Absolutely no doubt Adrian Peterson is NFL MVP

Big Dicksure wrote:

The losing record stat is such a bogus stat because his schedule was front loaded with the best teams when he was just learning the offense and still recovering from his last surgery. Do you think the Broncos are better or worse now versus the first 5 weeks and after the last 11 straight wins? Moreover, you are aware that ARod also has a losing record against teams with a winning record? The stat is worthless.

If the fail mary was called correctly Rodgers would be .500 against teams with a winning record.

Since week 5, since Manning was learning a new system:

Manning 3,160 yards, 26 touchdowns, and 8 picks

Rodgers 2,996 yeards, 29 touchdowns and 4 picks.

Rodgers is a better quarterback. The Broncos are the better team largely because they have a much better defense than the Packers.

Big K wrote:Yes Manning had to learn a new system, but so did all those rookie quarterbacks who have led their teams to the playoffs. So that can't be the reason why Manning is clearly above Rodgers when their numbers are nearly identical.

were you referring to luck, who started off 3-4? or RG3, who started off 6-7 (including a 2-6 rough patch)? wilson did start 4-0 though.

wow. .500 when you artificially reverse one of his losses. guess what happens if you do that for manning? he goes to 3-2. brady is 3-3. so manning is 2-3, brady is 3-3 and arod is 5-5? who cares?

the stats you threw out look nearly identical to me, particularly when you account for the fact that GB hated running the ball and denver has had a very capable rb that it wasn't afraid to use the entire season.

it doesn't really matter because AP was the MVP.

This is not a discussion of best player or best quarterback. This is a discussion of which player is most valuable to their team. Again, ADRIAN PETERSON is the most valuable to his team out of any other player in the NFL. THE Vikings could have easily been 1-15 without him. EASILY. Instead, they are headed to the playoffs because of him.

Big Dicksure wrote:

wow. .500 when you artificially reverse one of his losses. guess what happens if you do that for manning? he goes to 3-2. brady is 3-3. so manning is 2-3, brady is 3-3 and arod is 5-5? who cares?

the stats you threw out look nearly identical to me, particularly when you account for the fact that GB hated running the ball and denver has had a very capable rb that it wasn't afraid to use the entire season.

it doesn't really matter because AP was the MVP.

Do you think that call was correct against the Seahawks? I have yet to meet a person that has. Even our President commented on it, it was such an atrocious call and was instrumental in getting the replacement refs out of the game. If it was called correctly the Packers win.

Manning has thrown twice as many picks in that stretch as Rodgers. A good running game helps a quarterback. I don't understand how you can believe that hurts a quarterback. A good running game opens up play action, causes defenses to stack the box. When defenses play the Packers they know Rodgers is going to throw and he still picks them apart.

Big K wrote:

Manning has thrown twice as many picks in that stretch as Rodgers.

It's 8 to 4, both are fantastic. Yes it's double but both are great stats so focusing on the double part is misleading in a way.

That definitely was the wrong call but there were a lot of wrong calls before that in all of the games the replacements were referring. How do you know that one of the earlier wrong calls didn't alter the game to the point that GB would have lost and there never would have been the fail mary?

4 more is not statistically significant. Sanchez does that in a single game no problem.

You are wrong to think that a good running game helps a qb. when you have no running game, or at least don't even attempt to have one, the qb gets a lot more throws and a lot more red zone throws, which should equate to tds, unless it is sanchez. The giants last year had the worst running game in the nfl and the other manning had a monster year. Conversely, having a stout running game that gets most of the red zone calls, like houston, always is going to cut into a qb's stats. This isn't anything new.

Big Dicksure wrote:

You are wrong to think that a good running game helps a qb. when you have no running game, or at least don't even attempt to have one, the qb gets a lot more throws and a lot more red zone throws, which should equate to tds, unless it is sanchez. The giants last year had the worst running game in the nfl and the other manning had a monster year. Conversely, having a stout running game that gets most of the red zone calls, like houston, always is going to cut into a qb's stats. This isn't anything new.

Come on. I've never met a person who has failed to acknowledge a good running game helps a quarterback. This is why coaches like to establish a running game because it helps open up the passing game through play action. Rodgers has over 40 less attempts than Manning, over 80 less than Brady, and over 100 less than Brees. He doesn't get as many attempts because the Packers defense can't get off the field. Eli's playoff run was spectacular last year, but he didn't exactly have a monster regular season. Wasn't at the Brees, Rodgers, Manning level.

alfredmorris wrote:

Ummmmm....ever heard of Robert Lee Griffin III?

_______________

Yes.

Did he run for over 2000 yds?

Only a handful have in the history of the NFL.

RG3 is a fantastic athlete. But, he, Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson are all on the same level and all are racing for rookie of the year.

Adrian Peterson- MVP

Peyton Manning -Come back player of the year

Russell Wilson- Rookie of the Year.

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with Russel Wilson as ROTY. However, I was watching A. Luck for the first time at length as an NFL QB. He looks every bit like the next Payton Manning. I think QBs like Wilson and RG3 will have some good, maybe great seasons. But they will all come and go. All the while Luck is going to be a top 3 QB year in and year out. Few people have his combination of big time throwing arm, accuracy, and intelligence. Moreover, the guy is BIG. When he gets sacked it just doesn't seem that punishing unlike smaller QBs who get thrown down like a rag doll. That is a big reason why I think he lasts for a long time. He sticks in the pocket under pressure. He's tough but also the pocket is not that scary for him. For a lot of other QBs they rightfully should be scared to death.

Eli didn't have a monster regular season last year? He set the NFL record for most 4th quarter comebacks in amassing the following stats:

4933 yards

29 TDs

16 Ints

61% completion %

92.9 rating

at that was with no TE, WRs hurt throughout the year (when is nicks not hurt) and the worst running game in the league. since when is nearly 5000 passing yards not monster?

Peterson should be the MVP if the powers-that-be can ignore their normal QB bias.

Manning should get comeback player of the year, but I don't buy this BS about "needing to learn a new system" that caused his slow start. He had all summer to throw with his receivers, and the playbook is basically what the Colts ran. He lost those games because he loses big games. Period.

Russell Wilson deserves rookie of the year. Wilson went 8-0 at home (first time for a rookie), tied Manning's 26 TD passes, ran 4 td's in, has a qb rating of 100. I like Luck as well but too many picks when compared with Wilson and a far lower rating. RG3 is in the mix (even higher rating than Wilson) but I never got to see him play, don't have as good a feeling for him. I'll go with whichever QB wins the Redskins/Seahawks game.

why do you think anyone cares what you think if you admittedly never saw RG3 play? he played on thanksgiving and last night on national tv. did you even watch an NFL game this year? you also mistakenly think that the playoffs count for regular season awards. hopefully you know more about running than football.

Being in MN and watching the Vikings regularly, IMO the Vikings are NOTHING without AP.

I mean NOTHING. No offense, because they have nobody else with Harvin gone.

No defense, because of a lack of offense the D would be on the field all the time and would be fatigued so much that they would completely suck.

No kicking because lack of offense wouldn't give them any chance.

No punting because no offense means you will be punting out of your own end zone all the time, which is nerve-wracking and nervousness produces inconsistent punts.

How far would Denver, NE, or GB fall without their QB? All the way, of course, because there would be nobody to manage the ball. In that sense, a QB is always intrinsically more valuable than any other position, including a RB.

When talking MVP, I think the discussion should be how much improved the team is, relative to having an "ordinary caliber" player substituted for the one under consideration.

Using that metric, I don't think any team would fall as far having subbed for any single player, as would the Vikings having subbed for Peterson.

Just my 2 cents. I like AP. He goes hard on every single play. He had the same surgery I had. He's fast, and he's not afraid of contact. Maybe I can organize a charity race here instead. I'm sure he can beat my mid-11, even though he's optimized for cutting and toughness!

Disrespect wrote:

This is not a discussion of best player or best quarterback. This is a discussion of which player is most valuable to their team. Again, ADRIAN PETERSON is the most valuable to his team out of any other player in the NFL. THE Vikings could have easily been 1-15 without him. EASILY. Instead, they are headed to the playoffs because of him.

+1

RG3 didn't start off 6-7, as the 'skins finished the season 10-6. Started 3-6, and was 6-6 and 7-6 at some point, but get your facts straight.

ROTY voting:

1. Wilson or RG3

2. Wilson or RG3

3. Morris (redskins)

4. Luck

Adrian Peterson will no doubt win the MVP.

The votes of those who think a QB should win will be split among the candidates mentioned in this thread. None are clearly dominant. There's no way any quarterback will win this year.

Andrew Luck had 18 interceptions this season. RG3 had 5 interceptions this season. I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind who the better QB is and will be--RG3 is a different level of talented. Luck was the third best rookie quarterback. Russell Wilson had a 100.00 QB rating.