NFL 2005 Season Week 14 Picks

if Barry Sanders was jobbed, than Jamal Lewis was jobbed even worse for not even getting a first place vote when he ran for more yards than Sanders.  And that same year, McNair threw 24 td passes and just over 3000 yards and Peyton Manning's numbers weren't jaw-dropping(good, but not jaw-dropping), and those 2 shared the trophy.  Shouldn't Lewis be upset?

Oh yeah, and the VIkings finished ahead of only the New Orleans Saints and the Charolette Bobcats in the Fan Satisfaction Rating (http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/franchiseRanks).  The Brewers actually were ranked 17th out of all of the major pro sports.

Lewis probably should have gotten more consideration, but by 2003 I think big rushing numbers lost some of their impressiveness (like HRs in baseball lately).  I think I said this the last time this argument came up (probably started by me then as well) but when Sanders ran for 2000 yds, it was only the 3rd time in history and it had been 13 years since the previous 2000 yd rusher.  Besides Sanders himself in 1994, there hadn't even been a 1800 yd rusher since 1986 at that point.  When Lewis got 2000 yds in 2003, he was the 5th person to do so and the 3rd within 7 seasons.  Plus from 1997 to the end of the 2003 season, there were also three 1800 yd rushers.  So while 2000 yds for Lewis was still an accomplishment, I suspect it didn't seem like that big of a deal anymore to the voters.

Also, Manning's 2003 was better than Favre's 1997, and you could make a case that McNair's was as well (he was very efficient that year high yds/attempt and QB rating)

Favre's '97: 35TDs, 3867 yards, 60% comp %, 7.53 yds/attempt

Manning's '03: 29 TDs, 4267 yards, 67%, 7.53 yds/attempt

I don't think Manning's 2003 was better than Favre's 1997 (probably equal, manning may have a slight edge for the sake of argument, but there is no obvious winner), and QB rating is probably the worst rating system in the history of pro sport(since when ins 158.3 a perfect score, the only thingworse in the college qb rating system which can go up infinitly if the conditions are right), but I'll concede that Mannings QB rating in 03 was higher than Favre's in 97.

As far as Favre-Sanders goes....maybe there's an X-factor. maybe because Favre's team when to it's 2nd straight super bowl and he had just won 2 MVPs, compared to Sanders being on a mediocre at best team, they gave the benefit of any doubt to the player that was able to put wins on his teams record books.  Sure the Lions made the Playoffs that year, but the Packers won their 3rd straight NFC Central title, went to their 2nd straight Super Bowl, and Favre's numbers were still comprobable to his previous 2 seasons.  Given Favre and Sanders co-MVP's was the right thing to do.

I chose Palmer because #1, has moreyards and td's than manning, and he doesn't have the team that manning has. Manning has a steller defense that is a big part of the colts undefeated season.  Manning deserves a lot of credit though, as does any 2+ MVP winner.  I didn't really think of Alexander, but he's a good choice too.  I would love to actually see a defensive player win MVP instead of a QB, or how about an O-lineman.  Somebody's got to protect Mannings' blindside.

I secretly hope the Packers lose.  This will be the first time ever that I will hope that Wisconsin picks a Bush.

Speaking of Fair and Balancer:  I was watching a "debate" last night on Fox News with their "political analysts" about issues from the new Patriot Act, Torture, and some other issues.  The only think that I found interesting though was the fact that THE PANEL OF ANALYSTS DID NOTHING BUT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.  One guy says how good it is that we have the Patriot Act and how important it is to renew it, and the other 2 guys basically one-up the guy by saying how much more important it is than the previous guy actually made it out to be.  No desent.  No rebuttal.  No "i don't agree with you".  There was a general consensus it seemed, that Sen. McCain was kind of a phony(he apparently betrays republicans for voicing opposition to the current president) , or that he was overstating the issue of torture in a resent article where he states that torture doesn't work(he gave the names of the Green Bay Packers defensive line when pushed for names of his flight crew).  What's fair and balanced about having 3 panelists and a host who all share the same biased view? Crazy. Go Brewers

the viewing area on the new text box format is too small.

I think Manning, Palmer, Alexander, Edgerrin James, Tomlinson, and Steve Smith probably have the best chance right now.  It'll come down to whatever team does best probably.  An O-lineman will never win MVP, and it looks like there have only been 3 defensive MVPs.  Unless Sharper averages 2 ints and one TD per game for the rest of the year, no defensive player will have a chance.  Personally, if the Panthers win out I'd vote for Smith.  He's pretty much single-handedly carried that offense all year.  The second leading receiver on the team is Foster with 28 catches compared to Smith's 82.  The 3 other receivers on the team have combined for a whopping 47 catches, with an average per catch of 2 yards less then Smith.

I know how it worked out for the Packers to take Mandrich.  They won a Super Bowl with another Hall of Fame player and the Lions were mediocre for the next ten years.

For the record, I called the Gado play in the endzone correctly as soon as it happened.  And sweet, the Packers just blew their chances at the number one pick.

Well, based on my logic, when Favre was drafted by the Falcons, Ron Wolf was GM of the Jets and he called Favre on draft day and told him that if the Falcons didn't draft him that the Jets would take him with the next pick.  Well, the Falcons drafted him, Wolf went to Green Bay the next year and the first thing he did was Hire Holmgren and trade for Favre.  Had the Packers not been a 4-12 team the year before, I doubt that Wolf would have been beckoned to come to Green Bay.  It's possible that the Jets could have ended up with Favre.

This is nothing to get too serious about, but I think the Packers would have been a team just like the Lions after drafting Sanders.  Barry would have given them what it took to win a few division titles, maybe a few playoff games, and keep them good enough that they would not get any good draft picks for a while.  Kind of like how the Packers have been for the past 4 or 5 years, except that the Lions never did get to or win the Super Bowl.

Here is what really would have happened:

The Packers draft Sanders in '89.  The next year (1990) the combined weapons of Barry Sanders and Sterling Sharpe help backup QB Anthony Dilweg to shine in relief of an injured Don Majkowski who is released at the end of the season.  In 1991 the Packers (under Dilweg/Sanders/Sharpe) go 12-4 and win the Super Bowl.  They repeat the next year with a 14-2 regular season record and win 2 more titles before the decade is out (1995, 1997).  Dilweg, while never "Montana/Marino/Elway" great, is good enough (think Phil Simms) and goes onto a Hall of Fame career. 

Sterling Sharpe doesn't injure his neck and plays a full Hall of Fame career.  He is considered by many to be the 3rd best receiver of all time (Rice, C.Carter) when all is said and done, and people refer to Shannon as Sterling's little brother. 

Barry Sanders never has a reason to want out of football and goes on to obliterate Walter Payton's All-Time rushing record, amassing over 20,000 yds and 175 TDs in his career.  He is rightly considered, far and away, the Greatest Running Back of All-Time (screw Jim Brown).  Needless to say he joins Dilweg and Sharpe in Canton.

what is the fate of Favre after all this?

no, I mean what is Favre's fate after the Packers draft Barry Sanders and all of what Matt said has transpired?

Favorer stuck with the Falcons where they only made the playoffs once, in 1998, where they lost to the Vikings in the NFC title game.  The Vikings then went on to win the Super Bowl over the Broncos 43-38.

political-type rant, so you don't have to read this if you don't want to:

How is it that with Bush's approval ratings hovering around 40% or so that Bill O'Reilly still claims that over 95% of America agrees with his opinions.  His percentage of people that he claims agree with him and his viewpoints continues to grow, while the approval ratings for the president he supports and clearly voted for continue to remain quite low.  I understand that O'Reilly makes up most of what he talks about anyway, especially stats, but wouldn't it be more believable to claim that maybe 75% of Americans agree with him rather than 90 or 95%?  Weird.

Are you talking about Reggie Bush's approval ratings?  If you aren't then you should take it to the forum.