NFL 2011 Season Week 17 Picks

Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

These are not our most current picks!
Our freshest batch of picks are the NFL 2014 Season Week 5 Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Bills 21 @ Patriots 49
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
1 Pick - 6% 17 Picks - 94%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
49ers 34 @ Rams 27
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
18 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
Buccaneers 24 @ Falcons 45
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 18 Picks - 100%
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Panthers 17 @ Saints 45
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
1 Pick - 6% 17 Picks - 94%
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Lions 41 @ Packers 45
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
7 Picks - 39% 11 Picks - 61%
Packers
Packers
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Packers
Packers
Bears 17 @ Vikings 13
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
9 Picks - 50% 9 Picks - 50%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Redskins 10 @ Eagles 34
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 18 Picks - 100%
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Cowboys 14 @ Giants 31
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
1 Pick - 6% 17 Picks - 94%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Titans 23 @ Texans 22
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
6 Picks - 33% 12 Picks - 67%
Texans
Texans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Texans
Texans
Colts 13 @ Jaguars 19
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
8 Picks - 44% 10 Picks - 56%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Steelers 13 @ Browns 9
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
18 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Ravens 24 @ Bengals 16
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
12 Picks - 67% 6 Picks - 33%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Bengals
Bengals
Ravens
Ravens
Jets 17 @ Dolphins 19
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 12:00pm
10 Picks - 56% 8 Picks - 44%
Jets
Jets
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Chargers 38 @ Raiders 26
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 3:15pm
6 Picks - 32% 13 Picks - 68%
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chiefs 7 @ Broncos 3
Final
Sun, 1/1/12 3:15pm
7 Picks - 37% 12 Picks - 63%
Broncos
Broncos
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Broncos
Broncos
Seahawks 20 @ Cardinals 23
final overtime
Sun, 1/1/12 3:15pm
14 Picks - 74% 5 Picks - 26%
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Cardinals
Cardinals
Week Record10 - 6
0.625
12 - 4
0.750
11 - 5
0.688
12 - 4
0.750
Season Record160 - 96
0.625
146 - 110
0.570
160 - 96
0.625
173 - 83
0.676
Scotttime Record989 - 601
0.622
953 - 637
0.599
987 - 603
0.621
1007 - 583
0.633
Lifetime Record1666 - 991
0.627
1564 - 1093
0.589
1657 - 1000
0.624
1666 - 991
0.627
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Vikings
Eagles
Cowboys
Texans
Jaguars
Steelers
Bengals
Jets
Raiders
Chiefs
Cardinals

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:163 - 93
0.637
Lifetime:1003 - 582
0.633
2887.gif
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Jaguars
Steelers
Bengals
Jets
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:162 - 94
0.633
Lifetime:982 - 606
0.618
goodlooking.jpg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Lions
Vikings
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Colts
Steelers
Ravens
Dolphins
Raiders
Chiefs
Cardinals

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:155 - 100
0.608
Lifetime:879 - 577
0.604
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Bills
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Lions
Vikings
Eagles
Giants
Titans
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Dolphins
Raiders
Chiefs
Cardinals

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:177 - 79
0.691
Lifetime:782 - 469
0.625
me.png
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Lions
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Titans
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Jets
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:171 - 85
0.668
Lifetime:554 - 347
0.615
skull full.jpg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Jaguars
Steelers
Bengals
Jets
Raiders
Chiefs
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:67 - 34
0.663
Lifetime:140 - 78
0.642
IMG_498362853876.jpeg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Colts
Steelers
Ravens
Dolphins
Raiders
Chiefs
Cardinals

Week:13 - 3
0.812
Season:162 - 94
0.633
Lifetime:490 - 299
0.621
question_mark.gif
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Vikings
Eagles
Giants
Titans
Jaguars
Steelers
Bengals
Dolphins
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:129 - 78
0.623
Lifetime:414 - 249
0.624
Me at sams.jpg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Colts
Steelers
Ravens
Dolphins
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:129 - 71
0.645
Lifetime:267 - 170
0.611
hambone.jpg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Lions
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Jets
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:170 - 86
0.664
Lifetime:337 - 186
0.644
077.JPG
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Colts
Steelers
Bengals
Jets
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:163 - 93
0.637
Lifetime:258 - 162
0.614
IMG003.jpg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Jets
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:169 - 87
0.660
Lifetime:248 - 130
0.656
ColorTouch.jpg
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Saints
Packers
Bears
Eagles
Giants
Texans
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Jets
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:140 - 86
0.620
Lifetime:140 - 86
0.620
question_mark.gif
Patriots
49ers
Falcons
Panthers
Lions
Vikings
Eagles
Giants
Titans
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Jets
Chargers
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:144 - 81
0.640
Lifetime:144 - 81
0.640
krystal.jpg
BUF @ NE - No Pick
SF @ STL - No Pick
TB @ ATL - No Pick
CAR @ NO - No Pick
DET @ GB - No Pick
CHI @ MIN - No Pick
WAS @ PHI - No Pick
DAL @ NYG - No Pick
TEN @ HOU - No Pick
IND @ JAC - No Pick
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
BAL @ CIN - No Pick
NYJ @ MIA - No Pick
Raiders
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:0 - 3
0.000
Season:7 - 10
0.412
Lifetime:7 - 10
0.412
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Lions 41 @ Packers 45

sarah.jpg
Sarah
As long as nobody gets hurt, I'm happy.
jon.jpg
Jon
14 personal foul penalties in this game.

Bears 17 @ Vikings 13

sarah.jpg
Sarah
As long as nobody gets hurt, I'm happy.
jon.jpg
Jon
Week 17 is usually full of surprises but nothing would surprise me much in this one.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/28/2011 @ 09:10:31 AM
 Quote this comment
Here's some quick stastical Analysis of the guys most people are talking about for MVP, Brady, Rodgers, and Brees

Stats: INT, Multi INT games, passing TDs, Passing Yards, Yards per attempt, Passing Rating, ESPN's QBR
Brady: 11, 3, 65.6, 36, 4897, 8.5, 105.1, 87.5
Brees:13, 5, 70.7 41, 5087, 8.18 108.4, 82.7
Rodgers: 6, 0, 68.3, 45, 4643, 9.25, 122.5, 85.2

Brees leads in completion percentage and yards, Rodgers leads in fewest interceptions, touchdowns, yards per attempt, Passer rating, and QBR. He is more efficient in terms of yards per attempt, and touchdowns per attempt, and he has thrown 39 more touchdowns than interceptions. That's a higher total than any other QB has total touchdowns other than Brees. So those are the facts, I'll leave my opinion out of it for now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/28/2011 @ 11:04:33 AM
 Quote this comment
And it should be noted that Brees will have played 11 games in a dome this season, while Rodgers has played 3 in a dome.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 12/28/2011 11:05:29 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
12/29/2011 @ 08:39:25 AM
 Quote this comment
Since when do you think leading in the most statistical categories is meaningful in an MVP debate?emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
12/29/2011 @ 09:29:43 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, if you are refering to my point of view regarding the baseball MVP debate, I should say that my criteria actually is fairly inline with my baseball criteria. Rodgers is clearly better, if not marginally, statistically. But really, since both teams are contenders in the NFC, the wins thing doesn't really matter all that much, and then statistical analysis is the primary focus. Rodgers has played one game all season that could be considered "sub-par" (the Chiefs game), and even in that game he scored 2 touchdowns and didn't turn the ball over. Statistically Rodgers has been better than Brees, and once you decide that, you get to some of the icing on the cake like the fact that Rodgers has no games this year with more than 1 interception, or that his yards per attempt is more than a yard greater than Brees. In any other year, Brees is the MVP. This year however, it's hard to argue against Rodgers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
12/29/2011 @ 10:12:44 AM
 Quote this comment
It's probably going to come down to tds, picks, and yards.* Rodger's 6 picks are impressive but I think you could make a good case for the guy where one of those numbers is an often talked about, almost 30 year old, NFL record. Especially if Brees can close the TD gap a couple on Sunday. (By which I of course mean break his leg.)

*I'm not basing that on much obviously. I just see football guys flipping a coin before they let yards per attempt, or multi interception games, decide it, though they might bring those things up to cover up the fact that the real tie breaker was they liked Rodgers' TD dance better, or something.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 12/29/2011 10:46:27 am
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
12/29/2011 @ 10:46:30 AM
 Quote this comment
You could make that case. We all know no one really cares about records in football. If that were the case, Favre would be hands down the all time best QB by anyone's standard, and by a wide margin. But we all know that isn't the case. Rodgers and Brees have both had exceptional years. Both have put up outstanding numbers. But when all is said and done, you can really only point to one game out of the entire season for Rodgers and say "man, he didn't play his best in that game" (the Chiefs game), and you could probably point to 3 for Brees where the same could be said. (Rodgers has one game with a passer rating under 85, Brees has 3 (2 of which were under 75), Rodgers 0 multi interception games, Brees 5).

Both guys had outstanding seasons. If it weren't for Brees, Rodgers would be the runaway MVP. If it weren't for Rodgers, Brees would be the runaway MVP. But because of that, and because it's hard to predict a tie, I'd bet that Rodgers gets it, because statistically he's had a better season.

*edit: I noted multi interception games and yards per attempt as "icing on the cake". I too don't think those would be the primary factor. But when you decide that both have made pretty good cakes, which one has the better presentation may well be the deciding factor.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 12/29/2011 10:48:36 am
jon.jpgJon - infinity + 1 posts
12/30/2011 @ 02:43:10 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 12/28/2011 @ 09:10:31 AM
Here's some quick stastical Analysis of the guys most people are talking about for MVP, Brady, Rodgers, and Brees


You forgot Tebow.

Scott Wrote - 12/28/2011 @ 09:10:31 AM

Stats: INT, Multi INT games, passing TDs, Passing Yards, Yards per attempt, Passing Rating, ESPN's QBR
Brady: 11, 3, 65.6, 36, 4897, 8.5, 105.1, 87.5
Brees:13, 5, 70.7 41, 5087, 8.18 108.4, 82.7
Rodgers: 6, 0, 68.3, 45, 4643, 9.25, 122.5, 85.2


You gave the numbers for what I'm assuming is completion percentage, but you didn't say so. Also, last I looked, Rodgers did have a better QBR, but according to the figures you gave, Brady has a better one. I assume it's a typo on the Brady stat.

Scott Wrote - 12/28/2011 @ 11:04:33 AM
And it should be noted that Brees will have played 11 games in a dome this season, while Rodgers has played 3 in a dome.


Should that be noted?

Can we also note that Brees is older and shorter?

As for my prediction (yes, the wait is finally over), I think Rodgers will win it. And I suppose he probably should.

MVP voting is a strange phenomenon. Or maybe it's just player/team evaluation in general. All year we've been hearing how Rodgers has been having "the greatest season by a quarterback ever." And I guess you could make that case at that time and maybe even now if you were so inclined. But it just got said over and over again. But at the end of the year, there will very likely be two quarterbacks who finish with more yards passing. And one has a better completion percentage and the other's is lower, but still comparable. Those numbers are not the be-all-end-all, but when factored into the overall picture, it doesn't really jive with the perception we've been offered by the analysts most of the year. Maybe it's my perception of the perception that's wrong, but from the talk alone, I'd have guessed there'd be a near-Ruthian gap between Rodgers' numbers and the numbers of everyone else. (I'm hoping I coined a phrase there.)

It reminds me a bit of USC a few years ago. ESPN could not wait the month between the regular season and the championship game to proclaim them as one of the absolute best teams in history. They even got specific about it and told us all of the teams from years ago who didn't stack up to that USC team. Then Texas beat them in the National Championship game and showed that there wasn't even a gap between them and another team that very same year who wasn't mentioned at all in their talks of the best ever. Not a perfect analogy to this situation, but it feels similar in some ways.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/30/2011 @ 08:09:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Brady's QBR is 77. It was a typo.

And to Jon's point about Rodgers' season being dubbed the greatest ever while probably 2 others will have more yards than him. It's a valid point. As of a few weeks ago they all were on a similar pace yardage wise. I think a big thing is the fact that Rodgers has done more overall. He has a lot of yards, more touchdowns, half the interceptions, higher efficiency numbers (yards per attempt), fewer sub-par games. Basically, It took until week 14 for Rodgers to have a non-stellar game, and even still that game wasn't terrible. He set an NFL record for most consecutive games with a passer rating above 100 or 110 or whatever the number was (I'm not huge on passer rating in general, but it's probably still worth pointing out). I think it got to a point where people were saying "he's having the best year ever" so much that it would take a long fall on Rodgers part or someone completely obliterating everything he did this year to make people change their minds. Rodgers never fell, and no one surpassed him.

For the record, if the roles were reveresed and it was rodgers with the passing yards record and Brees with Rodgers stats, I would probably be on the side of "Rodgers has the passing yards record, clearly he's the greatest". I would be wrong in thinking that, but I can't deny that I would be thinking it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 08:10:00 AM
 Quote this comment
And of course Brees throws 5 touchdowns and ends up with 1 more TD than Rodgers for the season (3 of the TDs yesterday were essentially "we are trying to pad Brees's stats so that he'll win the MVP"). Either way, I hope that the fact that Rodgers didn't play in a meaningless game doesn't hurt him too much in MVP voting. The way Flynn played, I think Rodgers would have had a pretty good day too (and I'm not saying voters should assume that Rodgers would have played well, but just from my perspective Rodgers could have ended the year with 50 TDs if he had played).

Basically, Brees came on strong at the end with 14 touchdown passes in his last 3 games (essentially running up the score each week. Which is ok, I suppose, but let's call it what it is). Should Rodgers be punished because he was so good all season that he didn't need to play the final week?

And I think the argument that somehow the fact that Flynn did well hurts Rodgers' chances is ridiculous. If he had the best year, then he had the best year. Anyway, the votes are due in today.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 01/02/2012 8:19:12 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 12:15:04 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't think flynns performance impacting Rodgers is crazy. I mean yeah, if he had a good year, he had a good year. However the fact that the best quarterbacked game of the season wasn't Rodgers taints his stats a bit. Is Rodgers even this good, or are his numbers the result of the people around him? It obvious at this point, if it wasn't already, that it's at best 50/50. Half of other qbs INTs come from the wr end. The packers drop 3 passes in a game and you guys wonder what the hell went wrong. Most teams have 3 a drive.

Brees finished with the most tds, and more yards and completions that anyone ever, and led the #1 offense, ever. The only case for Rodgers now is ints, and the fact that a ton of ppl may have pre decided the MVP in week 6.

No, Rodgers shouldn't be "punished" for sitting out, but players start to maintain records and such all the time. It's not like Brees' didn't throw thoose tds.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
01/02/2012 @ 12:18:19 PM
 Quote this comment
To put it another way, I think it was very close going into Week 17, but probably Rodgers' to lose, and he lost it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
01/02/2012 @ 12:30:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:15:04 PM

The only case for Rodgers now is ints, and the fact that a ton of ppl may have pre decided the MVP in week 6.


Highest rated passer ever. Highest QBR this season. less than half the interceptions than Brees, more TDs per game. all the while producing more points and fewer turnovers, and higher yards per attempt than Brees but doing it in fewer passing attempts. Team has more wins? His team didn't lose to a 2 win team? The only case for Rodgers is ints? Really? I'm not saying the Rodgers is still a lock to get the MVP, but I'm not sure that he lost it, or at least he shouldn't have.

I'm also not saying that somehow Brees' numbers are tainted in anyway because his coach was classless and ran up the score in the last 3 weeks just to make his QB look better. I'm just saying that it is pretty obvious that this is what happened, and it doesn't necessarily make his season any more impressive.*

*Edit: I'm not discreditting Brees because of this, but I'm not also not crediting him that much either.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 01/02/2012 12:36:57 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 12:52:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Peter King explains his vote for Rodgers. It turns out, Peter King took a lot of the exact same things into consideration that I mentioned with my stats breakdown from earlier. Apparently do think these things through.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
01/02/2012 @ 12:52:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Yes, but he has the highest rating almost primarily from putting up similar numbers such a low interception total, as I think they're the biggest part of that formula. I hate the better team argument. (And the Packers are by record only anyway)

Also, if you're going to play the 'more team points' (the difference offensively was 1 TD) card you can't just ignore that Rodgers had nothing to do with 45 of them.

I didn't mean to sound so dismissive re:ints. That's an amazingly low INT rate for those other numbers. I just think that's the case you have to make for him, at this point.

Also, I don't know if the Saints "ran up the score" to get Brees the yards record. Breaking the record was a done deal at that point, barring the team plane going down before week 17. I think wanting to set that mark at home, on national tv, was a reasonable move. It only necessarily resulted in a td because they ran out of field. Likewise, even if the Saints staff made a concious effort to win Brees the MVP, he still had to actually do it. The numbers for the last 4th of the season don't somehow count less than the first 4 weeks, just because you were purposely trying to score.

That said, Rodgers will win, because people seem to have decided forever ago that they just want him to win.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
01/02/2012 @ 12:59:30 PM
 Quote this comment
One thing King points out (and he is by no means the end all be all authority on the matter), is that he doesn't care about stats that result from blowouts. Both Brees and Rodgers had them. Although he doesn't point out that the QBs are simply executing the plays that are being called, so you're right, just because the coach might be calling bombs as the end of the game, the QB still has to execute.

And also to the point that Flynn's performance affects Rodgers, King points out (correctly, I believe) that how do we that the Saints backup doesn't jump in and play well too. I think it's unfair (although probably not unexplainable) to discredit Rodgers slightly just because his backup played well.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
01/02/2012 @ 01:03:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:52:07 PM
Peter King explains his vote for Rodgers. It turns out, Peter King took a lot of the exact same things into consideration that I mentioned with my stats breakdown from earlier. Apparently do think these things through.



And I disagree with every one of the 4 points he made.

Essentially his point is. "Sure Brees was better statistically in a reward that should be decided by stats, but here's the assinine twisting of logic that I really reached on to talk myself into something I pre-decided weeks ago:"

I assume point 5 was he like Rodgers' TD move better, but he removed it.

Penalizing a QB because he "only" put up the big numbers when passing more is crazy, baffingly, stupid. Maybe Rodgers throws 3 more ints if he has 150 more attempts. But no, lets only adjust the numbers one way, and pretend like more passing attempts is somehow a bad thing in the first place. Sure this guy had twice as many stikeouts as this other guy, but only cause he was asked to pitch in twice as many innings!!

It's clear to me Peter King wanted Rodgers, and found evidence to support his conclusion, rather than the other way around, and this is why Rodgers will win.

His points were:
1) Better record
2) Multi-intercetption games
3) I'm ignoring stats
4) The Packers beat the Saints 17 weeks ago (by 2 yards)

I mean........come on. Even a Packer fan has to admit that, at the very least, his argument of WHY was weak as hell. Multi interception games is the only thing that came close to actually even comparing the two QB's, and that is one really lame ass stat. I mean, why not compare the two of them on in the 3rd quarter of games that fell on odd numbered days.

If you have to go THAT weak to find what you consider a tie breaker...then it's a tie, at worse.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/02/2012 1:12:34 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 01:14:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:03:43 PM

It's clear to me Peter King wanted Rodgers, and found evidence to support his conclusion, rather than the other way around, and this is why Rodgers will win.

Now you're assuming that is no reasonable way to support Rodgers for MVP. If Rodgers wins it isn't just because writers want him to win and cannot find any evidence other than their own wishes, as you are suggesting, or rather blatantly saying.

Rodgers played 14 near perfect games, and one game that he was less than perfect (while still not turning the ball over). Brees played 13 near perfect games, but 3 games that were rather suspect. The fact is, Rodgers played better in more games than Brees did.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 01/02/2012 1:17:37 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 01:15:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, I've never been a fan of Peter King (although I "like" him on facebook for some reason). He was just the first writer I found that published his MVP vote.

I don't think he's ignoring stats as much as is trying to discount outliers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 01/02/2012 1:16:37 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
01/02/2012 @ 01:16:37 PM
 Quote this comment
502/6 = 83.7 passes per interception
657/14 = 46.9

It could go to either guy and I don't really care that much. It did sound like he was talking himself into Rodgers and a lot of voters probably did make up their mind weeks ago. That being said, I think there's still a reasonable case to be made to still vote for Rodgers. He wasn't great in the loss to the Chiefs, but besides that game he almost never made a mistake. After having watched Favre for so long with his great play to win the game one week and a seriously wtf interception to lose a game the next week, Rodgers was super efficient at avoiding costly mistakes this year while still putting up huge numbers. So King's one point about Brees throwing costly interceptions in their losses I think is an important consideration.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 01:20:58 PM
 Quote this comment
Brees threw an interception almost once every game. Rodgers threw an interception less once every other game (and never more than once in the same game), and never at critical, nonovercomeable times.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 01/02/2012 1:23:17 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 01:51:28 PM
 Quote this comment
I didn't say there was "no reason," just that King's largely aren't. Point 1a (records) was stupid. 1b and 2 are the same stat. 3 is a non point. 4 is such a weak argument, made especially stupid by the fact that Brees had a better game in that game, on the road. (Both 3 tds, no ints, Brees with > 100 more yards)

If you wanted to make a case why the INTs alone are enough of a reason, I might not agree with the conclusion, but the argument might at least be sound.

1) INTs aren't just a number you can subtract. A QB that turns the ball over less is more important than how the team scores once they're down there. A team might score anyway if their QB doesn't get the passing TD, they can't score on that drive if he turns the ball over.
2) Brees has 5 multi interception games, and Rodgers had zero, so Brees more often put his team in a position to lose a game.
3) More importantly, here are 2 specific examples in which an INT was directly responsible for the Saints losing.

And so on. Those are arguments, although even then you have to be careful about the fact that you're taking multiple angles on one point, and not making multiple points.

King's argument was weaksauce. He admitted he really had no stats based reason to conclude his conclusion, in a couple places, and then grasped at any point he could make. If Brees out dualing Rodgers in a game his team lost, 17 weeks ago, is in your top 3 "actual" reasons to give it to Rodgers, and you avoid stats like the plague, except of course for the coveted and oft referred to "multi int games" stat, then you have to go tie, at best, in my opinion.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/02/2012 1:54:01 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - 3588 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 01:57:57 PM
 Quote this comment
For the purely stats based approach, check this out:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

By total stats (DYAR) it's Brees, Rodgers, Brady. By per play stats (DVOA), it's Rodgers, Brady, Brees.

Combined ranking: Rodgers (3), Brees (4), Brady (5).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 02:04:14 PM
 Quote this comment
This is MVP of the season, not of the last 8 games. I agree that using the Week one matchup where both QBs played well while only one was capable of winning is weak. Especially since QBs have never once in the history of the NFL actually played against another QB. They play against the defense. But, the timing of bad games shouldn't matter either. Brees played 2 or 3 stinkers this year (and by "stinkers" I mean better than the average QB but not MVP caliber). Rodgers played 1 bad game, but that one bad game was better than 2 of Brees's bad games. And just because Brees's two bad games came in the first half of the season and Rodgers single solitary bad game came 2 weeks before the season ended shouldn't matter either. It should be about the entire season, not "what have you done for me lately".

I think team record in football when it comes to the QB position is as important of a stat as any, especially in the NFL of the last 5 years, and moreso than any other sport. An average or subpar QB might find a way onto a team with a good record if other factors play in. But I don't see a really good QB leading a team to a bad record.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 01/02/2012 2:08:06 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
01/02/2012 @ 02:04:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Those are old numbers, but it will be interesting to see that when it's updated.

Also, and maybe this is just stupid "human" thinking, a 100% algorithm based approach doesn't factor in that Brees set a minor record, and a pretty big deal record. Those might be a tie breaker at best, but seems like, especially the yards mark, should be a factor.

People were saying it's a different "era" now, which is true, but we've been in that "era" now for a while, and it still stood until this season. Though you could make a reasonable cast it's cheapened by the fact that Brady also passed Marino's mark this season.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
01/02/2012 @ 02:10:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Rodgers set a passing record this year two, a couple of them actually. Consecutive games with passer rating over 100, and overall passer rating for the season.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
01/02/2012 @ 02:10:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:04:14 PM
This is MVP of the season, not of the last 8 games. I agree that using the Week one matchup where both QBs played well while only one was capable of winning is weak. Especially since QBs have never once in the history of the NFL actually played against another QB. They play against the defense. But, the timing of bad games shouldn't matter either. Brees played 2 or 3 stinkers this year (and by "stinkers" I mean better than the average QB but not MVP caliber). Rodgers played 1 bad game, but that one bad game was better than 2 of Brees's bad games. And just because Brees's two bad games came in the first half of the season and Rodgers single solitary bad game came 2 weeks before the season ended shouldn't matter either. It should be about the entire season, not "what have you done for me lately".


I agree 100%, however I don't think I'm doing that, and to a certain extent my point is I think people are doing the opposite. This is MVP of the season, not of the FIRST 8 games, 10 games, 12 games, and so on.

Dismissing Brees' "surge" as "people getting caught up in 'what have you done for me lately'" is totally unfair. He still put up the numbers he did, and the numbers are the numbers. Brees catching, and surpassing, Rodgers' numbers over the last few weeks shouldn't "not count" because Rodgers "locked up" the MVP a month and a half ago, facts and evidence from here on out be damned.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
01/02/2012 @ 02:12:43 PM
 Quote this comment
I agree with what you are saying, 3 crappy games vs 1 crappy game is my argument.

edit: I'm not sure if I've stated this point yet, at least not in the last 3 minutes.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 01/02/2012 2:14:16 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
01/02/2012 @ 02:12:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:10:24 PM
Rodgers set a passing record this year two, a couple of them actually. Consecutive games with passer rating over 100, and overall passer rating for the season.


The first one is a made up one, and the latter I'd throw in as "minor" with Brees' completion record.

Every QB every season is going to be the first to do something, if you dig enough.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
01/02/2012 @ 02:15:39 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:12:47 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:10:24 PM
Rodgers set a passing record this year two, a couple of them actually. Consecutive games with passer rating over 100, and overall passer rating for the season.


The first one is a made up one, and the latter I'd throw in as "minor" with Brees' completion record.

Every QB every season is going to be the first to do something, if you dig enough.


Ok, so don't call him the "first player to have 10 straight games". Call it the "longest streak of games with passer ratings over 100". Based on your criteria, now it's a legitimate stat.

Brees is the first QB throw for over 5200 yards, or whatever. Just another QB to do something first.
didn't mean to bust chops there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 01/02/2012 2:17:57 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
01/02/2012 @ 02:19:31 PM
 Quote this comment
And whose streak did that beat and what was the old mark?

Edit: My point wasn't that it "doesn't count" as being first, but all records aren't equal. Plus for > 100 games it's 13 to 11. So toss out the kind of silly "in a row" caveat and even that isn't a slam dunk stat, and that's cherry picking Rodgers' second best numbers, which is driven largely by his best numbers (the lack of ints).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 01/02/2012 2:25:58 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 02:24:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:19:31 PM
And whose streak did that beat and what was the old mark?

Why is that relevant? (here's a hint: it's not) What makes the yards mark so significant? Just because it's been talked about so much? Because it's hyped? I'm not saying it's not a big deal, and I'm not saying that consecutive games streak with passer rating X is a bigger deal. Is that stat nothing? Is there nothing significant about the fact that a player played that well so many times in a season? It could be argued that discounting something like the passer rating records could be evidence that writers are actually NOT thinking about their vote.

(most of those questions are somewhat rhetorical. I don't need a 40 sentence disseration on why the yardage record is more meaningful)

edit: I'm also not saying that Passer rating is the end all argument for this whole thing. But, for better or worse, passer rating has been used for a while and taking seriously. Rodgers did set the record for overall passer rating, and Peyton Manning set that record previously (I didn't have to look it up just now either, it's been talked about a lot). And for what it's worth, we've heard the same hype about Rodgers setting the passer rating record for the past month or so as we've heard about Brees breaking the yardage record. Both were equally talked about, it seemed, by the national pundits. So, by your suggested criteria (implied by your question), it must be as significant as yardage.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 4 times, last at 01/02/2012 2:30:06 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 02:32:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Because it's basic, and hyped, yes.

Brees shattered Dan Marino's 27-year-old mark of 5,084 yards passing by throwing for 5,476. He had 468 completions this season, breaking Peyton Manning's 2010 mark of 450. He finished the season completing 71.6 per cent of his passes, breaking his own 2009 NFL record of a 70.6 completion percentage. Brees also surpassed 300 yards passing for the seventh straight game and 13th time this season, both beating NFL records he already held.

There's a reason they stopped the game for the first one, and you have to specifically google "Brees 2011 records" to find that last sentence. No one cares about those kinds of records.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
01/02/2012 @ 02:36:04 PM
 Quote this comment
The passer rating record isn't trivial, but people are going to always favor the pure "counting stat" records more. I was talking about the "no one has done blah blah more blah the blah games records". Those are (generally) lame and (generally) less of a big deal, and often unremarkable.*

*By which I mean they're derivative, or the same thing. Brees set the single season passing mark, so it's unremarkable he also had the most 300 yard games ever. Rodgers set the single season QBR mark, so the fact that that broke down into per games things no one had done before is unremarkable. If those guys didn't hold many related "no one has done blah blah more blah the blah games" records they probably wouldn't hold the total mark.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/02/2012 2:40:34 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
01/02/2012 @ 02:38:34 PM
 Quote this comment
People might, but the MVP voters should be a little more analytical about it. Again, I'm not saying that any analytical investigation automatically results in a Rodgers win. But it might.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 01/02/2012 2:38:44 pm
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
01/02/2012 @ 02:51:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:03:43 PM
Penalizing a QB because he "only" put up the big numbers when passing more is crazy, baffingly, stupid. Maybe Rodgers throws 3 more ints if he has 150 more attempts. But no, lets only adjust the numbers one way, and pretend like more passing attempts is somehow a bad thing in the first place. Sure this guy had twice as many stikeouts as this other guy, but only cause he was asked to pitch in twice as many innings!!


I'm also not sure why you have such a problem with this. What is the "one way" he is adjusting the numbers? If we reduce Bree's attempts to be equal to Rodgers then Brees has fewer TDs, more ints, and fewer yards. If we extrapolate Rodgers numbers and give him the same attempts as Brees, Rodgers has more TDs, fewer ints, and more yards. And your baseball analogy doesn't make sense in this case. Becuase he (and myself and lots of others) are looking at a "per play" comparison when we do this. It's not just that Brees threw so many more ints. It's that even if the attempts were similar, Rodgers' ratio is better so it makes sense that his number would be better. Rodgers has more TDs, more yards, and fewer ints per attempt. That's all that is saying.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
01/02/2012 @ 03:26:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Yes, but Brees still got what he got. The point of the baseball analogy was that those two players aren't "equal" just cause their strike outs per innings were equal. They'd have the same k/9, but one guy would still ACTUALLY have twice the strike outs. You can't just project, and assume, because one guy's numbers are in the bank already.

The Saints offense beat the greatest show on turf for most team yards. Being successful at executing plays, leads to more plays. The whole point of earning a first down is to get more plays, so penalizing the guy that had more attempts is silly, considering a bulk of the game is earning more attempts. The Saints passed about 60% of the time, and the Packers passed about 58% of the time, so penalizing the guy that just got "more" is stupid at best, and totally unfair at worst, because presumably the point is "well if the Packers let Rodgers pass as many times....." but the Packers essentially DID, they just weren't as good at earning plays, or scored on more big plays.

There's also this:

Passer rating calculations:
Comp% YPA TDA INTA
Rodgers: 1.916 1.5625 1.79 2.075
Brees: 2.06 1.335 1.4 1.842

Those are the broken down numbers that go into Passer rating. You can't count Passer rating, and less ints AND "doing it in less attempts" as all "Pro Rodgers" numbers, because "per attempt" is in every single part of the QBR calculation, which leans heavily on the interceptions. You're double counting the same numbers no matter how you look at it.

Rodgers QBR is higher BECAUSE it skews to a low int number and BECAUSE he was more efficient. So you can't count that as 3 things.

These guys both hit 4 home runs last month, but that guy did it in half the plate appearances, and he leads in HR/PA!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 01/02/2012 3:35:10 pm
2887.gifAlex - 3588 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 04:27:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:26:45 PM
BECAUSE he was more efficient.


aka more valuable?

The pass yards records is an accomplishment, but I'm not certain it should have any bearing on MVP. That's where I'd start to take the "racking up yards" in a blowout into account. Yes, he still did it, and congrats on the record. But winning a game by 40 points instead of 20 points doesn't necessarily add value to wherever you add it to in order to figure out who was more valuable. In other words, I'd put more weight on the per play numbers than total numbers for MVP voting, assuming a certain level of total plays and the only game Rodgers missed was a DNP Coaches Decision so I see no reason to dock him for that.

As far as Matt Flynn is concerned, maybe he's just kind of good:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7413505/nfl-does-matt-flynn-week-17-performance-mean

Let's look instead at the worst quarterbacks to ever hit 290 DYAR in a game. In alphabetical order, that leaves us with Marc Bulger, Randall Cunningham, Green and Scott Mitchell. The first three names on that list were Pro Bowlers, and the fourth was essentially a league-average starter for a half-decade in the mid-90s.

Going a little further down the list, down to the 260-DYAR level, gives us more of the same: Pro Bowl quarterback after Pro Bowl quarterback, from Rodgers to Matt Hasselbeck to Carson Palmer to Rich Gannon to Steve Young to Drew Bledsoe to Bobby Hebert to Troy Aikman to Neil O'Donnell to Daunte Culpepper to Jeff Garcia. Obviously, some of those names are a lot better than others, but with the exception of Mitchell, every quarterback who has ever played even one game anywhere near Flynn's level played in Hawaii at least once in his career.

It's only one game, but the simple fact is that mediocre quarterbacks are almost never this good.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
01/02/2012 @ 08:36:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:26:45 PM


The Saints offense beat the greatest show on turf for most team yards. Being successful at executing plays, leads to more plays. The whole point of earning a first down is to get more plays, so penalizing the guy that had more attempts is silly, considering a bulk of the game is earning more attempts. The Saints passed about 60% of the time, and the Packers passed about 58% of the time, so penalizing the guy that just got "more" is stupid at best, and totally unfair at worst, because presumably the point is "well if the Packers let Rodgers pass as many times....." but the Packers essentially DID, they just weren't as good at earning plays, or scored on more big plays.


Well, The Packers scored more points than the Saints, so the Packers scored more points than the team that beat the greatest show on turf. And Rodgers had more total touchdowns than Brees, if you include rushing. Brees had more attempts and did less to produce the things you actually need to win games, points.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 10:31:37 PM
 Quote this comment
That's a total non sequitur.

You asked why I think it's stupid to penalize Brees because he got to pass more. The answer is a) he didn't, as a percentage of plays, they just ran more plays b) he still did what he did.

If you're looking at two players with the exact same numbers except for attempts you could make an argument either way. One guy was more efficient, but the other guy was counted on more often, given more chances to fail or be figured out, and still proved an elite level of consistency. Hell, you could make a case that Brees' 110 QBR just as impressive as Rodgers' 122 given he essentially maintained his 110 over a 30% "longer" season.

However the guy with more still got more, either way. You can't just dismiss that. And you certainly can't just project, for two reasons. 1) It's not fair to the guy who actually did earn those numbers. 2) It just doesn't necessarily work that way. Take 2 80 drives for TDs. Brees took 4 passes to get there, Rodgers took 2. A) What's the difference? B) You can't just say "therefor if Rodgers had 4 passes he would have had 160 yards and 2 TDs" because there's a finite field, that's just nonsense. Each drive is capped at 100 yards and one TD, max. Likewise you couldn't say "if Brees only has 2 passes he would have 40 yards and half a td" because i) that's dismissing that we know he had 80 and a TD. ii) Why is how he got it important? Both QB's earned 100% of the yards and TD available to them on that drive.

When it's all said and done you're between this and the "running up the score" thing, which I'm pretty sure even then is playing revisionist history on Rodgers missing significant time in blowouts, you're basically "punishing" Brees for having a defense capable of getting him the ball back more often.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 7 times, last at 01/02/2012 11:45:09 pm
2887.gifAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
01/02/2012 @ 11:43:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:31:37 PM
Each drive is capped at 100 yards and one TD, max.


Not if there are penalties (or negative runs) and we're talking about individual stats emoticon
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:31:37 PM
The answer is a) he didn't, as a percentage of plays, they just ran more plays b) he still did what he did.


Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:26:45 PM
The Saints passed about 60% of the time, and the Packers passed about 58% of the time


Does not compute
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
01/02/2012 @ 11:47:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Yes, there's a difference there that boils down to statistical noise. Both teams passed about 6 times out of every 10 plays.

And yes, technically speaking you can have 130 yards of passing on one drive, but that would be rare, and more importantly the point still stands. There's no infinite field where just multiplying a number is automatically meaningful. Any time the Packers scored a TD Rodgers got 100% of the yards that were available to him with his 60%. There was nothing "more" to get, and no where to extrapolate to.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 01/02/2012 11:54:19 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - 3588 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 11:53:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:57:57 PM
For the purely stats based approach, check this out:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

By total stats (DYAR) it's Brees, Rodgers, Brady. By per play stats (DVOA), it's Rodgers, Brady, Brees.

Combined ranking: Rodgers (3), Brees (4), Brady (5).


Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:04:14 PM
Those are old numbers, but it will be interesting to see that when it's updated.


Lazy punks. Numbers are updated now and it's (DYAR) Brees, Rodgers, Brady. By per play stats (DVOA), it's Rodgers, Brees, Brady.

Not sure if this is meaningful, but Rodger's DYAR is 89.1% of Brees' (even with the DNP) and Bree's DVOA is only 84.6% of Rodger's.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/02/2012 @ 11:56:49 PM
 Quote this comment
I guess that means if your life depends on a season, take Brees, if your life depends on a play, go Rodgers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3588 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 12:05:52 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:47:44 PM
Yes, there's a difference there that boils down to statistical noise. Both teams passed about 6 times out of every 10 plays.


Talk about manipulating the stats. Aren't you just rounding the significant digits to get "equal" numbers?

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/passing-play-pct

New Orleans passed 61.41% of the time and Green Bay passed 59.98% of the time. Those are not equal. Although I'm not really sure why this even came up in the first place.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 12:32:50 AM
 Quote this comment
No, I had to compile that from a few different numbers cause I couldn't find anything precomputed. Considering your numbers show even less of a difference than mine, I'm not sure it matters. *

I brought it up because the only average that really matters in comparing who had an unfair "advantage" in attempts is the play calling split. You're not comparing a guy who was asked to pass on 80% of his plays to a guy who had to hand the ball off 50% of the time.

Yes, there's a difference there, but the Saints also ran the most plays in the NFL (1,117) and the Packers ran the 5th fewest. (988, beating only the Titans, Bears, Bucs, and Colts) Given that offensive plays are a good thing (and the QB is pretty involved in getting more plays) that seems like a really goofy ass thing to penalize Brees for, or dismiss in terms of Rodgers. The percentage difference is the Packers putting the ball in the QBs hands 14 more times over the course of the whole season, or the Saints running it 16 more times. I haven't been in stats in a while, but I'm pretty sure you're in "random noise" territory there, if not close to it. Those numbers are, for all intents and purposes, equal. Brees didn't get 800 more yards because Sean Payton called an "extra" 16 passes for him over their 1117 plays.

More succinctly, basically the argument at that point boils down to "Brees shouldn't be MVP because he played more", which is, to me, silly.

* Your point may have been the phrase "teams passed about 6 times out of every 10 plays" is so general it would apply to roughly half the league, but I'd point out, that's sort of my point. You're talking about a handful of plays in the course of a season. The difference between the Packers and Giants on that list is less than 2 plays. Brees wasn't given a disproportionate chance to skew the numbers, the Saints just earned their offense more chances.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 8 times, last at 01/03/2012 1:26:26 am
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
01/03/2012 @ 03:27:05 PM
 Quote this comment
If the Packers ran the 5th fewest plays and scored the most points, doesn't that actually make Rodgers look even better? The Saints ran the most plays and still weren't the highest scoring team in the league. In fact, a team that ran 129 fewer plays still scored more points.

I think the argument should be "Brees shouldn't be MVP because he played more." (emphasis on the "because", a slightly different meaning how you intended it). In other words, the fact that he accumulated the highest number of raw yards can in part be attributed to the fact that the team had more plays. The fact that the Packers scored more points in fewer plays seem to go in their favor, since they were more efficient with their offense overall.

I'm not dismissing the fact that Brees did end up with more. I'm just not I'm just saying that he shouldn't get the MVP simply because of that. I don't think people are penalizing him because he played more, but they are, and justifiably (even disagreeably) so, not necessarily handing it to him because of it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 01/03/2012 3:29:12 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
01/03/2012 @ 03:40:29 PM
 Quote this comment
He did more with more, but he still did more. I don't think anyone is saying Brees should get it just because be played more, but penalizing him because he ran more plays is pretty goofy.

Take just week 17 for example. I would disagree with anyone saying something tantamount to "Rodgers should be eliminated because he didn't play week 17". However, someone can't just discount on some level anything that happened week 17 as somehow "not fair" to count against Rodgers. It's not Brees' fault Rodgers didn't play, and players play to "lock up" records/titles all the time. There's a difference between not holding week 17 "against" Rodgers, and ignoring week 17.

I guess I'm just curious as to why this is the first time I've ever seen "but this guy played so much less!" as something in a "pro" column in a debate over who was more valuable to his team. (Especially given one guy was upstaged by his backup the game he did sit out. emoticon)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 03:53:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Again, I'm not sure I'm actually penalizing Brees for having more plays.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:40:29 PM
I guess I'm just curious as to why this is the first time I've ever seen "but this guy played so much less!" as something in a "pro" column in a debate over who was more valuable to his team.


Well, you're not seeing it. I'm also not sure if I've read anything that can necessarily be interpreted this way at least not to the extreme degree that you are claiming. Even if someone says "Rodgers did more with less", this is vastly different than someone saying "he played so much less" as a good thing. I think you are skewing the intent of that argument.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 01/03/2012 3:56:43 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 04:00:06 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't think Brees should be overly or underly credited with the mass accumulation of raw stats, and I don't think Rodgers should be over of underly credited for having better per play stats. I'm not penalizing Brees for comparing his per play stats to Rodgers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 01/03/2012 4:00:22 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 04:08:35 PM
 Quote this comment
You think Rodgers should win over Brees because Rodgers put up lesser numbers in way fewer attempts. How is that not under crediting who actually has more, or not saying Rodgers should win cause he did it despite playing less? If these things aren't about "the mass accumulation of raw stats" then what are they about?

Plus, again, that's ALREADY what qb rating is. People can't "double count" efficiency.

Also, again, you can make this case either way. Maybe Rodgers only maintained a never before imagined QB rating because never has such an offense been given so few plays to run by their, apparently historically bad, defense. Brees maintained a 110 QBR over a 30% larger sample size. There's 2 sides to that coin.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 01/03/2012 4:20:34 pm
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
01/03/2012 @ 05:22:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Not penalizing Rodgers isn't inversely a penalization of Brees. I'm not taking anything away or giving anything to either of them.

The AP MVP award has never been solely about the mass accumulation of raw stats. If it was, the AP, which consists of people with minds and opinions, would never have decided to vote on such a thing. It would just be awarded to someone based on a formula that only takes statistics into consideration. There is more than simply statistics that determines who is better or not. So lets say for the sake of argument that Brees owns every statistical advantage (he doesn't, but even so). There are also situational things to look at. For one, Brees played pretty bad in two games (throwing 2 and 3 interceptions) where the losses were essentially on him. It may be unfair to put the blame a QB for losses, but lots of people say if you credit them with the wins you have to credit them with the losses too. At the very most Rodgers played bad in 1 game all season which led to a loss, but he didn't turn the ball over in that game and scored two touchdowns.

Efficiency is a broad category. I don't think looking at yards per attempt and passer rating is piling on or double counting anything. yards per attempt is just that. passer rating takes in touchdowns, completions, yards, and ints per attempt. (That's like saying you can't count batting average and slugging percentage because they are both based on at bats.--now if you disagree with that, then I suppose we just have a different philosophy on it) ESPN's QBR tries to grade a QB on all plays that aren't simply handoffs, and it weights those plays based on a somewhat subjective system of how important that play was to determining the outcome of the game. In other words, a thouchdown pass in the 4th qtr when your up by 30 points is going to be worth less then a TD pass in the 4th qtr when you are trailing by 4 points. Rodgers leads the QBR category too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 01/03/2012 5:29:46 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 05:26:49 PM
 Quote this comment
Besides, I'm also not saying that there anything wrong with running up the score and accumulating stats for the sake of accumulating stats. But does throwing throwing 3 more touchdown passes in the 4th qtr when you are already up by 20 points say anything to how valuable that player is? It proves that he is capable of putting up huge numbers, which is great. But it doesn't add value necessarily, or at least it can be argued that it doesn't.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 01/03/2012 5:29:25 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
01/03/2012 @ 06:28:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, I don't think it has to be "mindless" stats, but those stats are obviously important. No one would suggest a QB who threw only 1-20 99 yard touchdowns, and then got hurt, should be an MVP candidate, so it's obviously mostly about the sheer total you amass.

For starters I think the implication that Brees played almost every game up 200, and Rodgers never had a meaningless down is pulled from no where, and to the extent it might be a little true, it's not Brees' fault his defense isn't terrible.

Yards/Attempt and Passer rating is only partially double counting, but people aren't stopping there. They're using td/attempt and int/attempt, as well as passer rating. That's 3/4ths of the equation.

For the record: I think your argument that Brees played 2 games to Rodgers 1 at a "sub par" level is decent enough, albeit flawed in as least as much as they didn't play the same number of games. I just think it's also reasonable to point out that you could make a case, despite the difference in rating, that Brees actually played more consistently good, given he maintained his elite level when given so many more opportunities to fail, or regress to the mean. As well as the fact that he won on some key numbers, regardless of how many plays it took. (Plays/Attempts kind of being a positive in and of themselves anyway.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 01/03/2012 6:30:14 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 06:29:53 PM
 Quote this comment
2003 is a good example of my argument. Peyton Manning had a huge edge in yards and touchdowns, steve mcnair had fewer interceptions and was slightly higher in passer rating. I don't know enough about that season off hand to know what else would have been behind putting McNair on the same stage with Manning that year, but there was obviously something about what McNair was doing in the games that caused voters to vote the way they did. So this would not be without precedent, and I think the option of Rodgers this year would seem to be at least if not more justifiable than McNair's award.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 01/03/2012 6:32:18 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 06:34:21 PM
 Quote this comment
2003 is pretty much the worst thing you could bring up. A) They split that year B) Many voters publicly lamented giving a "nod" to McNair, only because they all thought Manning would absolutely run away with it, winding up in a split vote. Pretty much everyone else agreed it was majorly botched.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 06:37:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, then I'll adjust my statement. Giving Rodgers the nod would be infinitely more justifiable compared to McNair's award.

Also I don't remember 2003 being that much of an outrage. I don't remember it not being either. Basically, I just remember that it happened, and a few message boards I just found in the 3 minutes I've been looking weren't outraged. I don't remember the reaction either way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 01/03/2012 6:40:22 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
01/03/2012 @ 06:39:12 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't remember, but probably, yes. It would be hard to argue too much about a Co-MVP this year. Manning was totally robbed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 01/03/2012 6:41:24 pm
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
01/03/2012 @ 06:44:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Ok, so there we go. We basically agree.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
01/03/2012 @ 06:48:16 PM
 Quote this comment
I did find this, a Page 2 article about "lamest MVPs". The author includes Mcnair on his list, and interestingly enough, include Justin Morneau. (he doesn't include Brett Favre's 1997 MVP which he shared with Barry Sanders).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 07:17:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, I don't think the fact that Morneau only won because there was no better option, rather than because he had some historically good season with a WAR of 10 or something was a big secret. Conversely Daunte lost an MVP to Manning despite having a better season than many past MVP winners. It happens.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
01/03/2012 @ 09:01:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:48:16 PM
he doesn't include Brett Favre's 1997 MVP which he shared with Barry Sanders


That was a bigger outrage than the Manning/McNair MVP.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
01/03/2012 @ 09:04:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 09:01:38 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:48:16 PM
he doesn't include Brett Favre's 1997 MVP which he shared with Barry Sanders


That was a bigger outrage than the Manning/McNair MVP.

Apparently not, otherwise he would have included his name in his list. That list is the list of lists.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 2903 Posts
01/03/2012 @ 09:06:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, well, he was wrong.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - We can do this easy, or we can do it real easy
01/04/2012 @ 07:58:35 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:06:07 PM
Yeah, well, he was wrong.


+1

Outrage #2 would be Eli Manning being picked over Stafford for the Pro Bowl this year. Take a look at those stat lines.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Micah perfected this at 01/04/2012 7:59:50 am
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 08:24:18 AM
 Quote this comment
If you NewsGoogle NFL MVP VOTE, a lot comes up and it seems that the consensus is Rodgers. And if you read the articles, the consensus isn't "I decided this in week 8". It's quite a bit more thoughtful than that. I'm just trying to combat that "they wanted him to win it so he won it" mentality that will come out when Rodgers is announced as the winner.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
01/04/2012 @ 10:13:04 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, no one is going to actually say "I decided this in week [less than 17]", that doesn't make it not true. It "feels like" the MVP should be Rodgers, unless you let evidence lead you to a conclusion, and then at the very least you should make Brees co mvp, if not outright.

Also, just like the Herpes Hammer emoticon/Matt Kemp thing, our point at the time, and now again my point was that I predicted what people will say, but I feel people are using flawed criteria. There's no "lots of people agree, so neener neener" because the argument was we don't agree with their argument. Also, there's no isolation chamber these guys are sent off to, so it's not remarkable if 35 people bring up that Rodgers holds the coveted "Multi Interception Game" crown, because all that necessarily means is people went looking for an argument, read a point they liked somewhere, and trotted it out again. If Multi interception games is in your top 5 reasons, then you have a tie, and you're trying a little too hard to make a case that probably isn't there, IMO.

Or, to borrow a second MBL phrase in one post: "Yeah, well, [they're] wrong." (Or at the very least everyone I've read thus far is wrong about why they're right. Again, Peter King all but actually said "I have no argument if you look at the numbers, so I'm going to ignore them" Brees has had, arguably, the greatest statistical offensive season a quarterback has ever had, with the most passing yards, the best accuracy, and the fourth-most touchdowns in a season (46), but here's 4 pretty weak ass reasons I had for picking the other guy anyway, one of which is just a reminder I'm ignoring the numbers and going with what I feel.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 15 times, last at 01/04/2012 11:31:13 am
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
01/04/2012 @ 02:46:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:13:04 AM
It "feels like" the MVP should be Rodgers, unless you let evidence lead you to a conclusion, and then at the very least you should make Brees co mvp, if not outright.


Is objective, statstical (by which I mean, only yards and touchdowns) the only criteria that should be used? Is situational evidence valid? Are game-by-game breakdowns valid? Is it valid to analyze whether or not the sheer statistics alone tell the whole story? Is it valid to decide if a touchdown pass late in the 4th qtr of a game you are already winning by 20 points helps to determine if you are any more valuable than a guy who's backup is playing by that point in the game?*

It's one thing to disagree with some of the analysis. It's another to claim that there is no evidence to support the opposition. There is evidence there. Whether you want to see it is another story.


edit: *There's a difference in saying that someone is undesevering of a record because he put up a lot of yards late in games that were seemingly already decided and someone saying a player is undeserving of being awarded the MVP for the same reason. I don't think anyone is saying that Brees's statistics should be called into question because of the manner in which they were achieved (and really, there was nothing really all too manipulative about it). It's another to decide of said excess was unnecessary or to decide that it doesn't add to the player's value.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 4 times, last at 01/04/2012 3:23:28 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 09:59:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 01/02/2012 @ 02:10:37 PM
Scott Wrote - 01/02/2012 @ 02:04:14 PM
This is MVP of the season, not of the last 8 games. I agree that using the Week one matchup where both QBs played well while only one was capable of winning is weak. Especially since QBs have never once in the history of the NFL actually played against another QB. They play against the defense. But, the timing of bad games shouldn't matter either. Brees played 2 or 3 stinkers this year (and by "stinkers" I mean better than the average QB but not MVP caliber). Rodgers played 1 bad game, but that one bad game was better than 2 of Brees's bad games. And just because Brees's two bad games came in the first half of the season and Rodgers single solitary bad game came 2 weeks before the season ended shouldn't matter either. It should be about the entire season, not "what have you done for me lately".



I
I agree 100%, however I don't think I'm doing that, and to a certain extent my point is I think people are doing the opposite. This is MVP of the season, not of the FIRST 8 games, 10 games, 12 games, and so on.

Dismissing Brees' "surge" as "people getting caught up in 'what have you done for me lately'" is totally unfair. He still put up the numbers he did, and the numbers are the numbers. Brees catching, and surpassing, Rodgers' numbers over the last few weeks shouldn't "not count" because Rodgers "locked up" the MVP a month and a half ago, facts and evidence from here on out be damned.


I don't think Brees' surge is being discounted as much as the previous 8 games are being held against him, which certainly isn't unfair. Look at this breakdown:


rodgers
1st 8 games
24 TDs (3 per game)
327 yards per game
3 ints

last 7 games
21 tds (3 per game)
289 yards per game
3 ints



Brees
1st 8 games
19 tds (2.375 per game)
343 yards per game
9 ints

last 8 games
27 tds (3.375 per game)
341* yards per game
4 ints

Brees averaged more than 1 interception per game and just over 2 touchdowns per game in the first 8 games of the season. His second half stats are certainly impressive. but should voters ignore the fact that he threw 9 interceptions in the first 8 games while Rodgers only threw 3 in the first half and 3 in the second, while maintaining 3 tds per game the entire season? The more I look at things like this, the more I'm convinced that Rodgers is almost a no-brainer. No one is arguing that Brees didn't put up good numbers. But his second half numbers didn't erase the fact that he played far from perfect in the first half. Rodgers played pretty much as close to perfection in both halves of the season. If people are voting for Brees and not Rodgers, they pretty much are ignoring the entire first half the season. Those voting for Rodgers and not Brees aren't ignore the second half, they just aren't forgetting the first half. You can't play a pretty good first half of the season and then a great second half and be considered better than a guy who played great in the first and second halves.

Basically, if you are saying it should be Brees, you're basically saying, "it doesn't matter what Brees did in his first 8 games." So actually, I do think you are doing that.

edit: *I miscalculated this stat initially. It's correct now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 4 times, last at 01/04/2012 10:21:40 pm
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
01/04/2012 @ 10:10:07 PM
 Quote this comment
I tweaked that last post a couple of times, so read it carefully.

Again with my theme of the different halves and interceptions, it should be noted that Brees threw 33% more interceptions in the first 8 games than Rodgers did in the entire season.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 01/04/2012 10:16:16 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
01/04/2012 @ 10:32:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:46:45 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:13:04 AM
It "feels like" the MVP should be Rodgers, unless you let evidence lead you to a conclusion, and then at the very least you should make Brees co mvp, if not outright.


Is objective, statstical (by which I mean, only yards and touchdowns) the only criteria that should be used? Is situational evidence valid? Are game-by-game breakdowns valid? Is it valid to analyze whether or not the sheer statistics alone tell the whole story? Is it valid to decide if a touchdown pass late in the 4th qtr of a game you are already winning by 20 points helps to determine if you are any more valuable than a guy who's backup is playing by that point in the game?*

It's one thing to disagree with some of the analysis. It's another to claim that there is no evidence to support the opposition. There is evidence there. Whether you want to see it is another story.


edit: *There's a difference in saying that someone is undesevering of a record because he put up a lot of yards late in games that were seemingly already decided and someone saying a player is undeserving of being awarded the MVP for the same reason. I don't think anyone is saying that Brees's statistics should be called into question because of the manner in which they were achieved (and really, there was nothing really all too manipulative about it). It's another to decide of said excess was unnecessary or to decide that it doesn't add to the player's value.


Except, for like the 8th time, people are largely inventing this narrative that Matt Flynn finished off 7 4th quarters in games leading up to week 17, while Brees beat up on teams in routs. Flynn had 5 attempts before week 17. He played one 3 minute drive against the Bears. 6 minutes against the Vikings. and 3 minutes against the Broncos, all in situations where Aaron Rodgers would also have been handing the ball off anyway. The only time he even went on the field with any significant time left was to take a safety with a quarter left in the raiders game, one 2 minute drive, and then kneeling out the clock. Flynn was in "just waste time" time 3 times and significant time once, Daniels was in at least twice (he's harder to tell because he's their holder, so he's "in" every game). Once to waste a drive, last week for 9:30.

In the Viking game Brees threw 2 passes in the 4th quarter. In the 42-17 Giants game he attempted 3 passes in the 4th quarter. He had 3 (and a TD) to start the 4th quarter in week 17. And perhaps most damning, In the Colts game, specifically mentioned by Peter King, Brees attempted ZERO passes in the 4th quarter. All those were down his "stat piling" last set of games.

Aaron, on the other hand, had 7 in a 24-3 Rams game, 8 (and a TD) in a 49-23 Broncos game and 6 (and a td) in a 45-7 Vikings game.

In routes Rodgers padded his stats a tad and left. Brees generally stayed in, but almost exclusively handed off.

I have no problem with "digging deeper than the stats", if people actually do that. But it seems, they aren't. Brees kept throwing to the bitter end of that one Falcons game to set that prestigious record at home. That's about it. (At least during the last stretch where he's being accused of "running up his stats" to catch up)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 5 times, last at 01/04/2012 10:48:35 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 10:34:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Rodgers was pulled half way at the end of the 3rd qtr in the Oakland game.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 01/04/2012 10:36:42 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 10:36:02 PM
 Quote this comment
He was pulled with 1:49 left.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 10:37:22 PM
 Quote this comment
yeah, I realized that, then tried to change it, and end up saying neither.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 10:55:04 PM
 Quote this comment
I just checked the Saints-Lions game, I don't think if it counts, because it wasn't blown open until the TD, but he had 10 and a TD in a game that ended 31-17. (2 attempts after that TD)

I'll list if because I'm bouncing around so many windows, while trying to keep one eye on the Wild game, so I might have counted another game for one of them where the TD scored was the thing that made it a rout.

(Also, if I missed one in general, it's not cause I'm cherry picking, I mentioned every game I checked, and checked every game that jumped out at me as lopsided, but the Saints had like 25 runaways this year, so it's tough.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 01/04/2012 10:59:15 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 10:59:21 PM
 Quote this comment
I've somewhat decided to concede, or at least drop the point about padding stats. My first half/second half of the season analysis seems to be a much better display of evidence anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 11:04:39 PM
 Quote this comment
It's also frustrating how hard it is to find out who actually has a vote. So far I know Peter King and JSOnline's Tom Silverstein have voted for Rodgers, and both wrote articles about their vote, but those are the only two people I've stumbled across. Googling "who votes for NFL mvp" or "NFL MVP voting" returns nothing that doesn't require me to search every article to see if it says anything about the person writing it having a vote. It's weird that there isn't a confidentiality thing with the voting. Seeing as how they are having a special awards show or something right before the Super Bowl, you'd think they'd want to keep it under wraps. Theoretically, if you could figure out who had votes, you could possibly figure out the tally pretty easily.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
01/04/2012 @ 11:13:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, to that I'd just say "but the season isn't two halves, it's a whole." Why not 4 4 game periods, or 2 8 games periods?

If you want to say the interception total, and derivatives there of, is just that impressive, then I disagree, but that's fine I guess.

I'm mostly just annoyed that Peter King started his write up by noting, in his own words, that you could make a case Brees had arguably the finest season any QB has EVER had, statistically, for an award based primarily on stats, and then, at least the reasons he listed for ignoring that, for some reason, were flimsy at best, even if they were fact based, which they weren't. He dismissed stats, primarily because stats can be theoretically be compiled in garbage time when NEITHER of them really did that, and if anyone did more so, at least in the 10 or so games I checked, it was Rodgers. (Though again, only in the most trivial of senses.) And Rodgers played in fewer blowouts thanks to his D, so he was still gaming in his non garbage time while Brees was handing off in his. I just don't see how a person can get from that sentence, to his conclusion, via the poorly thought out reasons he gave, without at least a little bit of "because I just want it to be this guy" behind the scenes. It doesn't compute at best, and it's wrong and lazy at worst.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 01/04/2012 11:19:51 pm
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
01/04/2012 @ 11:19:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, any way you slice the season up, you can find 2 games in which Brees played pretty poorly (2 tds, 5 interceptions), losing games to teams that combined for 6 wins. You can find 1 game in which Rodgers played less than perfect, but there are no games where you can say he played bad.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8415 Posts
01/04/2012 @ 11:20:51 PM
 Quote this comment
But if someone's better is better, can't that offset more bad?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
01/04/2012 @ 11:26:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:20:51 PM
But if someone's better is better, can't that offset more bad?

It's possible, but you still have that bad taste in your mouth about the bad. Rodgers didn't leave any bad tastes. He never waivered like Brees did.

Here's Tom Silverstein's article about his vote for Rodgers. He's a Packer writer, so take it for what it's worth (if you even feel like reading it), but it's at least better than King's article.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 01/04/2012 11:27:30 pm
jon.jpgJon - many posts
01/05/2012 @ 11:03:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Rodgers will win MVP and Brees will win offensive Player of the Year. Which always amuses me because MVP always goes to an offensive player anyway, and yet that player often does not win both awards. I'm pretty sure I know the reasons why this happens, but it's funny to think about what it implies if you just take it at face value.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
01/06/2012 @ 11:46:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Tom Silverstein tabulates the votes that he knows of, sort of. So far, we know Peter King voted for Rodgers, as did Tom Silverstein. Silverstein then says that he asked 10 others how they voted, six were willing to tell and he says they picked Rodgers. Then he says "a number of other voters have made their picks known" most of them being for Rodgers.

So the count so far: King + Silverstein + 6 + (most of a number of others) = 8 + whatever.

An excerpt from the article:
I contacted 10 members of the 50-member panel, all of whom are longtime NFL writers whom I respect a lot, and asked them two questions:
1.Did Matt Flynn's performance on Sunday in Green Bay's 45-41 victory cause you to change your MVP vote from Aaron Rodgers to Drew Brees or someone else?
2.Did your decision on MVP change for any other reason during the final week of the season?

I also asked the 10 to tell me who they voted for if they felt comfortable doing it. I promised that I wouldn't use their names since the AP discourages - but doesn't stop - people from revealing their picks.

Of the 10, not a single one said he / she changed their vote after Flynn threw for a franchise record 480 yards and six touchdowns against the Lions. Some people had speculated that voters would reconsider their decision since Flynn showed it might be the system that has made Rodgers so great this season.

I wanted to know if that was a factor, since many people were speculating on it. This is just a sampling of the voters, but the fact all 10 said no to both questions gives you a pretty good idea of what most panelists are thinking.


Even without knowing for sure how someone voted, if the majority of voters didn't change their mind because of week 17, then it's almost certainly going to go to Rodgers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 01/06/2012 11:56:31 am
scott.jpgScott - 6089 Posts
01/06/2012 @ 11:58:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:03:02 PM
Rodgers will win MVP and Brees will win offensive Player of the Year. Which always amuses me because MVP always goes to an offensive player anyway, and yet that player often does not win both awards. I'm pretty sure I know the reasons why this happens, but it's funny to think about what it implies if you just take it at face value.


{homerrant}
What? Rodgers is a lock for offensive player of the year as well. I can't believe you would think otherwise. And while we're at it, he's almost certainly the defensive player of the year, since it's obvious that the Packers best defense is their offense, led by MVP and Offensive POY Aaron Rodgers.
{/homerrant}

No but seriously, I think you are right. However, my small sample of the last 11 years (2000-2010) indicates that 8 of the 11 years the MVP was also the offensive player of the year. So I'm not sure what your definition of "often" is, but 3/11 might be considered often enough to make your statement not be inaccurate.

Between 1990 and 1999 (10 years) 5 MVPs were also OPOY, which may certainly qualify as "often" as well. the 80's also produced 5 MVPs that were also OPOY. So in the last 10 years, the trend has been moreso that they get both, but not always.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 5 times, last at 01/06/2012 12:07:19 pm
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
01/06/2012 @ 12:33:29 PM
 Quote this comment
And Rodgers is the AP All Pro QB, which is probably voted on by the same group of 50 voters that vote for MVP. The vote differential between Brees and Rodgers was apparently not even close, 47.5 to 2.5 in favor of Rodgers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 01/06/2012 12:35:52 pm
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.