 and 5 TDs ("just" 10.11 Y/A) in NE's 51-23 stomping of the Bears? How about Rodgers' 19/22 for 255 and 3 TDs (11.59 YPA) in a 38-17 domination of Carolina vs Brady's 27/37 for 361 and 4 TDs (9.76 Y/A) in a 37-22 win at Buffalo? Once we're looking at these kind of ridiculous performances, I think it's splitting hairs. And if we look at their worst performances over the respective spans, Rodgers' 28/39 for 416 and 1 TD, 2 INTs (10.72 Y/A) at New Orleans looks a lot better than Brady's 19/30 for 257 and 2 TD, 2 INTs (8.57 Y/A) at Indy, until we consider that Green Bay lost the Saints game by 21 points and the Pats won the Colts game by 22. The Pats' run game was obviously a huge factor in that outcome, but so was converting 9/11 3rd downs, vs 1/7 for the Packers in their loss.

 
The obvious difference between the GB vs. NO and NE vs. Indy is that the GB defense allowed 495 yards and 42 points to the Saints while the Pats' defense allowed only 322 yards and 20 points.  That has a lot to do with why Green Bay lost by 21 and New England won by 23.  
 
But more importantly I disagree with your broader argument, which seems to be that statistical differences shouldn't matter when both players are very good.  A couple of responses:
 
- You cite a lot of stats from single games, but it's always going to be hard to draw conclusions from single-game data.  The aggregate is more interesting.  The statistical difference over the course of the whole season is actually quite large.  A difference of 1.63 ANY/A is a big difference.  It's smaller over the last seven weeks, but all the games count.
- I'm not a fan of weighting production value by leverage.  You seem to be saying that they've both put up big stats in blowouts, and so any differences in the stats are meaningless because the games were blowouts.  I take your point to be that, since there was no practical difference to the outcome from throwing 6 TDs vs. 5, we should ignore the difference.  This is more of a philosophical issue, but I tend to think that production is production.  As a result, I don't like WPA-style metrics.  Which doesn't mean you ignore teammate/opponent. context effects.  
- Whether the baseline should change for evaluating blowout performance ("the losing team stopped trying and put in their backups" argument) is a different issue, and one that is empirical rather than philosophical -- in theory we should be able to test whether performance in blowouts correlates with and/or is predictive of performance in non-blowouts.  
- Part of the reason the leverage of Rodgers' and Brady's performances is low is they're so good and they're on good teams -- if they didn't play as well, or their defenses didn't play as well, the games would be closer and they'd have more opportunities to accumulate late-game high-leverage events.  For example, PFR has the win probability graph for the Packers-Eagles game here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201411160gnb.htm.  Green Bay's win probability never dipped below 92% after the first quarter. and never dipped below 98% after Green Bay went ahead 24-3.  Does that mean we should ignore everything that happened after that?  I don't think so.
- How ridiculous do the performances have to be before it becomes "splitting hairs?"  This seems like an arbitrary distinction to me.  Say the absolute performances were much worse, but the relative difference between them was the same.  Would the relative difference then be more relevant?

 

[ethangl]

I think the MVP race comes down to the winner of the Pats/Packers match up in two weeks.

 
This. I don't think the voters think in especially sophisticated terms about this stuff.
 
Also, JMO, but Brady is generally not as well liked as Rodgers and will have to have a clear simple counting number advantage (yds, TDs, etc) over him to win.

 

[crystalline]

Rodgers has better statistics over that span (by QB rating and Y/A at least, which it's important to note double-counts Y/A since it's once of the elements of QB rating), but it's hard for me to say he's actually playing better or is more valuable. Is Rodgers' 18/27 for 315 and 6 TDs (11.67 Y/A) in a 55-14 stomping of the Bears really better than Brady's 30/35 for 354 and 5 TDs ("just" 10.11 Y/A) in NE's 51-23 stomping of the Bears? How about Rodgers' 19/22 for 255 and 3 TDs (11.59 YPA) in a 38-17 domination of Carolina vs Brady's 27/37 for 361 and 4 TDs (9.76 Y/A) in a 37-22 win at Buffalo? Once we're looking at these kind of ridiculous performances, I think it's splitting hairs. And if we look at their worst performances over the respective spans, Rodgers' 28/39 for 416 and 1 TD, 2 INTs (10.72 Y/A) at New Orleans looks a lot better than Brady's 19/30 for 257 and 2 TD, 2 INTs (8.57 Y/A) at Indy, until we consider that Green Bay lost the Saints game by 21 points and the Pats won the Colts game by 22. The Pats' run game was obviously a huge factor in that outcome, but so was converting 9/11 3rd downs, vs 1/7 for the Packers in their loss.

Thanks for breaking out these numbers- I agree looking at average stats doesn't tell the whole story.

If Brady had thrown for two more TDs and Gray had run for two less vs. Indy, how much would the gap close?

 

[nothumb]

I think the MVP race comes down to the winner of the Pats/Packers match up in two weeks.

 
Yeah, assuming both teams otherwise win out (or at least get a bye) I think this is it.
 
If NE drops the GB game but still ends up as the 1 seed, GB drops some other games and ends up as a 3 or worse, and Brady plays out of his mind rest of season, I could see him getting it. But basically if the two teams finish in comparable positions in their respective conferences (or if the NE/GB winner also finishes better as a team) I think the winner of that game has the edge.

 

[Super Nomario]

The obvious difference between the GB vs. NO and NE vs. Indy is that the GB defense allowed 495 yards and 42 points to the Saints while the Pats' defense allowed only 322 yards and 20 points.  That has a lot to do with why Green Bay lost by 21 and New England won by 23.  

Sure, but the Packers scored just 23 in the loss while the Pats scored 42 in their win. I think their teammates had more to do with the overall outcome than Brady or Rodgers, but my point is that Y/A would tell you Rodgers played markedly better against NO than Brady did against Indy and I don't think that's true at all.
 

- I'm not a fan of weighting production value by leverage.  You seem to be saying that they've both put up big stats in blowouts, and so any differences in the stats are meaningless because the games were blowouts.  I take your point to be that, since there was no practical difference to the outcome from throwing 6 TDs vs. 5, we should ignore the difference.  This is more of a philosophical issue, but I tend to think that production is production.  As a result, I don't like WPA-style metrics.  Which doesn't mean you ignore teammate/opponent. context effects.

"Ignore the difference" is too strong, but there's definitely less marginal utility beyond a certain point, and the difference between the raw statistics become less important than the contextual elements. 
 

 - Whether the baseline should change for evaluating blowout performance ("the losing team stopped trying and put in their backups" argument) is a different issue, and one that is empirical rather than philosophical -- in theory we should be able to test whether performance in blowouts correlates with and/or is predictive of performance in non-blowouts.

This is another philosophical issue, because if we're talking MVP or who played better it's not clear to me that the predictive elements should factor in at all.
 

 - How ridiculous do the performances have to be before it becomes "splitting hairs?"  This seems like an arbitrary distinction to me.  Say the absolute performances were much worse, but the relative difference between them was the same.  Would the relative difference then be more relevant?

Yes, they would be. You can only win one game. Throwing a 6th touchdown as opposed to a 5th doesn't make a lot of difference in terms of probability of winning the game, but a 3rd as opposed to a 2nd does. This effect also happens at the bottom of the bell curve, too - there's very little material difference between Blake Bortles' 5.2 AYPA and Geno Smith's 4.5. I'm sure this is mathematically provable in a more rigorous way, but as lazy evidence I submit that teams have lost 3 of 28 games where the QB threw 6 TDs and 12 of 132 where they threw 5 - almost identical ratios.

 

[ivanvamp]

Well, Brady played well last night (102.7 rating), but Rodgers was better.  His season stats are better than Brady's, he beat Brady head-to-head, and he outplayed Brady in that game.  
 
Pretty obvious that Rodgers is now the clear frontrunner for the MVP.  Four weeks left, but Rodgers' schedule is also easier the rest of the way.  I fully expect him to win the MVP, with Brady finishing top 3.

 

[Silverdude2167]

Well, Brady played well last night (102.7 rating), but Rodgers was better.  His season stats are better than Brady's, he beat Brady head-to-head, and he outplayed Brady in that game.  
 
Pretty obvious that Rodgers is now the clear frontrunner for the MVP.  Four weeks left, but Rodgers' schedule is also easier the rest of the way.  I fully expect him to win the MVP, with Brady finishing top 3.

The MVP hasn't won the Superbowl in a since Warner won in 1999 so this is a good thing in my mind.
Also did not realize Warner won 2 MVP's and a Ram won it three years in a row from 99-2001.

 

[Leather]

The MVP hasn't won the Superbowl in a since Warner won in 1999 so this is a good thing in my mind.
Also did not realize Warner won 2 MVP's and a Ram won it three years in a row from 99-2001.

 
Causation/correlation, etc...

 

[sodenj5]

Well, Brady played well last night (102.7 rating), but Rodgers was better.  His season stats are better than Brady's, he beat Brady head-to-head, and he outplayed Brady in that game.  
 
Pretty obvious that Rodgers is now the clear frontrunner for the MVP.  Four weeks left, but Rodgers' schedule is also easier the rest of the way.  I fully expect him to win the MVP, with Brady finishing top 3.

 
Ever since they started out cold and people in Green Bay started to get flustered, Rodgers and co. have flat out turned it on. I keep thinking back on the game against Miami, and how there were about 3-4 plays throughout the game where Rodgers is about the only guy on the planet that escapes the pressure and throws a dagger on a 3rd and long or 4th down on the final drive of the game. Watching that whole game, it was obvious that he was the best player on the field by a wide margin. 

 

[Leather]

Barring a meltdown over the last 4 games, it's clearly Rodgers' award to lose.

 

[Number45forever]

I don't watch Rodgers enough I guess...he was unbelievably great last night.  He is deadly throwing to the sideline, the way he dropped the ball right into Starks and Cobb on those wheel routes was astounding.  And the TD pass to the TE was amazing.  He's the best right now.

 

[lars10]

Just as an aside...I'd love to see what Brady would do with Nelson and Cobb. Not to take away from how good Rodgers is, just to see what kind of numbers Brady would put up.

 

[ivanvamp]

Nelson, Cobb, and their TE vs. Edelman, LaFell, and Gronk.
 
Pretty interesting comparison, IMO.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Barring a meltdown over the last 4 games, it's clearly Rodgers' award to lose.

Not saying that I disagee with you but where would you JJ Watt? I think he has to be top 3 but probably behind Rodgers and Brady. If the Texans somehow make the playoffs, would that influence your vote? I think it's interesting that the Texans are now using Watt at the goal line as a tackle eligible receiver and that he has 2 touchdowns on offense. Does Watt's offensive contribution matter in the voting?  

 

[Infield Infidel]

 
 
Watt now has an interception return touchdown, a fumble recovery return touchdown and three receiving touchdowns. He's the first defensive lineman with at least five touchdowns in a season since 1944. 

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-11-30/jj-watt-touchdown-catch-mvp-houston-texans-ryan-fitzpatrick-tennessee-titan
 
The catch he made yesterday (link above) was a really tough catch

 

[lars10]

Nelson, Cobb, and their TE vs. Edelman, LaFell, and Gronk.
 
Pretty interesting comparison, IMO.

I wasn't trying to diminish Brady's receivers but I think Cobb and Nelson are kind of 1 and 1a...and Davante Adams isn't horrible either.  Their tight end situation isn't great, but they do have a serviceable tight end.  Just as a 'what if' scenario would like to see Brady have a game/season throwing to Nelson and Cobb that's all (especially after seeing what he did with Moss).  Can't throw much better than Rodgers did yesterday though.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Somebody disagreed with me when I said that Rodgers is the best QB in the league. I don't know how anyone could argue to the contrary but, hey, have at it.

 
If I could start a team and pick either of them, I'd take 24-year-old Tom Brady over 24-year-old Aaron Rodgers.  It would be a very aggravating, nail-biting decision.  In 2014 in the real world, 31-year-old Aaron Rodgers is clearly better than 37-year-old Tom Brady, but it's still a very close call.
 
Also, Tom Brady has an all-world receiving target right now.  A Packers DT just said of Gronk, "...their tight end is like the Terminator", which is very well-put.  I don't think you can say that the Packers have a huge advantage in quality of passing targets, but you could probably say they have a meaningful difference in the quality of their OL play.

 

[lars10]

 
Also, Tom Brady has an all-world receiving target right now.  A Packers DT just said of Gronk, "...their tight end is like the Terminator", which is very well-put.  I don't think you can say that the Packers have a huge advantage in quality of passing targets, but you could probably say they have a meaningful difference in the quality of their OL play.

Nelson is as good or better than Gronk purely by the numbers... He has 5 more catches...100 more yards. I realize there's a difference in games played.

Then you have Cobb who has almost the same numbers exactly as Gronk...

Both Cobb and Nelson have 10 TDs... Gronk has 9..Edelman has 2.

Nelson and Cobb are otherworldly too.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Not sure I've ever seen Cobb or Nelson triple teamed in the end zone though. They are both fantastic/awesome/great whatever superlative you'd like to use, but I save other worldly for Gronk.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Nelson is as good or better than Gronk purely by the numbers... He has 5 more catches...100 more yards. I realize there's a difference in games played.
 

 
He also got a ton more burn that Gronk did for the first four weeks. Gronk only played 143 snaps (51% of total snaps) in the first 4 weeks of the season. Nelson played in 237 (98.7% of total snaps), nearly 100 more snaps than Gronk. 
 
I'm not sure why I'm even going down this rabbit hole, though. Anyone saying "Nelson is better than Gronk" is wrong, and anyone qualifying their statement with "purely by the numbers" is either unaware of how dumb that caveat is, or is setting themselves up to not have an honest discussion.

 

[lars10]

 
He also got a ton more burn that Gronk did for the first four weeks. Gronk only played 143 snaps (51% of total snaps) in the first 4 weeks of the season. Nelson played in 237 (98.7% of total snaps), nearly 100 more snaps than Gronk. 
 
I'm not sure why I'm even going down this rabbit hole, though. Anyone saying "Nelson is better than Gronk" is wrong, and anyone qualifying their statement with "purely by the numbers" is either unaware of how dumb that caveat is, or is setting themselves up to not have an honest discussion.

 
 

Not sure I've ever seen Cobb or Nelson triple teamed in the end zone though. They are both fantastic/awesome/great whatever superlative you'd like to use, but I save other worldly for Gronk.
 

That's fair from both of you.  I suppose I went over the top on Nelson...Gronk is a truly one of a kind receiver/athlete.
 
And Kenny, you're right.  What I was trying to say was that strictly on the number of catches that Nelson has 100 more yards on those catches.  Gronk has 101 targets and Nelson has 112.  (What's actually surprising is Cobb who has 65 catches on 89 targets.)  I realize they play different positions, but their numbers are really similar other than Nelson has 100 more yards.  Nelson has only 40 more YAC though...so I dunno.  
 
Is it more honest to say that the two players are similar?  I think Nelson is having a good/great season as is Gronk...and Nelson has a second receiver next to him that is having a similar good/great season.  Gronk really doesn't have a potent second target like that...although Edelman and Lafell do get a ton of targets (probably inflated because of the first four weeks of the season?)

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Gronk was injured for the first half of the season. Anyone watching a Pats game could see that for the first eight weeks.

 

[lars10]

Gronk was injured for the first half of the season. Anyone watching a Pats game could see that for the first eight weeks.

. So he was injured in week 8 against Chicago? The number of receptions have def gone up. And his average yards have gone up. But he's spread his TDs over the season.

In any case I didn't mean to say anything controversial... Just like Nelson, but don't mean to denegrate the season Gronk is having. Def as he's been getting more and more healthy he seems to be destroying players in a way I've never seen.

 

[amarshal2]

 
 
Is it more honest to say that the two players are similar?  I think Nelson is having a good/great season as is Gronk...and Nelson has a second receiver next to him that is having a similar good/great season.  Gronk really doesn't have a potent second target like that...although Edelman and Lafell do get a ton of targets (probably inflated because of the first four weeks of the season?)

No. It's less honest. They're about as similar as Wilfork and McCourty.

 

[lars10]

No. It's less honest. They're about as similar as Wilfork and McCourty.

Fair enough. 
 
I should have said that the players numbers are similar or that they were having similar seasons.  I realize that if Gronk had not been hurt that his numbers would be better...although if you look at his numbers for the season his average yards per catch has been similar pretty much all season...his number of catches has gone up.  

 

[FL4WL3SS]

This is Aaron Rogers to lose at this point.

 

[Stitch01]

He's the best player in football this year, no doubt about it.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Unless JJ Watt switches to tightend for the rest of the season of course

 

[ivanvamp]

This is Aaron Rogers to lose at this point.

 
As much as I'd love for Brady to win it, there's not a person on the planet who could sensibly argue that Rodgers wouldn't be completely deserving.
 
He's been just incredible this year.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I'd think the only way is if Brady is flawless and Rogers closes out with 3 multiple INT games. In other words, congratulations Aaron Rogers, well deserved.

 

[Bierman9]

 
As much as I'd love for Brady to win it, there's not a person on the planet who could sensibly argue that Rodgers wouldn't be completely deserving.
 
He's been just incredible this year.

 
Perhaps he will "tank" Hans und Franz later...

 

[rodderick]

 
As much as I'd love for Brady to win it, there's not a person on the planet who could sensibly argue that Rodgers wouldn't be completely deserving.
 
He's been just incredible this year.

 
Yup, the award is his and with good reason. Dude has been unreal this year.

 

[tims4wins]

He is 9-28 with a pick today. If they lose it could leave the race wide open again.

 

[tims4wins]

13-36 2 picks

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I'd think the only way is if Brady is flawless and Rogers closes out with 3 multiple INT games. In other words, congratulations Aaron Rogers, well deserved.

1 down, 2 to go? Brady wasn't flawless unfortunately but still. Theres a chance!

 

[Oppo]

Sack leads to fumble leads to safety