The MVP race

[Soggust]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

Per Mike Sando, Purdy has gotten 48.5% of his passing yards from YAC this year. League average is 47% and the last 10 MVP QBs averaged 48.0%. Last year Mahomes got 54% of his yards from YAC. 

Don't like the Mahomes collateral damage but strong post otherwise.

 

46 minutes ago, Soko said:

Hill and CMC have no argument because they’re not even the most valuable players on their own team. 

Come playoff time, Tua or Purdy going down is x10 more of a death sentence than CMC or Hill.

Yeah, I don't understand the non-QB argument.

"No QB is separating himself, so it's time for a skill position player to win it".

But we can't even decide on which non-QB deserves it lol.

I am pretty sure an average-ish QB's WAR (wins above replacement) is around 2-4 wins and I think Cooper Kupp's all time receiving season was just barely above 1. 

Non-QBs don't win the Most Valuable Player award very often, because they just aren't as valuable. 

[BroncoSojia]

4 minutes ago, Soggust said:

 

Don't like the Mahomes collateral damage but strong post otherwise.

 

Yeah, I don't understand the non-QB argument.

"No QB is separating himself, so it's time for a skill position player to win it".

But we can't even decide on which non-QB deserves it lol.

I am pretty sure an average-ish QB's WAR (wins above replacement) is around 2-4 wins and I think Cooper Kupp's all time receiving season was just barely above 1. 

Non-QBs don't win the Most Valuable Player award very often, because they just aren't as valuable. 

Let's start a petition.

3 hours ago, BroncoSojia said:

they should probably just rename the award to "QB with the best narrative" or something.

 

[Soggust]

1 minute ago, BroncoSojia said:

Let's start a petition.

 

I mean, you're not wrong.

I do think it makes OPOY a lot more valuable of an award, however. 

[Drained]

3 hours ago, BroncoSojia said:

Now I wouldn't disrespect Purdy by calling him a mere game manager, I just think McCaffery is more valuable to the offense. 

If CMC went out in a playoff game, the 9ers can still win. If Purdy goes out, kiss the game good bye. That’s the difference 

[bigbadbuff]

2 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

3 weeks ago: "Josh Allen's fumbles and turnovers are a huge issue considering he leads the league in turnovers"

Now: "Josh Allen does not have turnover problem and hasn't for years, what are you talking about?"

🤔

I was never in camp 1 lol. Always thought it was completely over blown.

[lavar703]

2 hours ago, Soko said:

Hill and CMC have no argument because they’re not even the most valuable players on their own team. 

Come playoff time, Tua or Purdy going down is x10 more of a death sentence than CMC or Hill.

Then call it the "best QB award" and stop pretending its anything more than that. 

[Forge]

54 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I mean, you're not wrong.

I do think it makes OPOY a lot more valuable of an award, however. 

CMC has a previous 1k / 1k season and this year will likely have about 2000 scrimmage yards and maybe 25 TDs and will have 0 OPOYs most likely. That's rough lol 

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[Soko]

43 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

Then call it the "best QB award" and stop pretending it’s anything more than that. 

If anything, it’s other people who want it to be changed to “Most Oustanding Player”, which it isn’t. It’s most valuable.

Purdy and Tua are more valuable than CMC and Hill. It’s pretty simple, and jives exactly with what the award is called and described as. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

11 minutes ago, Soko said:

If anything, it’s other people who want it to be changed to “Most Oustanding Player”, which it isn’t. It’s most valuable.

Purdy and Tua are more valuable than CMC and Hill. It’s pretty simple, and jives exactly with what the award is called and described as. 

They could just called the award "Most Valuable Passer" and have the same acronym. 

The award just spotlighting quarterbacks is one change I think would be warranted sooner rather than later. Just seems unfair to other positions, because you'll never see an OL win the MVP as it stands now. 

In my perfect headspace I'd have two different awards with Most Outstanding Player, and Most Valuable Passer. 

[Soko]

4 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

They could just called the award "Most Valuable Passer" and have the same acronym. 

The award just spotlighting quarterbacks is one change I think would be warranted sooner rather than later. Just seems unfair to other positions, because you'll never see an OL win the MVP as it stands now. 

In my perfect headspace I'd have two different awards with Most Outstanding Player, and Most Valuable Passer. 

I’m cool with that.

I do think things eventually get a little diluted by doing down that path because I see other positions entering the discussion. Most valuable receiver, move valuable runner, move valuable blocker, etc. And then what? Just a second All-Pro list with different voters.

[lancerman]

13 minutes ago, Soko said:

If anything, it’s other people who want it to be changed to “Most Oustanding Player”, which it isn’t. It’s most valuable.

Purdy and Tua are more valuable than CMC and Hill. It’s pretty simple, and jives exactly with what the award is called and described as. 

This would be true if the award was always given to QB's, but historically it hasn't been. The voters and media just dramatically changed how much they weigh the criteria of "valuable" now. And even then it's sort of a bs criteria. It's just used to give it to a QB with the best stats, it's never really given to the QB who is dragging the least talented team the furthest. So even then value is dubious. 

The voters today would never have given it to Marshall Faulk over Warner, or LT over Rivers. 

Hill is having the type of season that has won the award for non QB's in the past, and frankly people are on crack if they think Tua is more important to that team. We know what that team looked like with Tua and not Hill. We also know what the team looked like with Hill and Tua out for injury. 

Historically, this is the type of a year a non QB should probably win it. There's a historic season at another position and the QB's have been just rotating and nobody is really showing they are standing out from the pack. It's just the way the award has been decided has been nerfed. 

Ironically if you through 85% of the history of the award, this is pretty much a textbook type of a year for a skill position player to get it over a QB. Only the last decade has really changed that and made it so it's pretty much impossible. So it is the award that in fact changed, so maybe the name should be changed to reflect that if you are going to essentially say no other position can actually win it.

It's why these discussions have gotten duller and duller in recent years. It's not even the most "valuable player award" it's the "which QB is on the winningest team with the best stats award". 

[lancerman]

10 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

They could just called the award "Most Valuable Passer" and have the same acronym. 

The award just spotlighting quarterbacks is one change I think would be warranted sooner rather than later. Just seems unfair to other positions, because you'll never see an OL win the MVP as it stands now. 

In my perfect headspace I'd have two different awards with Most Outstanding Player, and Most Valuable Passer. 

Again it's not even "value" anymore. They don't consider value besides the position. Once they get to a candidate of QB's, value is thrown out the window to whoever has the best team and is winning the most. They never go "oh this QB is dragging his team to playoffs despite not having the most talent and dealing with injuries on his team, he is clearly providing value". It's "zomg look at how much this QB on this extremely talented offense is winning with these all star players and stacked roster". 

Which, again, is fine if you want the award to be that. But don't hide behind the word "valuable" up to the point where you iced every other position out of the award, then all of a sudden stop caring about it after that point. Because it's not truly "the most valuable player" award. They'll give the award to a QB on the most fail proof teams possible. They did it with Brady in 2007 when his roster was yoked. They did it with Manning in 2013 when he had the best offense in the league and no other QB had anything close. They did it with Mahomes when he had was throwing to a TE and WR who were getting wide open on every single play in 2018. That's not value. That's just rewarding the guy on the most talented offense for putting up crazy numbers. 

[lancerman]

8 minutes ago, Soko said:

I’m cool with that.

I do think things eventually get a little diluted by doing down that path because I see other positions entering the discussion. Most valuable receiver, move valuable runner, move valuable blocker, etc. And then what? Just a second All-Pro list with different voters.

It should be 

QBOY (QB of the Year)

OSPOY (Offensive Skill Player of the Year)

OLOTY (Offensive Lineman of the Year)

DLOY (Defensive Lineman of the Year.... you can include linebackers in this)

DBOY (Defensive Back of the Year)

Then you can just have the OPOY and DPOY for the overall best regardless of position on each side of the ball. Or screw that, you could just have "Best Player of the Year). 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

8 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Again it's not even "value" anymore. They don't consider value besides the position. Once they get to a candidate of QB's, value is thrown out the window to whoever has the best team and is winning the most. They never go "oh this QB is dragging his team to playoffs despite not having the most talent and dealing with injuries on his team, he is clearly providing value". It's "zomg look at how much this QB on this extremely talented offense is winning with these all star players and stacked roster". 

Which, again, is fine if you want the award to be that. But don't hide behind the word "valuable" up to the point where you iced every other position out of the award, then all of a sudden stop caring about it after that point. Because it's not truly "the most valuable player" award. They'll give the award to a QB on the most fail proof teams possible. They did it with Brady in 2007 when his roster was yoked. They did it with Manning in 2013 when he had the best offense in the league and no other QB had anything close. They did it with Mahomes when he had was throwing to a TE and WR who were getting wide open on every single play in 2018. That's not value. That's just rewarding the guy on the most talented offense for putting up crazy numbers. 

It would just be for cosmetic purposes, because MVP is already in the football lexicon, and has been for so long. If you can find a more fitting V word then be all means.