Thank god they got this one right. No other player in the league is more important to his team than Manning. This is not opinion. This is FACT. I don't know why they have a vote. They should give it to him every year before the season starts. I don't care who has these stats and those stats. He is more valuable to his team.
Peyton Manning: 2008 Mvp
- Thread starter robbierobinson
- Start date
G
GlavaMan
robbierobinson said:
I think James Harrison, Albert Haynesworth, Ed Reed would have been worthy candidates as well. Drew Brees, Kurt Warner both were candidates earlier in the year but Brees not making the playoffs and the discrepency in his play at home and on the road eliminated him from contention in my eyes and Kurt Warner's play in december eliminated him from contention in my eyes. The Cardinals were playing like they were on scholarships after they clinched the division.
Peyton Manning deserves the MVP award this year but if your gonna tell me that Drew Brees wasnt as important to his team as Manning was to his then you just havent been watching many football games. Answer me this, how did Drew Brees fall just 16 yards short of breaking Marino's single season passing yards record when no single receiver on the Saints team were even amongst the receiving leaders in the league? Are you also forgetting that Brees was without guys like Colston, Shockey, Bush for significant periods of time? Dont get me wrong. I"m not saying Brees had a better year than Manning. I'm saying Brees was every bit as important to his team as MAnning is to his. Also, if we are talking about players "important to their team", what about AD in Minnesota, Adrian Peterson was just as valuable to the Vikings this year as Peyton was to the Colts.
I just think that QB is the easy pick sometimes. Its easy to just hand out an MVP award to a QB, it doesnt require much thinking.
G
GlavaMan
GlavaMan said:
Definitely, Chad was another worthy candidate if robbierobinson wants to give the MVP to players most important to their team. Chad Pennington was every bit as important to the Dolphins as MAnning was to the Colts. Anyone that doesnt agree probably didnt watch many Dolphins games this season. Yes, I have heard many NFL analyst say that in the true meaning of MVP (players most valuable to their team), guys like Chad Pennington and Matt Ryan would be candidates. I would rather give the MVP to the best player in a season though and I dont have a problem with Peyton winning it but I would argue that Adrian Peterson would have been a worthy candidate as would James Harrison or Ed Reed.
There's a reason why there is Offensive Player of the year and Most Valuable Player of the year. Adrian Peterson and Michael Turner or Drew Brees could be the Offensive Player of the Year but Manning is the most Valuable to his team. We need to remember that Minnesota had a great rushing attack before Adrian Peterson got there. In fact, if you remember correctly, it was somewhat of a surprise that the Vikings even selected him in the draft because of the outstanding year that Chester Taylor had. Peterson is waaaaay better than Taylor but Peterson didn't come in here and change this team....they have what they had without him. AP or Brees for Offensive Player of the year. Brees is not even close to being as valuable to his team than Peyton is. Trust me, the Saints would have missed the playoffs without Brees....wait, they missed them with him too...yikes...not so valuable. The Colts without Manning is what we've seen from the Arizona Cardinals the past 4 years (except this year)...a shitty team with 2 good recievers. I watch 2 games at a time during football season. I also tape 2 more every week and watch them on Mondays so if anyone watches a lot of NFL football it is Robbie Robinson baby. I just know.
robbierobinson said:
Chester Taylor is a very good back and that is the one point that I agree with you on 100%. I have always been a fan of Chester Taylor and in my opinion he could start for many teams in this league. But I dont think this team is a playoff team without Adrian Peterson. Yes it is true that the Saints missed the playoffs even with Brees but my point is Peyton Manning has way more talent around him than Drew Brees, do you not agree? Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Dwight Freeney, Bob Sanders (granted he was in and out of the lineup). Also, I dont have the stats in front of me but Id be willing to bet that Drew Brees receiving corps had more man-games missed due to injury than the Mannings receiving corps. And you can include Reggie Bush in that count since they use him a lot as a receiver out of the backfield.
Would you not agree that Drew Brees did more with less than any other player in the league? That is why I think he is just as important to the Saints as Manning is to the Colts (this year at least). That being said, I still would pick Mannnig over Brees for MVP, as Brees was great at home but only average to good on the road as far as his individual play goes. I am not arguing the selection of Peyton for MVP though. He is definitely a worthy winner. I thought Ed Reed though made a ton of plays for the Ravens too and we gotta remember that its harder to make plays on defense than it is on offense. Its easier for a QB to make plays because other than the centre he is the only guy that touches the ball on every play (excluding single-wing or wildcat or other gadget plays).
But the Saints didn't make the playoffs and probably would still be out of the playoffs, even if they had another quarterback. 4-12 or 8-8 and no playoffs - what's the difference?
There needs to be a cut-off point somewhere. For me, making the playoffs is the first such point.
There needs to be a cut-off point somewhere. For me, making the playoffs is the first such point.
Captain Fantastic said:
Yeah like I said, I am not saying that Brees should win MVP. Maybe I wasnt clear earlier. I would NOT vote for Brees as MVP. Im just saying he is as important to his team as manning was to his, at least this season. If you remove Manning and remove Brees fro mtheir respective teams, each team probably loses x more games , x being the same for both.
And yes I do agree. I too would have a problem handing out an MVP award to a player that didnt make the playoffs. The other problem I have with Brees is the fact that he played like an MVP at home but on the road he just played like a good QB but not an MVP one.
Using this logic though I think a good argument could be made for a guy like Ed Reed who consistently makes game changing plays. I just think that sometimes people ignore defensive players because its not as easy to quantify their value to their team as it is an offensive player like a QB or RB.
I am just playing the devils advocate though. I have no qualms with Peyton winning MVP.
But that's the fine line, isn't it? Manning's Colts won 12 games and are in the playoffs as one of the favourites and Brees' Saints won 8 and missed the playoffs.
Just like the Patriots won 11 games and somehow missed the playoffs and the Cardinals won 9 and the Chargers 8 and both are in - there is a fair bit of luck and circumstances involved.
(As an aside: when are Sean Peyton, Gary Gibbs and Mickey Loomis going to be held accountable for the poor defence in New Orleans? How many years in a row is that now? That's a team that should BEG Gregg Williams to come and do his quick fixer-upper job on their defence as he's done in every other stop.)
Just like the Patriots won 11 games and somehow missed the playoffs and the Cardinals won 9 and the Chargers 8 and both are in - there is a fair bit of luck and circumstances involved.
(As an aside: when are Sean Peyton, Gary Gibbs and Mickey Loomis going to be held accountable for the poor defence in New Orleans? How many years in a row is that now? That's a team that should BEG Gregg Williams to come and do his quick fixer-upper job on their defence as he's done in every other stop.)
Captain Fantastic said:
Man the Saints defense is not good for sure, especially in the secondary. Jason David wasnt as bad in 08 as he was in 07 but he was still not good LOL. Kevin Kaevaeharn is not good either. They also did have some injuries in the secondary. A couple of bright spots, though Sedrick Ellis at DT and Tracy Porter at CB. I was impressed with what I saw from the rookie Porter before he got injured. They need a pass-rushing end as well.
Hey, I'm a Falcons fan though so I hope the Saints dont take your advice. I dont want that defense to improve LOL.
Captain Fantastic said:
As far as playoff format goes. I do think that teams should be rewarded for winning their division with a playoff berth, even if its a bad division. I dont have a real issue with the selection of the playoff teams, my concern is with the seeding of the playoff teams. It doesnt seem just that the Colts are travelling to San Diego and the Falcons are travelling to Arizona. The current system rewards division winners with not only a playoff berth but a top 4 seed as well. They should just take the 4 division winners, the 2 wildcards and sort those 6 teams based on win/loss record.
any thoughts on this? agree/disagree?
I HATE the division-winner-automatically-gets-a-playoff-spot rule. San Diego and the rest of the AFC West dogs don't deserve to be in.ckupets04 said:
How can a team with 3 more wins - in a 16 game season! - like New England be out if the playoffs when a bunch of whiny, poorly-coached, overrated underachievers like the Chargers make it in on the last game of the season because the terribly flawed Broncos team that was ahead of them all season choked?
Ok, I'm all better now.
But if you insist on having a ridiculous format that rewards mediocrity, then yes, you should re-seed the teams in the playoffs based on their record.
Captain Fantastic said:I HATE the division-winner-automatically-gets-a-playoff-spot rule. San Diego and the rest of the AFC West dogs don't deserve to be in.
How can a team with 3 more wins - in a 16 game season! - like New England be out if the playoffs when a bunch of whiny, poorly-coached, overrated underachievers like the Chargers make it in on the last game of the season because the terribly flawed Broncos team that was ahead of them all season choked?
Ok, I'm all better now.
But if you insist on having a ridiculous format that rewards mediocrity, then yes, you should re-seed the teams in the playoffs based on their record.
I hear your point and there was actually a chance that my Falcons could have gone 11-5 and missed the playoffs as well had Dallas and Tampa won their final 2 games, Atlanta even at 11-5 would have been left out and then Id probably feel more the way you do LOL. I think the main reason why it doesnt bother me too much though is that those situations dont arise all the time. 11-5 teams almost always make the playoffs and the 08 Patriots are only the 2nd 11-5 team to miss the playoffs since the league went to a 16 game regular season. And while I agree with you fundamentally I think that IF there are gonna be divisions there has to be some sort of reward for winning it. If we are just gonna take top 6 teams in the conference (which I'm not against by the way) then there really is no need for divisions. If the league wants to go that route they should just scrap the divisions and just have the two conferences. Cause there really is no purpose for divisions unless there is a reward for winning it.
I think the bigger problem is having 4 divisions per conference. I understand the need the divisions for travel, scheduling and rivalry (read: business) purposes, but other than that, divisions are really irrelevant. And to have 8 divisions in total is just overkill, particularly given how dysfunctional the teams in some divisions are, year in and year out... (cough, AFC & NFC West, cough) The old 3 division setup (East, Central, West) was fine for years - not sure what changed that...ckupets04 said:
I'm just waiting for some 7-9 team (will it happen in the AFC or NFC West first?) to make the playoffs and host a first-round game!
The funny thing is, I don't even care about New England per se, I just find it asinine that a garbage team can make the playoffs at the expense of a vastly superior one. I respect the hell out of what the Pats have done and how they've maintained their excellence over 8 seasons in this high-player-turnover, flash-in-the-pan era, but like most others, I find Belichick's schtick a bit much after a while.
Now I can only imagine how P.O.'d I'd be if my Bears were in the same situation...
Walter Payton (R.I.P.) is my first NFL memory as a VERY young fan - still the greatest player I ever watched. Then Mike Singletary (and that rabid defence) and his insane eyes when I became a more knowledgeable fan who actually played the game - I played high school football while still in junior high. (BTW, those late 1980s Bears teams should have won mulitple Super Bowls instead of just one - Ditka was a bad coach and the team had poor offensive talent evaluators.) Since then, it's been pretty bleak with the occasional high(ish) points - man I was thinking upset when Devin Hester returned the opening kickoff in Super Bowl XLI.MLAM said:
Similar threads
