The MVP Discussion
- Thread starter ivanvamp
- Start date
Mystic Merlin said:
Eh, forget for a moment that he'd be the first defensive player to win in almost 30 years. It's been over 40 years since an MVP missed the playoffs, and I don't think an MVP has ever had a losing record. I just don't see it happening.
They really ought to have a second award for Watt to win. He's the best player at his position by the biggest margin, but there's no way for a non-QB to actually be as valuable as one of the top 10 or so quarterbacks. They ought to have an MVP award and an "outstanding player" award or something.
A non qb on a team that isn't even sniffing a playoff spot would be like a relief pitcher winning it in baseball. Meh.
Watt is amazing but with or without him the Texans are mediocre. I'd be willing to hear the argument if they're even battling the Colts. But they're 7-7 in one of the worst two divisions in football.
Watt is amazing but with or without him the Texans are mediocre. I'd be willing to hear the argument if they're even battling the Colts. But they're 7-7 in one of the worst two divisions in football.
Seels said:
The awards are meaningless except for salary purposes, IMHO.
Writers probably get bored of voting for QBs all the time, and there are many good quarterbacks this year. Even with that turd of a performance today, Rodgers should still be the frontrunner among the class. But you can make the argument for so many others and not get laughed out of the room. Watt is standing out amongst his peers, is fun to watch, and allows sportswriters to satisfy their contrarian instincts.
While I agree that Watt will not win the MVP because MVP writers don't vote for the bolded, Watt's performance this year has been incredible and is certainly MVP worthy. He's been the reason (101.1 EPA) the Texans are mediocre and not one of the worst teams in the league.Seels said:
Of course, Aaron Rodgers is a QB on a competitive team in a much tougher division, making him a more likely MVP in the eyes of the NFL media.
That chart's impressive, but EPA just tells the same story as everything else - there are NINE quarterbacks with better EPA figures than that.EricFeczko said:While I agree that Watt will not win the MVP because MVP writers don't vote for the bolded, Watt's performance this year has been incredible and is certainly MVP worthy. He's been the reason (101.1 EPA) the Texans are mediocre and not one of the worst teams in the league.
Of course, Aaron Rodgers is a QB on a competitive team in a much tougher division, making him a more likely MVP in the eyes of the NFL media.
If we are going to mention Watt, doesn't Gronk have to be in the converstaion, as well? I'd pick him over Brady, honestly, leaving the race between Gronk, Rodgers, and Watt.
Here's Reiss' take:
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4774322/rob-gronkowski-mvp-chatter
Here's Reiss' take:
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4774322/rob-gronkowski-mvp-chatter
It would take sort of a really weird definition of most valuable player to give the award to either Watt or Gronk given the years Rodgers, Brady, and a handful of other quarterbacks are having for contending teams.
Brady is pretty clearly more valuable than Gronk, as awesome as Gronk is.
Brady is pretty clearly more valuable than Gronk, as awesome as Gronk is.
I just don't see how anyone can consider Watt over Brady or Rodgers (who I still think should win).
I have not seen Watt play this year, but any time he played against the Pats in the past he was taken out of the game. A defensive player is too easy to take out of the game for them to be considered an MVP in my mind. If we are going to talk about defensive players that are avoided by the opponent then why is Revis not in the conversation? He has taken away half the field this season, how is what Watt is doing more MVP worthy than that?
I would not trade Brady or Rogers for Watt this season, I would not even trade Gronk for Watt as I feel Gronk makes more of an impact on offense that Watt does on defense. So I don't see how anyone can consider him the MVP.
Watt is a great player having a great year, but he is not the MVP when you think of what that actually means.
I have not seen Watt play this year, but any time he played against the Pats in the past he was taken out of the game. A defensive player is too easy to take out of the game for them to be considered an MVP in my mind. If we are going to talk about defensive players that are avoided by the opponent then why is Revis not in the conversation? He has taken away half the field this season, how is what Watt is doing more MVP worthy than that?
I would not trade Brady or Rogers for Watt this season, I would not even trade Gronk for Watt as I feel Gronk makes more of an impact on offense that Watt does on defense. So I don't see how anyone can consider him the MVP.
Watt is a great player having a great year, but he is not the MVP when you think of what that actually means.
Stitch01 said:
I know what you are saying, but there are times when I watch Gronk where I wonder if I'd rather have Jimmy G step in for Brady than to have Hooman step in for Gronk. Gronk does absolutely everything on the field; he blocks, he catches, and he draws 2-3 defenders every play (and beats them fairly often). Brady is awfully valuable, that much is obvious, but Gronk is so good that I often wonder how he compares. I'm not sure I've seen as valuable a non-QB in the league since Randy Moss in his Vikings days.
GB is now 6th seed in the NFC, though they will move right back near the top if they beat Detroit.
If they lose to Detroit and the Pats win out to finish as #1 in the AFC, then I think either Brady or Gronk will be MVP. In that scenario I think Brady should get it. The thing about Gronk, though, is that he is so much better than other TEs that he skews perspectives (same goes for Watt). Brady is one of the four or five best at his position (and it's by far the most important position), but Gronk is in his own universe. Some voters will like that.
If they lose to Detroit and the Pats win out to finish as #1 in the AFC, then I think either Brady or Gronk will be MVP. In that scenario I think Brady should get it. The thing about Gronk, though, is that he is so much better than other TEs that he skews perspectives (same goes for Watt). Brady is one of the four or five best at his position (and it's by far the most important position), but Gronk is in his own universe. Some voters will like that.
The Pack could conceivably miss the playoffs, too, if AZ beats SEA this weekend, DAL loses to IND, DET wins the North via a victory over the Packers next week, and PHI wins vs. WAS and the Giants. In that scenario, the playoffs would be #1 AZ, #2 DET, #3 PHI, #4 does it matter?, #5 SEA, #6 DAL. Like I said, it's conceivable (as in, not inconceivable).
I think we should introduce an MVD award, most valuable division, and hand it out to the division that provides the most playoff teams from its collective opponents. This year, without a doubt, would go to the NFC South, which played its counterparts in the North of both the AFC and NFC. If the improbable scenario above doesn't occur and the Lions and Packers both make the playoffs and the AFC shakes out to have CIN, BAL, and PIT all represented in the playoffs, there would be six teams to make their conference playoffs to have benefited from playing a minimum of 4 games apiece vs. the NFC South (including the NFCS division winner, of course). To top it all off, if the Falcons win their division by going 6-0, it's likely playoff teams will have finished with a collective record of 23-5-1 versus the NFC South, or roughly the equivalent of a 13-3 team.
Like Sherman's march to the sea, the North has gone deep into the heart of its enemy and left fallow the fields of its foe (namely the football fields at the Georgia Dome, Raymond James Stadium, Bank of America Stadium, and the Louisiana Superdome).
I think we should introduce an MVD award, most valuable division, and hand it out to the division that provides the most playoff teams from its collective opponents. This year, without a doubt, would go to the NFC South, which played its counterparts in the North of both the AFC and NFC. If the improbable scenario above doesn't occur and the Lions and Packers both make the playoffs and the AFC shakes out to have CIN, BAL, and PIT all represented in the playoffs, there would be six teams to make their conference playoffs to have benefited from playing a minimum of 4 games apiece vs. the NFC South (including the NFCS division winner, of course). To top it all off, if the Falcons win their division by going 6-0, it's likely playoff teams will have finished with a collective record of 23-5-1 versus the NFC South, or roughly the equivalent of a 13-3 team.
Like Sherman's march to the sea, the North has gone deep into the heart of its enemy and left fallow the fields of its foe (namely the football fields at the Georgia Dome, Raymond James Stadium, Bank of America Stadium, and the Louisiana Superdome).
Ed Hillel said:
I've had this train of thought a few times. The best case for a Gronk candidacy is that, as a TE, he impacts both the passing and running games in a way that no other player can. This point is not likely to get through to voters, though, as it's hard to get one's head around run-blocking being such a critical ability when there are no gaudy stats to back this up.
Edit: in principle, a run-first QB in the Vick/Wilson mold could have an equal or greater effect on both the running and passing games, but its been a while since we've had a serious MVP candidacy from a QB with that profile
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Arguably, what it would look like for a QB to have plus passing and plus running ability, looks something like Aaron Rodgers. Wilson's a little better at running but nowhere near as good at passing.
Ed Hillel said:
Last two years Brady didn't have Gronk for extended periods of time and the Patriots made the AFCCG without him. So you'd expect Garoppolo with Gronk to do better than that? I guess since we have both Brady AND Gronk this season the Super Bowl is but a mere formality at this point.
I would add 2009 Darrelle Revis.
I believe PFF grades that as one of the best seasons by a DB in the modern era (I think he was +34.6 in coverage?). He only allowed 36.7% completions and generally played that position as well as anyone ever has.
No way that Jets team ends up in the AFCCG without him.
Edit: here's an NY Times blog about it: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/just-how-good-was-revis-last-year/?_r=0
Revis' success rate that year was 3.0 standard deviations above the average.
I believe PFF grades that as one of the best seasons by a DB in the modern era (I think he was +34.6 in coverage?). He only allowed 36.7% completions and generally played that position as well as anyone ever has.
No way that Jets team ends up in the AFCCG without him.
Edit: here's an NY Times blog about it: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/just-how-good-was-revis-last-year/?_r=0
Revis' success rate that year was 3.0 standard deviations above the average.
Pretty comfortably as in if Im only choosing one for my team Im pretty easily taking Gronk or Watt over a running back, even a pretty great one.
Peterson wasn't even the top running back in 2012 by EPA given his 40% success rate. Yeah, for sure not the end all and be all, but pretty confident Im picking Watt or Gronk.
Peterson wasn't even the top running back in 2012 by EPA given his 40% success rate. Yeah, for sure not the end all and be all, but pretty confident Im picking Watt or Gronk.
rodderick said:
I know it doesn't work this way, but when I look at certain matchups, there are times I think I'd rather have Gronk. Let's take Seattle, for example. Take out Gronk, and you've got a double team on Edelman, man on LaFell with safety help, Wright replacing Gronk, and a dominant DL against the team's weakness (OL). Despite his run last week, I think we can agree Brady is not the most mobile of guys. You're also losing Gronk's blocking ability, in the run and pass game. How many points is that offense scoring?
Now keep Gronk on the field, you've got 2-3 men on him each play, Edelman going one on one, LaFell with a number of one on one looks, Gronk blocking, and a mobile QB. A lot of this analysis has to depend on one's belief in Jimmy G., but if we think he can step in as an average QB with above-average mobility (which may not be fair, though I think it is), I think you have an offense capable of scoring more points, though with more risk for turnovers.
Yeah, Im going to say expecting Jimmy G steps into a game this time of year and be an average QB with above average mobility isn't a reasonable base case.
Also you'd still score more points losing Gronk than losing Brady even if your underlying assumptions are correct.
Also you'd still score more points losing Gronk than losing Brady even if your underlying assumptions are correct.
The MVP is largely a beauty contest. QB's are a sexy choice and receive more credit than they should in a team game. JJ Watt has some of the mystique this season also and will grab a portion of those ballots.
Do we really care if Brady or Gronk gets the award? Being the champ is the best.
Do we really care if Brady or Gronk gets the award? Being the champ is the best.
Double teams and safety help are usually dictated more by formation and overall personnel than individual matchups. Belichick will dedicate two players just to taking Tony Gonzalez out of the game, but he's a rarity, which is why Gonzalez caught 1300+ passes over his career and why Gronk goes off every week even though everyone knows he's the Pats' go-to guy. If the Patriots align Edelman wide (as opposed to the slot), he's going to be single-teamed unless he runs a crossing route or a post that takes him into the middle of the field, Gronk or no Gronk. Gronk's a weapon for sure, but I think you're overstating the kind of ripple effect he has throughout the offense.Ed Hillel said:
gryoung said:
I'm pretty sure if you go back and read this whole thread you will not find a statement by any Patriot fan that they would prefer that Brady win the MVP rather than the Patriots winning the Super Bowl. Also, I don't think anyone is particularly upset about the fact that Brady probably will not win, nor will Gronk.
Care to participate in the discussion around who will win the MVP award this season? If not, feel free to not read the thread.
Ed Hillel said:
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]I don't think it makes sense to compare the differential between Brady and Garoppolo and the differential between Gronk and Hoomanawanui to get a sense of total value of a player simply because they are all on the same team.[/SIZE]
Great line about the MVP awards today.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-analysis/2015/1/17/7535673/russell-wilson-nfl-mvp-aaron-rodgers-seahawks-packers
http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-analysis/2015/1/17/7535673/russell-wilson-nfl-mvp-aaron-rodgers-seahawks-packers