Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Honestly you could make a case for all three of those guys and they would be deserving of the award, but what Peterson has done this year is on another level if physical capability.
I mean yeah, probably. I just feel what AP is doing is beyond human.
The Broncos went from 25th or 26th in scoring offense to 2nd. Their OL (statistically one of the worst in the league last year) is everyone's #1 or #2 pass blocking OL (the other top team being, not surprisingly, the Giants) after being absolutely dreadful in the same metric last season. Peyton makes everyone on that team better and masks weaknesses in a way AP never could.
Meanwhile the Vikings went from rushing for 144 yards last year to 156 this year.
The Broncos went from 25th or 26th in scoring offense to 2nd. Their OL (statistically one of the worst in the league last year) is everyone's #1 or #2 pass blocking OL (the other top team being, not surprisingly, the Giants) after being absolutely dreadful in the same metric last season. Peyton makes everyone on that team better and masks weaknesses in a way AP never could.
Meanwhile the Vikings went from rushing for 144 yards last year to 156 this year.
That's because they went from the guy who backs up mark sanchez to peyton. If you put a league-average QB in there, the broncos probably still win their division.
AP: Having an amazing season, team would be in the cellar without him. But they're not even competing for their division. If they run the table and beat the texans and packers in the last 2 weeks to make the playoffs on his back, there's a very good chance he wins.
Peyton and Brady: Both putting up stellar QB numbers. Peyton has 1 more td(?) and at least twice as many ints, so brady gets maybe a slight stats edge. Both have pretty good teams around them. Brady has stepped up and won the big games though. If he beats the niners, peyton is clearly second to him.
The Broncos went from 25th or 26th in scoring offense to 2nd. Their OL (statistically one of the worst in the league last year) is everyone's #1 or #2 pass blocking OL (the other top team being, not surprisingly, the Giants) after being absolutely dreadful in the same metric last season. Peyton makes everyone on that team better and masks weaknesses in a way AP never could.
Meanwhile the Vikings went from rushing for 144 yards last year to 156 this year.
That's because they went from the guy who backs up mark sanchez to peyton. If you put a league-average QB in there, the broncos probably still win their division.
Hah, so your response to my factual back-up is a hypothetical that can't really be argued? Nice.
That's because they went from the guy who backs up mark sanchez to peyton. If you put a league-average QB in there, the broncos probably still win their division.
Hah, so your response to my factual back-up is a hypothetical that can't really be argued? Nice.
Hah, so your response to my factual back-up is a hypothetical that can't really be argued? Nice.
Tebow. Playoffs. End of discussion.
What? Why is this the end of the discussion? Because Tebow sucked and scored 18 points a game we are supposed to think that any QB could've made the playoffs?
The reason the Broncos made the playoffs is because they won the turnover battle almost every week. A run-of-the-mill backup QB wouldn't do that because they'd actually throw passes. Tebow worked for that team for one solitary season because of the way the team was set up.
For example, Orton is a pretty standard backup, and he wasn't winning any games due to the turnovers.
Its hard to sit here and argue the impact Peyton has had after taking a full season off. I'm going to take the Heisman approach. Manning has already won the MVP. Give it to AP, because his season is just as special on an individual basis as what Peyton is doing.
What? Why is this the end of the discussion? Because Tebow sucked and scored 18 points a game we are supposed to think that any QB could've made the playoffs?
The reason the Broncos made the playoffs is because they won the turnover battle almost every week. A run-of-the-mill backup QB wouldn't do that because they'd actually throw passes. Tebow worked for that team for one solitary season because of the way the team was set up.
For example, Orton is a pretty standard backup, and he wasn't winning any games due to the turnovers.
The fact that denver used tebow in an intelligent manner and found a way to win with him is just another clue that they are a good, well-run team that can win with any quarterback.
What? Why is this the end of the discussion? Because Tebow sucked and scored 18 points a game we are supposed to think that any QB could've made the playoffs?
The reason the Broncos made the playoffs is because they won the turnover battle almost every week. A run-of-the-mill backup QB wouldn't do that because they'd actually throw passes. Tebow worked for that team for one solitary season because of the way the team was set up.
For example, Orton is a pretty standard backup, and he wasn't winning any games due to the turnovers.
The fact that denver used tebow in an intelligent manner and found a way to win with him is just another clue that they are a good, well-run team that can win with any quarterback.
How does showing they can win with an archaic offense prove they can win with QBs who can't run said offense?
They were 1-4 with a regular "average QB." So the evidence shows they couldn't win with any QB, they could only win with that QB.
The fact that denver used tebow in an intelligent manner and found a way to win with him is just another clue that they are a good, well-run team that can win with any quarterback.
How does showing they can win with an archaic offense prove they can win with QBs who can't run said offense?
They were 1-4 with a regular "average QB." So the evidence shows they couldn't win with any QB, they could only win with that QB.
Post by Longtime and Frequent Poster on Dec 11, 2012 11:33:59 GMT -5
Why all this talk about Peyton and not Rodgers? I’m not sure if you guys have seen Graham Harrell attempt to play football, but they probably have the biggest dropoff from starter to backup QB in the NFL. He's also had Jordy and Jennings both healthy for about 2-3 games this year, OL in shambles at times with their best out for the year since about Week 9, running game non existent up until the past couple weeks, no Matthews or Woodson the past month on defense plus several other starters out for the season, etc.
For the record it should still probably be Brady unless he craps the bed soon, but I'd vote Rodgers before Peyton.
Why all this talk about Peyton and not Rodgers? I’m not sure if you guys have seen Graham Harrell attempt to play football, but they probably have the biggest dropoff from starter to backup QB in the NFL. He's also had Jordy and Jennings both healthy for about 2-3 games this year, OL in shambles at times with their best out for the year since about Week 9, running game non existent up until the past couple weeks, no Matthews or Woodson the past month on defense plus several other starters out for the season, etc.
For the record it should still probably be Brady unless he craps the bed soon, but I'd vote Rodgers before Peyton.
Because while Rodgers was throwing footballs a year ago, Peyton was practicing how to turn his head from side to side?
Rodgers should be in the top 5 vote getters, but he's not ahead of Brady/Manning/Peterson, IMO.
Wait...Aaron Rodgers? Really? He's having an okay season, but in no way should he be in the MVP discussion.
By the way, if RGIII only misses a week and winds up taking the Redskins to the playoffs, he needs to be in the conversation. You could argue against Brady as the Pats have a ton of offensive weapons (so the argument will be that its the system, not the player), or against Manning as Denver was good enough without him where TIM F*CKING TEBOW not only made the playoffs but won a game, but what's the argument against RGIII, aside from him being a rookie? He's got the highest QB rating in the NFL, and it's not like the Skins are stacked on either offense or defense. They're winning because of him, and only because of him. I think the same argument applies to Adrian Peterson, but running backs never get the consideration they deserve. I think Watt and Aldon Smith are having excellent seasons, but a defender is going to need to legitimately change the game and/or be heads and shoulders above everyone else to have a chance, and they aren't.
As an owner of Jordy Nelson in fantasy, you really don't get how Rodgers is in this discussion? His #1 receiver for half the season (if not more) has been James Jones. His RB is the absolutely horrific Alex Green. His OL is swiss cheese.
I don't think he wins or is even in the top 3, but he deserves to be on that short list, IMO.
And you're right, RGIII is a dark horse for MVP right now, and if he makes the playoffs he'll probably even get some votes.
Post by RadioSpirit on Dec 11, 2012 16:09:35 GMT -5
If we're discussing RG3 then why not Andrew Luck? The Colts were a worse team than the Redskins last year. Now they look just as likely, if not more likely, to make the playoffs. Also, they've made less free agent moves, meaning Luck is doing more with less. Luck certainly seems just as valuable as RG3. I'd argue Luck is more valuable.
If we're discussing RG3 then why not Andrew Luck? The Colts were a worse team than the Redskins last year. Now they look just as likely, if not more likely, to make the playoffs. Also, they've made less free agent moves, meaning Luck is doing more with less. Luck certainly seems just as valuable as RG3. I'd argue Luck is more valuable.
I know statistics shouldn't be the only measuring device for MVP, but Andrew Luck has thrown 18 interceptions this year and only has a 74.5 QB rating. Yes, Luck has brought a new dynamic to the Colts offense and is definitely one of the main reasons they're likely in the playoffs. But he's thrown 18 freakin INT's and has a comparable rating to Mark Sanchez. Luck is going to be great, but let's not throw him into the MVP discussion just yet, there's QB's having far better seasons.
If we're discussing RG3 then why not Andrew Luck? The Colts were a worse team than the Redskins last year. Now they look just as likely, if not more likely, to make the playoffs. Also, they've made less free agent moves, meaning Luck is doing more with less. Luck certainly seems just as valuable as RG3. I'd argue Luck is more valuable.
I know statistics shouldn't be the only measuring device for MVP, but Andrew Luck has thrown 18 interceptions this year and only has a 74.5 QB rating. Yes, Luck has brought a new dynamic to the Colts offense and is definitely one of the main reasons they're likely in the playoffs. But he's thrown 18 freakin INT's and has a comparable rating to Mark Sanchez. Luck is going to be great, but let's not throw him into the MVP discussion just yet, there's QB's having far better seasons.
Yeah, I watch Sanchez "play football" every single week. I'd literally murder him to get Andrew Luck. You shouldn't compare them.
Post by Longtime and Frequent Poster on Dec 11, 2012 16:38:32 GMT -5
And by the way my point was more why is Manning being discussed by everyone when Rodgers is having an extremely similar year statistically while having an inferior OL, running game, and a lot of injuries on defense all while playing in a superior division and conference. Brady/RGIII/AP should probably be top 3 at this point.