Derrick Henry for MVP

[t.j 35]

3 minutes ago, nobody said:

It might be around the 8th bet TD:INT rate ever.  Foles had a 27:2 ratio one year.  I know Rodgers and Brady both had at least one higher than that as well.

Yeah Rodgers' 25:2 in 2018 is obviously a better ratio than 48:5. It's not even close margin-wise, though. Considering both margin and ratio, one could argue it's the best ever.

Also his passer rating of 121.5 was the 2nd best ever, 1 point behind his own record set in 2011. List of National Football League annual passer rating leaders - Wikipedia

[tanatastic 2,061]

Can you believe there are still people ranking Saquon ahead of Henry for next years draft? Saquon can now be considered injury prone and I’d want a part of Titans offense over giants either way. 

[t.j 35]

14 minutes ago, tanatastic said:

Can you believe there are still people ranking Saquon ahead of Henry for next years draft? Saquon can now be considered injury prone and I’d want a part of Titans offense over giants either way. 

RSP said Henry and Chubb were better prospects than Barkley, that dude knows what he's talking about.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

2 hours ago, t.j said:

RSP said Henry and Chubb were better prospects than Barkley, that dude knows what he's talking about.

Prospect-wise, meaning talent.... nah, Barkley is better.  All things being equal, I'd take Barkley over the other two.  He's a more well rounded player.  Barkley's so good that he not only made Eli not look like trash, he made Jones not look like trash.  The Giants win 10 games this year, maybe more, if Barkley stayed healthy.

Now, injuries factored in, that's a different story.  But coming out of college, Barkley was better than both.

[t.j 35]

Barkley is faster but his vision and tackle breaking isn't good enough to put them at their level IMO.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

31 minutes ago, t.j said:

Barkley is faster but his vision and tackle breaking isn't good enough to put them at their level IMO.

I don't know how true that is.  I've never seen any evidence of that, but I'll take your word for it.  I just know that both Tennessee and Cleveland used to have pretty good OLines and the Giants' blew chunks.  Yet, Barkley put up strong numbers making two bad QB's look good.

[polecatt 399]

What we have seen out of Barkley is an outstanding rookie season where all the hype was warranted.

Followed by a decent 2nd season, but certainly not up to the expectations that were there going in. Injuries a bit of a concern.

Then a 3rd season that was a total bust due to serious injury.

Is the potential for him to be a top flight RB1 still there?

I suppose so, but he's starting to remind me of David Johnson. One excellent season followed by years of hype and disappointment.

[polecatt 399]

On 1/3/2021 at 8:32 PM, kilroy69 said:

In a pass heavy league he was a man amongst boys. No qb this year should get it over a rb that had 2k yards. 

I agree, any RB that rushes for 2000 yards in a season deserves the MVP

[weepaws 2,450]

1 hour ago, polecatt said:

What we have seen out of Barkley is an outstanding rookie season where all the hype was warranted.

Followed by a decent 2nd season, but certainly not up to the expectations that were there going in. Injuries a bit of a concern.

Then a 3rd season that was a total bust due to serious injury.

Is the potential for him to be a top flight RB1 still there?

I suppose so, but he's starting to remind me of David Johnson. One excellent season followed by years of hype and disappointment.

I think Barkely just simply needs to stay healthy.  

I can understand the comparison to DJ one and done, but Barkely coming into the nfl they aren’t even close.  

Pretty easy to give up on DJ as a rb1. I wouldn’t when it comes to Barkely.  

[polecatt 399]

13 hours ago, weepaws said:

I think Barkely just simply needs to stay healthy.  

I can understand the comparison to DJ one and done, but Barkely coming into the nfl they aren’t even close.  

Pretty easy to give up on DJ as a rb1. I wouldn’t when it comes to Barkely.  

I'm not saying to give up on him yet. If he's healthy, I'm sure he'll still be an excellent fantasy RB.

The margin for error though is razor thin at this point. Once those injuries start to pile up, not long before they lose a step, then it's the beginning of the end.

[weepaws 2,450]

I think as one ages I would agree, he’s a young player.  

Im not concern with his return.  

I’ll probably have him ranked a little higher than most.  

We’ll see.  

[polecatt 399]

37 minutes ago, weepaws said:

I think as one ages I would agree, he’s a young player.  

Im not concern with his return.  

I’ll probably have him ranked a little higher than most.  

We’ll see.  

I think he's still a first round pick, top 5 perhaps, but I don't see him being the #1 any more

[weepaws 2,450]

I didn’t see him as number one going into any season so far.  

But he’s still a top five I would say to four. 

Right now I’m probably going to say Mccaffery would be the top rb for me.  

[Bills04 45]

I just had a reason to check out the MVP Voting:  Rodgers = 24; J. Allen = 4; P. Mahomes = 2.  NONE for D. Henry and his 2K season..

[weepaws 2,450]

47 minutes ago, Bills04 said:

I just had a reason to check out the MVP Voting:  Rodgers = 24; J. Allen = 4; P. Mahomes = 2.  NONE for D. Henry and his 2K season..

I think zero for Henry just shows how ridiculous any kind of mvp or personal trophies are.  

[jrokh 567]

8 minutes ago, weepaws said:

I think zero for Henry just shows how ridiculous any kind of mvp or personal trophies are.  

Or it reflects how the NFL views the Value of Quarterbacks versus Running backs...

[weepaws 2,450]

7 hours ago, jrokh said:

Or it reflects how the NFL views the Value of Quarterbacks versus Running backs...

Exactly, we agree.  

Makes any mvp awards or any personalized awards worthless. M

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

I think that it's pretty obvious that QB's are virtually always the MVP unless someone puts up a dominating performance.  No, a 2000 yard RB is not a dominating performance when multiple QB's are throwing for 4k yards and 30 TD's... and winning more games.  The year Peterson won the MVP (2012), the best QB's with the best statistical numbers that year was Brees (7-9), Stafford (4-12), and Romo (8-8).  That's why Peterson won.  What Faulk (2000), Alexander (2005), and LT (2006), did in those seasons, was dominating.  That's why they won.  Other than that, it's going to be a QB.

After the post-season, one could arrive at the conclusion that Brady was the MVP.  I mean, he was the reason that a 7-9 team the year before won the Super Bowl.  How much more valuable can you get than a championship?

• Last year, Green Bay won 13 games and lost in the NFC Championship game... this year, they won 13 games and lost the NFC Championship game.  Did Rodgers' performance impact the Packers any differently last year than this year?  The outcomes were identical.
• Last year, Buffalo was 10-6 and lost their first playoff game.  This year, Buffalo was won 3 games more and lost in their second playoff game.  Clearly his performance helped his team.
• Last year, KC won the Super Bowl, this year they lost.  The outcomes were almost similar.
• Last year, Tennessee was 9-7 and won 2 playoff games.  This year they were 11-5 but lost their first playoff game.  The regular season was an improvement, but the post-season was a regression.  You could also make the argument that Tannehill had a bigger impact than Henry.  In the first 6 games with Mariotta, the Titans were 2-4, but 7-3 with Tannehill.  Henry played in all 6 of those games with Mariotta.  Why was the team 2-4 with Henry in those 6 games if he was so valuable?

Between Rodgers, Allen, Mahomes, and Henry... how many of them made a bigger impact on their team from the prior year than Brady?  Doesn't impact = value?  Voting for the MVP is simply a vote based on what QB had the best statistical year.  The reason that it's like that is because of the casual fan... and people like those on this board.  For example, I just gave you the reason why Brady should have won the MVP.  If you sit there and read this and said, "You're nuts, Brady wasn't the MVP", then you're the reason why MVP voting is the way it is, so don't complain.  You're looking at numbers and making a direct correlation between those numbers and value.  You're not looking at the true impact that any player brought.  People can wrap their heads around tangible numbers.  It's easier to explain Rodgers winning the MVP when he completed over 70% of his passes, threw 48 TD's, and 5 Int's and his team won 13 games than it is to argue Brady who completed almost 66% of his passes, threw 40 TD's, and 12 Int's and won 11 games.

Yes, I'm well aware that the Packers, Bills, Chiefs, and Titans would not have been what they were without Rodgers, Allen, Mahomes, and Henry and that they truly are valuable.  But, did they bring more value than Brady?  Brady won the Super Bowl... those other 4 did not.  If you're going to try and sit there and tell me that Brady had a more complete team, I think that's debatable.  What's your metric?  Tampa ranked 8th in points against and 6 in yards against.  Yes, that is better than Green Bay, Buffalo, KC, and Tennessee.  I'd argue that the Bucs only added a rookie safety to their defense.  The Bucs lost their best DT (Vita Vea - yes, he's better than Suh at this point in their careers), in Week 5.  So, a rookie safety minus a star DT was the only real difference on the Bucs defensive roster.  A defense that ranked 29th in points and 15th in yards the year before.  Clearly, Brady's impact affected the defense significantly as well, but there's no stat that can be pointed to that shows that.  I guess the stat would be Brady's 40 TD's and 12 Int's compared to Winston's 33 TD's and 30 Int's the year before could show that.  An argument of just subtracting Winston helped the defense whether Brady had been added or not would be fair, but if Brady wasn't the new guy, how do you know that the defense improves the same way?

Of course, some of you will say something like, "Well, why don't we just wait until after the Super Bowl and give the winning QB that MVP trophy".  You could.  I'm willing to bet that you could make valid arguments in most years.  Last year, Mahomes won the Super Bowl and Jackson won the MVP.  You couldn't make an argument that Mahomes should have gotten the MVP?  I bet we all could.  But really, when you look at the 2018 season, it's clear that Jackson's play impacted the Ravens more than Mahomes' play impacted the Chiefs.  People isolate each year and don't take into account the prior year.  It's easier to look at stats and say "this is the winner", than it is to compare prior years.  Of course, there is some merit to isolating each year and measuring it on it's own accord, but that's how you get the QB with the best stats winning the MVP every year.  Since 2000, a QB has won the MVP 17 times (and the last 8), where as RB's won 4.  Since Lawrence Taylor won in 1986, only a QB (28 times), or RB (8 times), has won.  The reason?  It's easy to explain the best stats from those players to the fans.

I think there is some merit in the QB winning too, isn't there?  Isn't the QB the one position that everyone wants to get right?  Weren't there other threads on this board where we've discussed QB's extensively... about their value and importance?  When did we do that with RB's?  WR's?  We certainly don't talk about OLine's and DLine's... or LB's and DB's.  Yes, I know this board is mainly about fantasy football, but we all talk about the NFL as a whole as well.  Not everything is fantasy driven.  I mean, this thread is an example right?  What fantasy relevance is there in the NFL MVP voting?

[jrokh 567]

13 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think that it's pretty obvious that QB's are virtually always the MVP unless someone puts up a dominating performance.  No, a 2000 yard RB is not a dominating performance when multiple QB's are throwing for 4k yards and 30 TD's... and winning more games.  The year Peterson won the MVP (2012), the best QB's with the best statistical numbers that year was Brees (7-9), Stafford (4-12), and Romo (8-8).  That's why Peterson won.  What Faulk (2000), Alexander (2005), and LT (2006), did in those seasons, was dominating.  That's why they won.  Other than that, it's going to be a QB.

After the post-season, one could arrive at the conclusion that Brady was the MVP.  I mean, he was the reason that a 7-9 team the year before won the Super Bowl.  How much more valuable can you get than a championship?

• Last year, Green Bay won 13 games and lost in the NFC Championship game... this year, they won 13 games and lost the NFC Championship game.  Did Rodgers' performance impact the Packers any differently last year than this year?  The outcomes were identical.
• Last year, Buffalo was 10-6 and lost their first playoff game.  This year, Buffalo was won 3 games more and lost in their second playoff game.  Clearly his performance helped his team.
• Last year, KC won the Super Bowl, this year they lost.  The outcomes were almost similar.
• Last year, Tennessee was 9-7 and won 2 playoff games.  This year they were 11-5 but lost their first playoff game.  The regular season was an improvement, but the post-season was a regression.  You could also make the argument that Tannehill had a bigger impact than Henry.  In the first 6 games with Mariotta, the Titans were 2-4, but 7-3 with Tannehill.  Henry played in all 6 of those games with Mariotta.  Why was the team 2-4 with Henry in those 6 games if he was so valuable?

Between Rodgers, Allen, Mahomes, and Henry... how many of them made a bigger impact on their team from the prior year than Brady?  Doesn't impact = value?  Voting for the MVP is simply a vote based on what QB had the best statistical year.  The reason that it's like that is because of the casual fan... and people like those on this board.  For example, I just gave you the reason why Brady should have won the MVP.  If you sit there and read this and said, "You're nuts, Brady wasn't the MVP", then you're the reason why MVP voting is the way it is, so don't complain.  You're looking at numbers and making a direct correlation between those numbers and value.  You're not looking at the true impact that any player brought.  People can wrap their heads around tangible numbers.  It's easier to explain Rodgers winning the MVP when he completed over 70% of his passes, threw 48 TD's, and 5 Int's and his team won 13 games than it is to argue Brady who completed almost 66% of his passes, threw 40 TD's, and 12 Int's and won 11 games.

Yes, I'm well aware that the Packers, Bills, Chiefs, and Titans would not have been what they were without Rodgers, Allen, Mahomes, and Henry and that they truly are valuable.  But, did they bring more value than Brady?  Brady won the Super Bowl... those other 4 did not.  If you're going to try and sit there and tell me that Brady had a more complete team, I think that's debatable.  What's your metric?  Tampa ranked 8th in points against and 6 in yards against.  Yes, that is better than Green Bay, Buffalo, KC, and Tennessee.  I'd argue that the Bucs only added a rookie safety to their defense.  The Bucs lost their best DT (Vita Vea - yes, he's better than Suh at this point in their careers), in Week 5.  So, a rookie safety minus a star DT was the only real difference on the Bucs defensive roster.  A defense that ranked 29th in points and 15th in yards the year before.  Clearly, Brady's impact affected the defense significantly as well, but there's no stat that can be pointed to that shows that.  I guess the stat would be Brady's 40 TD's and 12 Int's compared to Winston's 33 TD's and 30 Int's the year before could show that.  An argument of just subtracting Winston helped the defense whether Brady had been added or not would be fair, but if Brady wasn't the new guy, how do you know that the defense improves the same way?

Of course, some of you will say something like, "Well, why don't we just wait until after the Super Bowl and give the winning QB that MVP trophy".  You could.  I'm willing to bet that you could make valid arguments in most years.  Last year, Mahomes won the Super Bowl and Jackson won the MVP.  You couldn't make an argument that Mahomes should have gotten the MVP?  I bet we all could.  But really, when you look at the 2018 season, it's clear that Jackson's play impacted the Ravens more than Mahomes' play impacted the Chiefs.  People isolate each year and don't take into account the prior year.  It's easier to look at stats and say "this is the winner", than it is to compare prior years.  Of course, there is some merit to isolating each year and measuring it on it's own accord, but that's how you get the QB with the best stats winning the MVP every year.  Since 2000, a QB has won the MVP 17 times (and the last 8), where as RB's won 4.  Since Lawrence Taylor won in 1986, only a QB (28 times), or RB (8 times), has won.  The reason?  It's easy to explain the best stats from those players to the fans.

I think there is some merit in the QB winning too, isn't there?  Isn't the QB the one position that everyone wants to get right?  Weren't there other threads on this board where we've discussed QB's extensively... about their value and importance?  When did we do that with RB's?  WR's?  We certainly don't talk about OLine's and DLine's... or LB's and DB's.  Yes, I know this board is mainly about fantasy football, but we all talk about the NFL as a whole as well.  Not everything is fantasy driven.  I mean, this thread is an example right?  What fantasy relevance is there in the NFL MVP voting?

MVP is a regular season award. Postseason is irrelevant. Rodgers was better than Brady in the regular season by a huge margin. Thus he won the award. Should the MVP include the postseason? Perhaps, but it doesn’t so again not relevant to the argument...

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

1 minute ago, jrokh said:

MVP is a regular season award. Postseason is irrelevant. Rodgers was better than Brady in the regular season by a huge margin. Thus he won the award. Should the MVP include the postseason? Perhaps, but it doesn’t so again not relevant to the argument...

In the regular season, Rodgers won 13 games.  He won 13 the year before.  Did his play really impact the team any different last year to this year?  Tampa won 7 in 2019 and 11 in 2020.  Brady clearly had a bigger impact... no?

[weepaws 2,450]

Packers won 6 games In 2018 they won 13 games in 2019, Rogers posted almost the exact same numbers both seasons.  

[jrokh 567]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

In the regular season, Rodgers won 13 games.  He won 13 the year before.  Did his play really impact the team any different last year to this year?  Tampa won 7 in 2019 and 11 in 2020.  Brady clearly had a bigger impact... no?

No, that's not how it works, but you know that. By that logic and standard, if say Deshaun Watson got traded to the Jets, he would be a heavy favorite for MVP, as it wouldn't be a stretch to say the team would improve by 5-7 games. Also a guy like Patrick Mahomes would have to go 16-0 to even have a prayer of being considered. But that's not how MVP has ever been calculated. It's not like the vote was close, Rodgers won by a landslide. 2 years ago the Packers had one of the top Defenses and Running games in the league. That's how they won 13 games. Rodgers was fine, but didn't carry the team, and wasn't even in the MVP consideration. This year, The defense and running game took major steps backwards and Rodgers played lights out (except against your Bucs), carrying the team on his back to those 13 wins. Each season is different and while I'm sure voters notice if a new QB comes in and the team's play and win totals are lifted, it's just one factor of many they consider. I know you love your home cooking, but this year's MVP isn't remotely controversial...

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

4 minutes ago, jrokh said:

No, that's not how it works, but you know that. By that logic and standard, if say Deshaun Watson got traded to the Jets, he would be a heavy favorite for MVP, as it wouldn't be a stretch to say the team would improve by 5-7 games. Also a guy like Patrick Mahomes would have to go 16-0 to even have a prayer of being considered. But that's not how MVP has ever been calculated. It's not like the vote was close, Rodgers won by a landslide. 2 years ago the Packers had one of the top Defenses and Running games in the league. That's how they won 13 games. Rodgers was fine, but didn't carry the team, and wasn't even in the MVP consideration. This year, The defense and running game took major steps backwards and Rodgers played lights out (except against your Bucs), carrying the team on his back to those 13 wins. Each season is different and while I'm sure voters notice if a new QB comes in and the team's play and win totals are lifted, it's just one factor of many they consider. I know you love your home cooking, but this year's MVP isn't remotely controversial...

I never said Rodgers wasn't deserving.  In fact, if you look on the 1st page, I had Rodgers #1 and Brady #4, so don't give me this crap about being a homer.  Because, that's how it works.  They vote for the QB who had the best stats who was on one of the best teams.  It's because people like you aren't capable of looking past the numbers.  Green Bay's defense wasn't all that much different between last year and this year.  They were 13th in pts against this year, 9th last year.  They were 9th in yards against last year and 18th the year before.  How did their running take a major step backwards?  In 2019, they rushed for 1800 yards and 18 TD, this year they ran for 2100 yards and 2 TD's.  The defenses were similar and the their running game a best was similar, if not better this year than last year.

I didn't say the vote was controversial, because I said, I know how it works.  I've said it multiple times.  They take the QB who had the best stats of a team that won a lot of games.  Rodgers falls into that category.  That's the way it goes.  @Bills04 wrote yesterday about Henry getting 0 votes.  My post was pretty much stating why he didn't get any.  In the link I gave, I even had Henry #3 ahead of Brady.  But, later on I stated that Henry shouldn't get any votes... and that's what happened.  Of the 3 players who got votes, I had all of them in my "revised" top 4 (so to speak, after removing Henry from the equation), so yeah, I think I have a pretty good idea how it works.

[polecatt 399]

18 hours ago, Bills04 said:

I just had a reason to check out the MVP Voting:  Rodgers = 24; J. Allen = 4; P. Mahomes = 2.  NONE for D. Henry and his 2K season..

That's ridiculous!

If he didn't win it, fine, I think he should have, but it's hard to go against a QB these days.

No votes though? That's insane!

[AxeElf 787]

Let's just say that Derrick Henry was the most valuable player in the NFL, and that Rodgers won the MVP award.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

Year in and year out, the NFL proves that RB's are not as valuable to their team as QB's, that's why they don't get the votes.  When was the last time a top 10 NFL RB was on a team that won the Super Bowl?  Lynch in 2014?  Since then, I think a top 10 QB won every year except one.  Go back to 2000.  Marshall Faulk and Marshawn Lynch.  That's probably the only two.  Corey Dillon I think was on one or two of those Patriots teams early on, but I think the Pats already won 2 with Brady before he even got there.  In that time frame you have Brady, both Manning's, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Warner, and Brees win Super Bowls.  For every Dilfer, Flacco, Foles, and B. Johnson who won, you have a Faulk, Dillon, or Lynch.  What... 17 top 10 QB's and 4 top 10 RB's?

I don't know why people still seem to think RB's have a huge value, regardless of how many yards they put up.  No matter how great of an RB your team has, you're going as far as your QB takes you.  Period.  That's why Henry got 0 votes.  Seattle ranked 15th in points against and 22nd in yards... they finished with a 12-4 record.  How many votes did he get?  I'll take Wilson on my team over Henry, and so would everyone else.

[weepaws 2,450]

4 hours ago, polecatt said:

That's ridiculous!

If he didn't win it, fine, I think he should have, but it's hard to go against a QB these days.

No votes though? That's insane!

Agreed. 

[polecatt 399]

4 hours ago, AxeElf said:

Let's just say that Derrick Henry was the most valuable player in the NFL, and that Rodgers won the MVP award.

If Rodgers is in the conversation, he's usually going to win it, he's overrated

[Ray_T 587]

On 1/8/2021 at 11:10 PM, weepaws said:

I think Barkely just simply needs to stay healthy.  

I can understand the comparison to DJ one and done, but Barkely coming into the nfl they aren’t even close.  

Pretty easy to give up on DJ as a rb1. I wouldn’t when it comes to Barkely.  

this.

The RB position takes  more of a pounding than any other fantasy relevant posiion.    it isnt  unusual to have injuries  at RB.

worth  noting, it  often takes up  to 2 full years to totally recover  from  an  ACL.   Some do it in one,  but that is  the  exception not  the rule.

[t.j 35]

The reason Tennessee only won 9 games is because their defense was a sieve. The Titans' offense was just as good as Green Bay's.

[t.j 35]

On 2/22/2021 at 10:25 AM, AxeElf said:

Let's just say that Derrick Henry was the most valuable player in the NFL, and that Rodgers won the MVP award.

Henry won Offensive Player of the Year, which is the way these things typically go.