The MVP race

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

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.

"Most Voted Player". 

 

[lavar703]

1 hour 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. 

I like Tua a lot. Have since his college days but he was not the guy you see now until they got Hill. That franchise was trying to dump him before McDaniel came aboard. Hill has changed the trajectory of the dolphins. His speed and ability in the open field basically makes him a once in a lifetime talent. His just as worthy of the MVP as Tua is. 

[Soko]

1 hour ago, lavar703 said:

I like Tua a lot. Have since his college days but he was not the guy you see now until they got Hill. That franchise was trying to dump him before McDaniel came aboard. Hill has changed the trajectory of the dolphins. His speed and ability in the open field basically makes him a once in a lifetime talent. His just as worthy of the MVP as Tua is. 

One guy years their ACL in Week 18, whose is more of a death sentence for Miami’s playoff hopes: Tyreek or Tua?

Edited December 5, 2023 by Soko

[Soko]

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

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". 

QB’s value has gone up, RB’s value has gone down. How many teams are being carried by a bellcow now vs in 2000-2005? It’s dreadfully ironic that you criticize the “modern” way of voting, not because it doesn’t actually go to who is actually the most valuable, but because it doesn’t follow the “old” way of also not going to who is actually more valuable. 

No, it can’t go to the actual most valuable player, because then every year it’s be Patrick Mahomes. But yeah, in any given year, the best QB will be more valuable than the best RB or best WR. Obviously, right? This is the only conversation where people suddenly forget who is the most important position on the football field.

I’ll ask you the same question: One of Tyreek or Tua tear their ACL in Week 18. Which kills the playoff chance more?

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

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. 

Eh, I don't really agree with this. I don't think the voters have changed at all, the league has. They absolutely would've picked 2006 LT over 2006 Rivers, if both did the same today. The Chargers had more rushing attempts than passing attempts that year. LT had more TDs than Rivers did, by 11. They went 14-2 with like 3200 net passing yards. Jordan Love, right now, if he doesn't throw another pass this season, is pretty damn close to Rivers's full year stats that year.

The stats just don't break down the same way anymore. CMC, as great as he is playing this year, wouldn't hit 2000 yards from scrimmage in a 16 game season, at his current pace. Probably won't hit 25 TDs, even with 17 games. Same with Tyreek, on both counts. So it's just not comparable to LT getting MVP off of 2300 yards from scrimmage and 33 TDs. RBs got it when they were workhorses, and they just aren't anymore. Even CMC isn't to nearly that degree. Is it fair? I don't know. I'm not sure I care, to be honest. It's never been fair to defensive ends, centers, free safeties, long snappers. Change the name of the award and half the guys on the field still won't stand a chance. Even before it was a QB award, it was a QB and RB award. I'm not sure that's really any better. I also don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the league changes further going forward and it shifts back to some other position anyway.

 

The 2000 Rams are just a bad example, by the way. Warner only played 11 games. 1999 when both Warner and Faulk did play all 16 games, they did give it to Warner.

[Melbourne 9er]

If the voters were fair dinkum (yes that is a real phrase) the MVP should be Trent Williams. Games he missed or left early the 9ers are 0-3 and average 17 points per game. Games he's played through the 9ers are 9-0 and average 30+ points a game. Doesn't get more "valuable" than that.

Pity it would never happen

[Soggust]

32 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

The stats just don't break down the same way anymore. CMC, as great as he is playing this year, wouldn't hit 2000 yards from scrimmage in a 16 game season, at his current pace. Probably won't hit 25 TDs, even with 17 games. Same with Tyreek, on both counts. So it's just not comparable to LT getting MVP off of 2300 yards from scrimmage and 33 TDs.

edit - ignore this. missed the obvious as usual.

if Jerry didn't win it in '87 with that line, aint no WR ever winning it. 

Spoiler

Your entire response is great and I 100% agree with your overall position but I actually thought @lancerman's historical take was really strong too tbh lol.

So, I'm asking you this as someone who does not believe other positions are remotely close value wise and I think a QB should probably win every year. But I'm having trouble challenging his point about other positions winning it historically. 

Because if we say that RBs were more relevant to the game back in the day, then certainly WRs should be slightly more valuable today (not to the same degree because usually one of a few options, blah blah).

But WRs have also gotten votes before (Jerry got 30 in '87 and finished top 3 in voting 4 times). Moss got 3 in 98. Kupp only got 1 his Triple Crown Year, but Rodgers was doing his thing. 

All this to stage - If Tyreek breaks the single season receiving record in 16 games, and ends the year with 2100 and 17 (his ballpark pace), then is that a legitimate contender at WR? Especially since the passing game is so much more relevant today? 

I hate arguing against myself, but I wonder if Tyreek just might be on that kind of pace, especially when combined with the lack of a monster QB season.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Soggust

[Jakuvious]

8 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Your entire response is great and I 100% agree with your overall position but I actually thought @lancerman's historical take was really strong too tbh lol.

So, I'm asking you this as someone who does not believe other positions are remotely close value wise and I think a QB should probably win every year. But I'm having trouble challenging his point about other positions winning it historically. 

Because if we say that RBs were more relevant to the game back in the day, then certainly WRs should be slightly more valuable today (not to the same degree because usually one of a few options, blah blah).

But WRs have also gotten votes before (Jerry got 30 in '87 and finished top 3 in voting 4 times). Moss got 3 in 98. Kupp only got 1 his Triple Crown Year, but Rodgers was doing his thing. 

All this to stage - If Tyreek breaks the single season receiving record in 16 games, and ends the year with 2100 and 17 (his ballpark pace), then is that a legitimate contender at WR? Especially since the passing game is so much more relevant today? 

I hate arguing against myself, but I wonder if Tyreek just might be on that kind of pace, especially when combined with the lack of a monster QB season.

I think WR is your best shot going forward, yes. At this point WRs are probably more likely to hit that level of productivity than RBs. The one difficulty that does come with the WR position is it's much more inherently tied to QB than RB. RB would kind of compete with OL for credit, if anything. But with WR, it's so tied to the QB, it's hard for a WR to have that kind of season without the QB having a similarly great season. You wind up in that trap that @Soko is pointing out. Hill is having an amazing season, but he still isn't more valuable to the Dolphins than Tua. And it's so hard to escape that comparison. And again, maybe that's not fair, but it is what it is.

I think this is compounded a bit by the fact that, with QBs being as valuable as they are, they're also very heavily tied to whether teams are winning or not. So if you get the perfect storm, a WR having a season like Hill's, and it's very clear the QB is getting carried, no one thinks the QB is more important than the WR because they clearly aren't that good. Well then the team probably isn't going to have that great of a season because their QB isn't good. So then you're going to have a hard time winning enough games to be in that MVP conversation. That also might not be fair, but that's always been a part of the story.

So like, you need the WR to have a great season. You need QBs league wide to not be particularly spectacular. You need that WR's QB to not have that great of a season, but just good enough to allow the WR to produce. And you need them to be good enough to win enough games for the team to be relevant, but not good enough to draw the credit and praise. It's just a weird sweet spot things have to land in that's overall pretty unlikely.

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, Soko said:

QB’s value has gone up, RB’s value has gone down. How many teams are being carried by a bellcow now vs in 2000-2005? It’s dreadfully ironic that you criticize the “modern” way of voting, not because it doesn’t actually go to who is actually the most valuable, but because it doesn’t follow the “old” way of also not going to who is actually more valuable. 

No, it can’t go to the actual most valuable player, because then every year it’s be Patrick Mahomes. But yeah, in any given year, the best QB will be more valuable than the best RB or best WR. Obviously, right? This is the only conversation where people suddenly forget who is the most important position on the football field.

I’ll ask you the same question: One of Tyreek or Tua tear their ACL in Week 18. Which kills the playoff chance more?

My critcism is specifically that it doesn't go to the most valuable player. The "valuable" part of the award is just used as a pretense to rule some players out and then we all forget about it because then you have to decide on the QB with flash stats or the QB that doesn't but is doing the most with the least (which is what value is). If it was truly the most valuable player award, you'd have a better argument for Lawrence because while he doesn't have the most eye popping statline, he has his team in the hunt for the one seed despite having one of the less efficient defenses of the division leaders on his team and not having the star caliber skill players that the other QB's with division winning teams have. But that's going to get ignored for someone like Purdy who has CMC, Deebo, and Aiyuk on offense and a top defense. 

My point is be consistent. If you want to argue value, argue it the whole way. Don't argue it until you DQ enough people you don't want to deal with and then go give it to the guy who is putting up the flashiest numbers surrounded by elite talent.

Btw the answer to your question is easily Hill. That is an offensively pass driven team and Hill is far and away the majority of the production and what is pulling the majority of the defenses attention. We already know if a team can remotely contain that passing offense, the Dolphins turn into pumpkins. Waddle is good, but that team is far less scary if defenses are mostly focusing on scheming Waddle out and forcing Tua to win with whatever is left. That team flipped a switch when Hill got there. The only reason to say Tua is because he benefits from Hill. 

[Soko]

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

My critcism is specifically that it doesn't go to the most valuable player. The "valuable" part of the award is just used as a pretense to rule some players out and then we all forget about it because then you have to decide on the QB with flash stats or the QB that doesn't but is doing the most with the least (which is what value is). If it was truly the most valuable player award, you'd have a better argument for Lawrence because while he doesn't have the most eye popping statline, he has his team in the hunt for the one seed despite having one of the less efficient defenses of the division leaders on his team and not having the star caliber skill players that the other QB's with division winning teams have. But that's going to get ignored for someone like Purdy who has CMC, Deebo, and Aiyuk on offense and a top defense. 

My point is be consistent. If you want to argue value, argue it the whole way. Don't argue it until you DQ enough people you don't want to deal with and then go give it to the guy who is putting up the flashiest numbers surrounded by elite talent.

Being on winning teams, putting up big numbers, beating other contenders H2H - these are all things that present value. Seems pretty consistent to me.

5 hours ago, lancerman said:

Btw the answer to your question is easily Hill. That is an offensively pass driven team and Hill is far and away the majority of the production and what is pulling the majority of the defenses attention. We already know if a team can remotely contain that passing offense, the Dolphins turn into pumpkins. Waddle is good, but that team is far less scary if defenses are mostly focusing on scheming Waddle out and forcing Tua to win with whatever is left. That team flipped a switch when Hill got there. The only reason to say Tua is because he benefits from Hill. 

Lmao. 

Yes, Tua greatly benefits from Hill, but no, that team isn’t better off without Tua than without Hill. Without Hill the team’s still got Waddle and two of the most dynamic runners in the league. Without Tua you get Skylar Thompson going 18/45 with two interceptions in the playoffs. Historically there has been a lot less teams that go on runs with backup QBs than there are ones without #1 WRs like Hill. You’re being disingenuous here, or you really are lost in that sauce.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Soko

[NYRaider]

Tyreek Hill deserves to be the MVP if he finishes the season at his current pace. (132 receptions, 2,100 yards, 17 TD)

Dak has looked like the MVP over the last few weeks though, assuming it goes to a QB.

[KhanYouDigIt]

With Lawrence hurt, Dak now my leader for MVP.

[incognito_man]

Purdy

Tua/Dak/Stroud

looking at the passing numbers. But there's probably 6-8 other guys who could still win it, too. Wide friggin open

[straighthate]

22 hours ago, beekay414 said:

37, 30, 31 and 30 are the most attempts the man's had in a game this year. He's the ultimate game manager. 

Such a dumb argument. He’s averaging 2 yards per game less than Allen and 4 more than Mahomes with 100+ less pass attempts. He has one TD more than Mahomes and one TD less than Mahomes and the interceptions aren’t even close. Are you saying he should throw more even though he’s getting it done with less? You’re literally using his efficiency against him. So should he just throw some random incompletions to get the attempts up so you don’t think he’s a game manager? Or maybe just throw a few extra short gains to get his YPA down so he’s gotta stretch out the drives?  Or are Allen and Mahomes game managers because they’re only throwing for around 265/game too?

 

The attempts mean absolutely nothing. The production in those attempts is what matters. 

[THE DUKE]

At the moment, I would go Dak.  Still plenty of room to rise/fall these last five weeks though.