To be fair, that was the season Adrian Peterson went ballistic and got almost 2,100 rushing yards with a 6.0(!) yards pr. attempt, so he rightfully won MVP. Megatron also only got 5 TDs.
NFL 2021
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, that was the season Adrian Peterson went ballistic and got almost 2,100 rushing yards with a 6.0(!) yards pr. attempt, so he rightfully won MVP. Megatron also only got 5 TDs.
Peterson shouldn’t have become mvp either.
Antonio Brown posted a 129-1698-13 stat line in 2014 when the Steelers went 11-5 and backed it up with a 136-1834-10 when they went 10-6 in 2015. That 2016 statline is near identical to what Kupp has done now in 16 games (difference of 2 receptions, 5 yards and 5 TDs). Mike Thomas had 149-1725-9 for the 13-3(!) Saints in 2019. Both did not receive a single MVP vote in any of those seasons.
You just need someone (force) feeding you the ball if you wanna have an extremely productive season as a WR, volume is everything at a skill position.
Talk of Jonathan Taylor as league MVP is ridiculous imo. Derrick Henry bested him by 300 odd rushing yards (and the eye test) last year and got... 0 votes for a team with a better record than the 9-7 Colts (the Titans went 11-5).
Why not? He basically put the team on his back and dragged them to the playoffs. Isn't that almost the definition of being the Most Valuable Player? Who should have gotten it instead, in your view?
I mean, Cooper Kupp was at the Rams last year in the same offense ran by the same HC. He didn't even top 1000 yards and had 3 TDs. What changed? They brought in another QB. Shouldn't the immediate conclusion from that be that Stafford's contribution to the offense as a whole, and Kupp's ascend to the top in particular, is greater than Kupp's? Yes he is undeniably having a great year stat-wise but you could put a dozen other WRs into his position with the same volume and they would give you the same production (or even better in some instances). I honestly think Robert Woods could get close to what Kupp has been doing this year if he got the same amount of targets or the same role as Kupp has had (Woods and Kupp were seen as a 1A 1B situation before this season). Beckham, too.
I'd argue Stafford, Ramsey, Donald are all more important to the Rams, perhaps even someone like Withworth as well.
I'd argue Stafford, Ramsey, Donald are all more important to the Rams, perhaps even someone like Withworth as well.
Because he was in no way the most valuable player of that season. Despite everything he did, all the numbers he put up, the Vikings didn’t even win a single playoff game. It‘s not that he wasn’t good. It’s simply that his position is simply not important enough to be the mvp. He shouldn’t have become mvp for the same reason we don’t consider guards or linebackers for the honour.
So no RB should ever be the MVP regardless the numbers they put up if their team doesn’t win a playoff game?
I can’t remember that season. Who should have been the MVP? Which QB obviously?
This is basically what it comes down to for me. Trevon Diggs has the most INTs since 1981, should he also be in the conversation? No he should not.
With Taylor I’d be curious to see how many expected wins he added for his team compared to someone like Quenton Nelson.
No because his position doesn’t matter enough. We’re also not giving the mvp to Justin Tucker, even though the guy is kicking with unprecedented quality.
Diggs is an extreme example. He’s not even good at his position. Simply happens to be a bad db who’s good at catching balls.
Well, first of all the MVP award is given for the regular season, so the playoff point is not valid. I would disagree that his position is not important enough to win the award. When you have an average/bad QB, which the Vikings did that season in Christian Ponder, the main running back becomes the most important player on offense. He was clearly the difference between the Vikings being a winning or a losing side that season.
I agree that some positions probably can't win the award because they can't be a difference maker to a large enough extent. But Peterson was deserving of the award that season.
That’s passing rating, not QBR.
He only has 4 picks but I don’t know if that’s a huge deal. I mean Cousins only has 7 picks and 30 TDs. Last season Rodgers had 5 picks and 48 TDs. That’s 13 more TDs than this season (after 16 games). I’m not sure that he’s separated himself from the pack in the same way this year. As I said, the 13-3 team record and the clinched number one seed is his best argument.
So he became important because the guy who actually matters was bad? Feels like that kind of proofs my point.
This makes no sense. It has become a QB award but I’m sure all right thinking people are agreed that it shouldn’t be. Otherwise, just call it the ‘best QB award’ and have done with it.
It’s a qb award because qb‘s are by far the most valuable players. It’s really that simple. It’s not the „best performance relative to a players position-award“ it’s the award for the most valuable player.
It really doesn't. If you think you could have put any running back in his place and gotten anywhere near his spectacular numbers, you haven't seen his highlights from that season.
You also still haven't answered who should have gotten it instead. What you are basically saying is, that only QBs should win it. Drew Brees was the leader in passing yards, but had 19 interceptions (most in the league) - Adrian Peterson had two fumbles lost. Peyton Manning had the best passer rating, but his stats were nothing out of the ordinary.
Running backs used to win it a lot. But as the league has become more QB-centric, so has the award.
And I don't disagree that it is appropriate to give it to a QB most seasons. But when there is no standout QB, but a phenomenal running back, receiver or even defensive player, they should be able to win it.
It’s not that simple. The MVP is not a ‘if you take this player out of the team, how bad would the team be’ award, because that would be the QB for every single team. It’s a ‘best player’ award, which is pretty clear if you look at the history of it.
Agreed
It’s a regular season award. The best player for their respective team doesn’t need to be a QB.
Of course AP deserved the award.
Yes
No, I acknowledge that Peterson played an incredible season. I also don’t think any other rb could have done, what he did, at least that season. I also don’t believe any other kicker could do what Tucker has been doing for years. I would never give him the mvp either. The positional value of a rb is just not big enough to be the most valuable player in the league. That’s not Peterson‘s fault. But that’s the reality.
And trust me, I’ve seen him play. A lot. I know what he was capable of.
There is actually a measurement for what I’m talking about. It’s called expected wins added. I strongly suggest you try it out. It’s a great way to understand positional value.
The cases some are making for guys like Kupp or Peterson could be made for many other players, too. Why stop at them? Where’s the mvp for Aaron Donald? Surely no one can do what he does. Where is the mvp for JJ Watt? What he did some years ago was stunning and unparalleled. Never won it, never received a vote (I believe without checking). Why no lobbying for these guys? Might that have something to do with positional value?
Brees, Peyton, Romo, Rodgers and more had a better claim at the mvp. Not because they played historically great seasons, but because they’ve been much, much more valuable.
And if positional value indeed shouldn’t matter, I want some of those awards to got to guys like Quenton Nelson, Aaron Donald, Johnyy Hekker, Justin Tucker, Darrelle Revis, Calvin Johnson and many more.
It's not a "best player" award, it's a "most valuable player" award. For real, literally in the name. Which is why it should be a QB in 99% of the cases.
Go and look at the history of the award in all its forms and who has won it and then come back to me.
Would you ever consider giving the mvp to Justin Tucker or Johnny Hekker? If not, why is that?
I'd go with Rodgers, Kupp, Taylor at this point. If Kupp breaks the records then he may have an outside shot, but given that this is largely a QB award and the fact that Rodgers is having an excellent year, he will likely end up with it.
You can't possibly be arguing that the league hasn't changed since the 80s or 90s, let alone the 60s or 70s? The last 20 seasons there have been 17 QBs as MVP. They are simply the most important and most valuable position in the sport, therefore should definitely be winning it over a WR or a RB.
I'd argue Cooper Kupp isn't even more influential to his team than someone like Davante Adams, let alone the most valuable player in the league.
Like I said, I am not disputing that the QB is the most important position or that they naturally should and will win it most years. I just disagree that some other positions (not all) cannot be good enough in a year to warrant winning the award.
I'm not going to through all the players you mention here, but J.J. Watt's season a few years back would be an example of a potentially worthy non-QB winner. Unfortunately for him, his great season coincided with Rodgers having a great year as well. And since you didn't check the votes yourself, I did. He actually got 13 out of 50. So maybe it isn't that far-fetched? Also, it is super strange that you use the voting to substantiate your point when Adrian Peterson was actually voted the MVP - where is the logic in that?
The logic behind that is that people do actually put a lot of emphasis on positional value, when voting the mvp. Which is why said players have never won, despite having played seasons for the ages. Watt‘s season is the best example. The guy did everything you could ask from him, and more. He was the best defender in the league, by far even and was a one man wrecking crew. That was as good as it gets. I have no idea how that could be improved on. Yet he didn’t win. You could very well argue that he was the best player in the league at the time. But despite all that, he wasn’t the most valuable one. Which is my point all along.
QB‘s are just that much more valuable than everyone else. And as long as the league doesn’t change drastically, it should always be a qb.
Positional value has always played a huge role. Which is why ages ago, a centre could win the award. It was a different game, a different perception of what’s happening on the field and there weren’t as many quality stats as we have now.
Nowadays the league has become more pass heavy than ever before. And we have great analytical tools to actually quantify a players value. We can actually look how many points and wins a player likely added to his teams overall with his play. We can now measure these things. Not perfectly, but very well and much better, than the human eye could.
And with this shift in play and analysis, qb‘s win the award more and more frequently. And rightfully so. Because we can now very well and confidently conclude that their position and thus their play is much more important and therefore valuable to a team, than that of anyone else. So much so, that it might be theoretically possible for a player of another position to become more valuable, but practically it is basically impossible.
And as long as the award is for the most valuable player, it should always be a qb. And if the award was indeed for the best player relative to a players position, we could surely give it to players at other positions. But in that case we should actually look at all positions, not just qb, wr or rb. And in that case, guys like Tukker or Hekker would have as good a claim for the award as everyone.
But Adrian Peterson did win. So he was the Most Valuable Player, right? That was my point, and how this whole discussion got started.
Anomalies happen, that doesn't make them right. The whole superhuman narrative of coming off a (maybe back then still considered pretty much career-ending) ACL injury and put up the numbers that he did was impressive, and definitely played a part in the voting.
It was before I started to really follow the NFL so can't comment on who should've won it instead. AD quite possibly was the best player in the league in the 2012 season but likely not the most valuable.
And my point is that he never should have won, because his positional value makes it practically impossible for him to be more valuable than a solid qb.
Which is why I keep asking why guys like Nelson, Tucker and so on don’t get mentioned in these discussions. If positional value wasn’t important or decisive, we should be discussing a potential mvp for some of these players as well, don’t you agree? Yet we never do. And that brings me to the core. People want the most spectacular player to be mvp. That’s it. That’s also why it’s nearly always guys who play rb or wr who get mentioned in these discussions, if it is not a qb, obviously.
Whilst I understand the points being made, for me it’s just ridiculous that essentially nobody other than a QB can win the MVP award.
Just call it the QB of the year award if that’s the case.
Just call it the QB of the year award if that’s the case.
I generally agree that as the most important position, a QB does and should generally win the MVP. But I also strongly believe that in seasons where a QB hasn’t been exceptional, the award should be winnable by a player in another position who has had an exceptional year. Whether we think Rodgers or Kupp or Taylor have had an exceptional year can be debated. But all non QBs should not simply be written off. This factors in that position matters - and why a kicker won’t ever win it. But also realised that players who have superb years in other positions can also challenge in years where there is no outstanding QBs. This means there is a natural QB skew but not a definitive QB only.
And Rodgers is a Covidiot so his value to society as a whole is -1000
So I guess what you are saying is "Watt didn't win because voters recognize positional value", but also "Voters don't recognize positional value enough - Adrian Peterson shouldn't have won"? Seems like having your cake and eating it too.
Coming back to Adrian Peterson's season, here's another way of putting it: He had 30% more rushing yards than no. 2 on that list, while Brees had 4% more passing yards than the no. 2 on that list. Looking at the QB stats, I think you could honestly say 5-6 QB had stats of similar quality (Brees, Brady, Ryan, Manning, Rodgers, Romo). But no running back came close to AP in production. He accounted for 80% of the ground yards of the 2nd best rushing offense in the league. Swap him with any other running back that season, and I don't think the Vikings are a winning team, but could you shuffle those 5-6 QBs around their respective teams without significantly impacting their records? I would say so. To me, that makes Adrian Peterson the MVP.
The Tucker/Hekker argument doesn't add anything to the discussion. Everyone would agree that kickers and punters are not on the field enough to be the Most Valuable Player. I would also add that offensive linemen probably cannot individually be The Most Valuable player, since the O-line has to be good as a unit. So I don't disagree with the concept of positional value - simply how much it skews towards QBs.
- Status