Why is P. Manning in seriousMVP consideration?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Everyone else here is at least entertaining in some way.

 

You are just a loser with nothing to say while using more emocations than words.

 

I won't jump, you probably should though.

 

tikigods is worthless as a poster and probably as a person. You should ignore him

[Strike 5,846]

It must be nice to play in the AFC West

 

Yeah, cause those Vikings are just a perennial powerhouse. Christian Ponder for MVP!!!!

 

[Strike 5,846]

Rodgers was fighting in a game both teams needed too win.

 

Manning stayed in the game vs. a team that wanted the #1 pick to pad his stats.

 

HTH

 

Padding stats???

 

[tikigods 76]

tikigods is worthless as a poster and probably as a person. You should ignore him

 

This.

 

I also pretend to be a pretend lawyer.

[FeelingMN 273]

Not really. Yea it is mentioned. But he just had the best season for a RB of all time....on a team many picked to not win 8 games. He got them to double digit wins when they had nothing else special on that team and no passing attack. That was amazing. Even Harvin was out.

 

That is why his backstory doesn't matter. Because he didn't have another RB that had a better season than him that it is lifting him over. His injuries are stated, but that isn't elevating him. The fact he had the best RB season ever is why he is considered the MVP. And the fact that he was on a crap team that really had no right to make the playoffs. People knew he was running and still couldn't stop him.

 

Much different scenario. He didn't have another RB close to his stats, let alone have better stats.

 

Does the MVP have the best stats every year? If an MVP is a QB, are they statistically the best QB? If a RB, are they statistically the best RB?

 

Regarding the discussion about their respective injuries, every time I hear the media talk about AD, they mention his knee injury. Every time. Now, we both agree that that isn't determining his MVP status...but its mentioned. Same as Manning. People aren't using that as a reason to make him MVP, but it is part of his story. You're fine when its AD, but not Manning. Somehow with Manning, its the whole reason he's being touted by the talking heads. Your infatuation with Rodgers is clouding your fairness here.

 

If MVP is just the guy with the best stats, scrub the Offensive Player of the Year Award. It's redundant.

[listen2me 23 1,924]

DOesn't have to be the best stats....who said it did?

 

But when you have the better stats and deal with less of a running game, not the elite Oline Manning has. And the fact that his WRs were all hurt this year. It puts the better stats over the top.

 

Its not the only reason Manning would get it. But it is puttiing him over the top, when any other way you look at it just about it goes to Rodgers. People for the last few weeks of discussion basically have it between Manning and AP. And I was just wondering why Rodgers isn't "neck AND neck" when his team is less and his stats are better. He is just as important to his team and never skipped a beat despite losing his #1, 2, and 3 WRs for periods of time and has resorted to bringing back Ryan Grant off the street to run the ball.

 

No one said it was just stats. I continue to repeat myself over and over because it seems like no one reads. Have I not laid out a handful of other reasons other than stats that are reasons for him getting it? Am I talking to a recording?

[Strike 5,846]

DOesn't have to be the best stats....who said it did?

 

But when you have the better stats and deal with less of a running game, not the elite Oline Manning has. And the fact that his WRs were all hurt this year. It puts the better stats over the top.

 

 

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Yeah, cause those Vikings are just a perennial powerhouse. Christian Ponder for MVP!!!!

 

 

They won 10 games with Christian Ponder.

 

Ponder week 17 stats vs GB: 16/28 234 yds 3 TDs

Quinn week 17 stats vs Den: 7/16 49 yds 0 TDs

 

Are you trying to prove my point?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

The more I think about it, it should be Adrian Peterson and then Rodgers #2. Here's my rationale:

 

Denver without Manning (mediocre QB subbed in): probably still a playoff team

 

Patriots without Brady: probably still a playoff team

 

Packers without Rodgers: probably not a playoff team

 

Vikings without Peterson: definitely not a playoff team

 

Now as we saw yesterday, the Vikings weren't a great team even with Peterson. So that is an advantage for Rodgers. BUT, Rodgers has a sh!tload more talent around him (at least on offense). Peterson had crappy Christian Ponder has QB and crappy WRs (except Harvin when he was healthy). Rodgers has a piss poor O-Line, but the receivers are very, very good. RB stinks, but still, the overall talent level is much greater around Rodgers.

[Strike 5,846]

They won 10 games with Christian Ponder.

 

Ponder week 17 stats vs GB: 16/28 234 yds 3 TDs

Quinn week 17 stats vs Den: 7/16 49 yds 0 TDs

 

Are you trying to prove my point?

 

Nope. Ponder for MVP!!! Ponder for MVP!!!

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Nope. Ponder for MVP!!! Ponder for MVP!!!

 

You're arguing like a child.

 

The Vikings didn't win 10 games because of Christian Ponder, they won 10 games despite Christian Ponder.

 

The team was good enough to make it to the playoffs even though their quarterback was crap...kind of like the 2011 Broncos.

 

The big difference is the 2011 Broncos won a playoff game.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

Patriots without Brady: probably still a playoff team

 

Pats with a mediocre substitute QB are 4-12 if they're lucky.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

Although with Aaron Rodgers, they're probably more like 8-8.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Pats with a mediocre substitute QB are 4-12 if they're lucky.

 

You think so? I mean, Brady makes a huge difference, but they still have a lot of talent even without him. Gronkowski, Hernandez, Welker, Lloyd, Ridley, good offensive line. Defense sucked for most of the year, for sure, but I think they could pull off at least 9-7 without Brady. Especially given how pathetic the rest of the AFC East is.

[tikigods 76]

Pats with a mediocre substitute QB are 4-12 if they're lucky.

 

The Patriots have zero offensive line; no secondary; and no deep threat WR.

 

Take Brady off this team and Belichick is looking for a new job.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Pats with a mediocre substitute QB are 4-12 if they're lucky.

 

Like Matt Cassel?

[Strike 5,846]

You're arguing like a child

 

I'm arguing at the level listen2me has defined for this thread. He's been arguing like a child since page one. Realistically, there are legit arguments for all three players who have been discussed seriously in this thread. Most in this thread agree that AP deserves it. At this point we're just going round and round in circles. But at the end of the day there are arguments in favor of all of them. If we all refuse to acknowledge each others valid arguments then it pretty much devolves in to all of us arguing like children. No? I really don't care about this award. So I'm just having fun. I've made my arguments. They're valid. If you want to keep going round and round I may or may not participate, but I will certainly continue to have some fun with it. But I didn't see you rag on Listen for arguing like a child when he mentioned Matt Ryan......

[Bruce Benedict 0]

The Patriots have zero offensive line; no secondary; and no deep threat WR.

 

Take Brady off this team and Belichick is looking for a new job.

Amen.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

Like Matt Cassel?

Yes.

[listen2me 23 1,924]

I'm arguing at the level listen2me has defined for this thread. He's been arguing like a child since page one.

 

But I must have you fooled. I am a child. BWAH HA HA HU HUh HUh....

 

I am 15 years old.

 

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I'm arguing at the level listen2me has defined for this thread. He's been arguing like a child since page one. Realistically, there are legit arguments for all three players who have been discussed seriously in this thread. Most in this thread agree that AP deserves it. At this point we're just going round and round in circles. But at the end of the day there are arguments in favor of all of them. If we all refuse to acknowledge each others valid arguments then it pretty much devolves in to all of us arguing like children. No? I really don't care about this award. So I'm just having fun. I've made my arguments. They're valid. If you want to keep going round and round I may or may not participate, but I will certainly continue to have some fun with it. But I didn't see you rag on Listen for arguing like a child when he mentioned Matt Ryan......

 

The Ryan argument was contradicting the "Manning has a better record so he's the MVP" argument. I think it's a good point. Record shouldn't be THAT important, especially when you're talking about a 1 or 2 game difference.

 

I agree a case can be made for Brady, Manning, or Rodgers though. I said earlier in the thread that AP deserves the award, after that a case can be made for any of the 3 QBs. My point is basically that as far as the media is concerned, it's AP or Manning. I don't see why Manning is the consensus best QB this year. That's the point I'm arguing. It's the story that leads to this line of thinking and I think that's wrong.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,292]

The more I think about it, it should be Adrian Peterson and then Rodgers #2. Here's my rationale:

 

Denver without Manning (mediocre QB subbed in): probably still a playoff team

 

Patriots without Brady: probably still a playoff team

 

Packers without Rodgers: probably not a playoff team

 

Vikings without Peterson: definitely not a playoff team

 

Now as we saw yesterday, the Vikings weren't a great team even with Peterson. So that is an advantage for Rodgers. BUT, Rodgers has a sh!tload more talent around him (at least on offense). Peterson had crappy Christian Ponder has QB and crappy WRs (except Harvin when he was healthy). Rodgers has a piss poor O-Line, but the receivers are very, very good. RB stinks, but still, the overall talent level is much greater around Rodgers.

I dont think the pats are a playoff team without brady. What play makers do they have on offense besides gronk if brady isnt there? A bunch of ok players with a decent defense.

[TD Ryan2 316]

As far is the media is concerned it is AP or Manning. True.

Why?

bc AP is the player that deserves it and Manning is a media darling.

Don't get me wrong - Manning is HOF as are Brady and Rodgers. But Manning is the better story this year.

[listen2me 23 1,924]

I dont think the pats are a playoff team without brady. What play makers do they have on offense besides gronk if brady isnt there? A bunch of ok players with a decent defense.

Well they had almost a 1300 yard runner. Brandon LLoyd has some of the best hands in the league. Welker has been one of the better possession WRs of all time.

 

I mean play makers? Why do you need play makers across the board? Seahawks and Redskins have not many besides their QBs and Lynch for his explosiveness. But Morris is your run of the mill RB with good sense and vision. Boldin who probably would run a 4.9 right now tore it up, is he a playmaker?

[Strike 5,846]

The Ryan argument was contradicting the "Manning has a better record so he's the MVP" argument. I think it's a good point. Record shouldn't be THAT important, especially when you're talking about a 1 or 2 game difference.

 

I agree a case can be made for Brady, Manning, or Rodgers though. I said earlier in the thread that AP deserves the award, after that a case can be made for any of the 3 QBs. My point is basically that as far as the media is concerned, it's AP or Manning. I don't see why Manning is the consensus best QB this year. That's the point I'm arguing. It's the story that leads to this line of thinking and I think that's wrong.

 

I haven't been following the media. I generally don't. I'm generally arguing against the title of this thread: "Why is Manning in serious MVP consideration?". I don't think there's any doubt he should be. But, at the end of the day, I really don't care. Pretty sure Manning doesn't either. He wants a ring for the Broncos, as do I. He already has enough MVP's.

[listen2me 23 1,924]

A mediocre QB could come in and have a good running game. A quick as hell smart slot WR. A beast of a TE and huge target with awesome hands. A WR with some of the best hands in the league which makes you not have to be as accurate throwing to him.

 

Really, their offense would be great for a dumbed down less talented QB. Short passes are better than a downfield passing attack. A lot of good hands and smart players on that team. With a good running game to help out.

 

Maybe they wouldn't be playoffs, but no reason to think they can't go 8-8 or 9-7 in that division.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I haven't been following the media. I generally don't. I'm generally arguing against the title of this thread: "Why is Manning in serious MVP consideration?". I don't think there's any doubt he should be. But, at the end of the day, I really don't care. Pretty sure Manning doesn't either. He wants a ring for the Broncos, as do I. He already has enough MVP's.

 

I agree with that, Strike.

 

[listen2me 23 1,924]

But, at the end of the day, I really don't care. Pretty sure Manning doesn't either. He wants a ring for the Broncos, as do I. He already has enough MVP's.

 

Then why have you posted in this thread for the last I don't know...

 

Ok fine. No MVP talk. We will talk about you and Sux epic gay adventures. Or how hot you are.

 

Mods change the title. Strike is sexy. I give.

[Strike 5,846]

The Ryan argument was contradicting the "Manning has a better record so he's the MVP" argument. I think it's a good point. Record shouldn't be THAT important, especially when you're talking about a 1 or 2 game difference.

 

 

Why isn't Matt Ryan getting more love then if stats don't matter much? He had a better record, they clinched early. He had a good year. Not many times you will have a team do that and not have a MVP level QB? Right?

 

I don't think he was refuting what you think he was refuting. If anything he was arguing that Ryan was more deserving than Manning because he achieved his record earlier than Manning and the Broncos did. And they both had the same record. Again, didn't see you rag on him for arguing for a player who is clearly not in the conversation.

[Strike 5,846]

Then why have you posted in this thread for the last I don't know...

 

 

Something to do in between plays/quarters/games while I'm drinking? Eventually I'll devolve to calling Voltaire or Worms names as the alcohol kicks in. Don't go to sleep early even if it's past your 15 year old bed time.

[listen2me 23 1,924]

I don't think he was refuting what you think he was refuting. If anything he was arguing that Ryan was more deserving than Manning because he achieved his record earlier than Manning and the Broncos did. And they both had the same record. Again, didn't see you rag on him for arguing for a player who is clearly not in the conversation.

 

I was saying exactly what I was saying.

 

Why don't you give Ryan at least a mention if wins are important. He beat him head to head to boot. Would have went 14-2 if they had a reason to play the last week. He had a great record and was a big reason for it. I said clearly that I wasn't saying Ryan should win. I asked why he isn't mentioned, since he met your criteria you laid out for Manning.

[Strike 5,846]

I was saying exactly what I was saying.

 

Why don't you give Ryan at least a mention if wins are important. He beat him head to head to boot. Would have went 14-2 if they had a reason to play the last week. He had a great record and was a big reason for it. I said clearly that I wasn't saying Ryan should win. I asked why he isn't mentioned, since he met your criteria you laid out for Manning.

 

I never laid out any specific criteria.

 

[listen2me 23 1,924]

Strike can we just have a fancy dinner and listen to Andrew Lloyd Webber all night? Maybe Don't Cry For Me Argentina?

 

You win, Mannings neck is bionic and I didn't even give it a mention. It IS valuable. The Broncos will be MUCH better than a 2nd round playoff team this year.

 

I'm sorry. Invites always open, big GUY.

 

[FeelingMN 273]

DOesn't have to be the best stats....who said it did?

 

But when you have the better stats

 

 

Sounds like ARod would give it to Manning too.

 

 

The NFL Most Valuable Player debate is usually left to fans on bar stools or capricious media members creating controversy.

 

Usually the players stay above the fray, giving boilerplate answers that won't end up on another team's bulletin board.

 

 

However, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, the 2011 MVP award winner, jumped into the discussion on Thursday, telling USA Today Sports' Lindsay Jones he understands he isn't in this year's picture, which comes down to "Adrian (Peterson) or Peyton (Manning)."

 

The Packers meet Peterson's Minnesota Vikings Saturday in a rubber match after the destructive running back dashed for 409 yards in the two previous meetings. One would think Rodgers would point to Peterson as his MVP after the back ran for 2,097 yards, if only to butter up the Vikings.

 

However, Rodgers has a larger bias.

 

"You've got to go with the quarterback," he said.

 

Follow Kevin Patra on Twitter @kpatra.

 

 

Focking cheeseheads.

[listen2me 23 1,924]

So you expect a humble man like Rodgers to say he should win?

 

bahahaha

[listen2me 23 1,924]

This comment puts him as the front runner for the Walter Payton Award. Man of the Year. Give it up.

[listen2me 23 1,924]

I don't think Rodgers even watches the games.

 

We've already established it is a prerequisite to voting.

[WhiteWonder 2,859]

Pats with a mediocre substitute QB are 4-12 if they're lucky.

 

i think we've already seen that play out before with Matt Cassel, no? and he wasn't even mediocre.

[redtodd 7]

There is no doubt in my mind the MVP is Adrian Peterson. With Harvin going down, Ponder continuing to regress and all teams putting 8 or 9 guys in the box and Peterson was unstoppable. The Vikings should be a 4 win team and he carried them to the playoffs.

 

While Brady, Manning and Rodgers should be solid choices they do not compare to ADP this year. He was the only non-shitty player on offense, yet he still had one of the best years a RB has ever had.

[Bruce Benedict 0]

i think we've already seen that play out before with Matt Cassel, no? and he wasn't even mediocre.

?

 

That Pats team was was like one play away from being considered the unanimous greatest of all time. (And thank God they lost.) Of course they were still going to look pretty good -- although, of course, nowhere near AS good -- with a Matt Cassel at QB.

 

This one is fighting for relevance even WITH Tom Brady at the helm. With Matt Cassel, they'd blow.

 

Are people seriously incapable of making distinctions between two teams that happened to share similar uniforms, even though they're many years and entire rosters apart? The '76 Raiders were one of the best teams of all time. Does that mean that any QB who shows up for the Raiders next year ought to be no worse than 13-3?