The MVP race

[typecast]

42 minutes ago, Soko said:

How’d everyone let this one slide? lol.

If Purdy went down for the postseason, SF would be dead in the water and a have 0% chance at hoisting the Lombardi. Same as the other teams you mentioned. 

GEQBUS train!

[CP3MVP]

If you’re gonna have the most stacked team in the league and win mvp, I think it’s only fair that you have to have the best record in the league. 

[Art_Vandalay]

4 hours ago, Soggust said:

I didn’t think I needed to preface with “Assuming they have a QB available to play QB” lol.

[Art_Vandalay]

7 hours ago, Forge said:

Mahomes had a receiver who is in the process of putting up the greatest receiving season ever, arguably the best tight end ever, possibly the best right tackle of the last decade, a dpoy caliber DT who may end up on a HOF trajectory. That's a lot of talent. 

Warner had multiple hall of famers on his team. 

Hell, some eagles reporters think the eagles roster is better than the niners one 

etc etc. 

MVPs often play on stacked teams. I think that actually helps them. That's why when Ben Solak and Sheil Kapadia were picking preseason MVPs, they said "just pick a QB on the 1 or 2 seed in either conference" 

 

1. The KC defense that year was awful (31st in ypg and 24th in ppg). The Niners defense is bludgeoning everybody. They’re allowing 15 ppg. I don’t know the answer to this but I doubt there has ever been an MVP QB with 0 4th quarter comebacks. He’s had 3 opportunities this year and 0-3.

2. I agree about Warner. But let the record show you’re going back 22 years for this example 😉 

3. I’m sure every city has some dope saying these things at their local radio station.

[typecast]

14 minutes ago, Art_Vandalay said:

I don’t know the answer to this but I doubt there has ever been an MVP QB with 0 4th quarter comebacks

Five. From PFR

• 0 - Rodgers 11, Warner 99, Favre 97, Favre 95, Morrall 68
• 1 - Rodgers 21, Rodgers 20, Jackson 19, Ryan 16, Rodgers 14, McNair 03, Gannon 02, Warner 01, Favre 96, Young 94, Jones 76, Tarkenton 75, Gabriel 69, Starr 66, Tittle 63
• 2 - Mahomes 18, Brady 17, Manning 13, Brady 10, Manning 04, Marino 84, Theismann 83, Anderson 81, Bradshaw 78 Stabler 74, Brodie 70, Unitas 64, Unitas 59
• 3 - Newton 15, Manning 03, Young 92, Montana 90, Esiason 88, Elway 87, Sipe 80
• 4 - Mahomes 22, Manning 08, Brady 07, Montana 89, Unitas 67
• 7 - Manning 09

[Duluther]

38 minutes ago, typecast said:

Five. From PFR

• 0 - Rodgers 11, Warner 99, Favre 97, Favre 95, Morrall 68
• 1 - Rodgers 21, Rodgers 20, Jackson 19, Ryan 16, Rodgers 14, McNair 03, Gannon 02, Warner 01, Favre 96, Young 94, Jones 76, Tarkenton 75, Gabriel 69, Starr 66, Tittle 63
• 2 - Mahomes 18, Brady 17, Manning 13, Brady 10, Manning 04, Marino 84, Theismann 83, Anderson 81, Bradshaw 78 Stabler 74, Brodie 70, Unitas 64, Unitas 59
• 3 - Newton 15, Manning 03, Young 92, Montana 90, Esiason 88, Elway 87, Sipe 80
• 4 - Mahomes 22, Manning 08, Brady 07, Montana 89, Unitas 67
• 7 - Manning 09

wth, I've never heard of QB Brian Sipe. 

[Soggust]

1 hour ago, Art_Vandalay said:

I didn’t think I needed to preface with “Assuming they have a QB available to play QB” lol.

When you are talking about Sam Darnold coming in and replicating, idk, I think you do need to clarify lol.

[Art_Vandalay]

24 minutes ago, Soggust said:

When you are talking about Sam Darnold coming in and replicating, idk, I think you do need to clarify lol.

My bad. I don’t think a team will be successful if a RB is playing QB. Sorry for the confusion.

[scar988]

1 hour ago, typecast said:

Five. From PFR

• 0 - Rodgers 11, Warner 99, Favre 97, Favre 95, Morrall 68
• 1 - Rodgers 21, Rodgers 20, Jackson 19, Ryan 16, Rodgers 14, McNair 03, Gannon 02, Warner 01, Favre 96, Young 94, Jones 76, Tarkenton 75, Gabriel 69, Starr 66, Tittle 63
• 2 - Mahomes 18, Brady 17, Manning 13, Brady 10, Manning 04, Marino 84, Theismann 83, Anderson 81, Bradshaw 78 Stabler 74, Brodie 70, Unitas 64, Unitas 59
• 3 - Newton 15, Manning 03, Young 92, Montana 90, Esiason 88, Elway 87, Sipe 80
• 4 - Mahomes 22, Manning 08, Brady 07, Montana 89, Unitas 67
• 7 - Manning 09

What's crazy is Ryan has 38 4QCs in his career, but only had 1 in 2016. That team was so much better than given credit for.

[Soggust]

2 minutes ago, Art_Vandalay said:

My bad. I don’t think a team will be successful if a RB is playing QB. Sorry for the confusion.

lol I was just joking about Darnold being trash, because I have enough respect for you to believe you're not taking the position that Josh Johnson was going to lead them to a second half comeback down 21-7 before getting hurt (or even 14-7 if we say the first TD was on Purdy's watch).

I assumed we would move to sample size at that point, so figured just laugh it off and move on.

----------

Because the thing is - I don't really hate your point. The problem I have is that we only apply this logic to Purdy and, occasionally, Tua. If we are disqualifying Brock for having such a stacked team, fine - but then we obviously also have to disqualify Jalen.

I'll even make the same case against Dak (who is my MVP atm). He has a top 3 WR, a great running game, a SB winning offensive minded HC, a great defense and a strong o-line compared to Brock. Maybe they're not quite as deep as the 49ers or Eagles, but Dak still has arguably top 5 support.

Like, what are we even talking about? Does this not seem like splitting hairs?

Folks talk about the 49ers like they are Alabama playing in the MAC, but I just don't buy that. They are a great team, no doubt, but they still have to work for wins like everyone else.

[Art_Vandalay]

1 hour ago, typecast said:

Five. From PFR

• 0 - Rodgers 11, Warner 99, Favre 97, Favre 95, Morrall 68

Rk	Year	G#	Date	Age	Tm		Opp	Result	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	Int	Rate	Y/A	AY/A	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD	Notes
6	2011	12	2011-12-04	28-002	GNB	@	NYG	W 38-35	28	46	60.87	369	4	1	106.2	8.02	8.78	4	32	8.00	0	GWD

^^It says Aaron had 1 that year^^

Rk	Year	G#	Date	Age	Tm		Opp	Result	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	Int	Rate	Y/A	AY/A	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD	Notes
9	1995	10	1995-11-12	26-033	GNB		CHI	W 35-28	25	33	75.76	336	5	0	147.2	10.18	13.21	1	2	2.00	0	GWD

^^Brett had 1 that year^^

[typecast]

37 minutes ago, Art_Vandalay said:

Rk	Year	G#	Date	Age	Tm		Opp	Result	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	Int	Rate	Y/A	AY/A	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD	Notes
6	2011	12	2011-12-04	28-002	GNB	@	NYG	W 38-35	28	46	60.87	369	4	1	106.2	8.02	8.78	4	32	8.00	0	GWD

^^It says Aaron had 1 that year^^

Rk	Year	G#	Date	Age	Tm		Opp	Result	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	Int	Rate	Y/A	AY/A	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD	Notes
9	1995	10	1995-11-12	26-033	GNB		CHI	W 35-28	25	33	75.76	336	5	0	147.2	10.18	13.21	1	2	2.00	0	GWD

^^Brett had 1 that year^^

Game Winning Drive (GWD) is not Fourth Quarter Comeback (4QC).

A Game Winning Drive is an offensive scoring drive in the 4th quarter or overtime that puts the winning team ahead for the last time.

A Fourth Quarter Comeback is an offensive scoring drive in the 4th quarter, with the team trailing by one score, though not necessarily a drive to take the lead. Only games ending in a win or tie are included.

The NYG tied the game up with Rodgers' 2011 Packers. Packers drive and kick a field goal late, winning the game.

Favre's 1995 Packers tied up the game with the Bears in the 3rd. In the 4th quarter, GB scored a touchdown with 9:17 to go. With 1:55 to go, Kramer would throw a pick in the endzone. The Bears would get the ball back with 30 secs to go, drive down the field, and have 3 shots from the GB 14 into the endzone. All incomplete.

Edited December 8, 2023 by typecast
Added screenshot and details

[Art_Vandalay]

34 minutes ago, Soggust said:

lol I was just joking about Darnold being trash, because I have enough respect for you to believe you're not taking the position that Josh Johnson was going to lead them to a second half comeback down 21-7 before getting hurt (or even 14-7 if we say the first TD was on Purdy's watch).

I assumed we would move to sample size at that point, so figured just laugh it off and move on.

----------

Because the thing is - I don't really hate your point. The problem I have is that we only apply this logic to Purdy and, occasionally, Tua. If we are disqualifying Brock for having such a stacked team, fine - but then we obviously also have to disqualify Jalen.

I'll even make the same case against Dak (who is my MVP atm). He has a top 3 WR, a great running game, a SB winning offensive minded HC, a great defense and a strong o-line compared to Brock. Maybe they're not quite as deep as the 49ers or Eagles, but Dak still has arguably top 5 support.

Like, what are we even talking about? Does this not seem like splitting hairs?

Folks talk about the 49ers like they are Alabama playing in the MAC, but I just don't buy that. They are a great team, no doubt, but they still have to work for wins like everyone else.

I agree Josh Johnson wasn't leading them to victory. I don't want it to seem like I'm saying Purdy isn't a good QB. He's playing great. He has an argument as being a top 10 QB in the league.

My issue is with people saying, "Well, [these teams] are stacked too..." There's being a stacked team, then there's the 49ers. They literally have an all-pro at every unit on their team. OL, RB, WR, TE, DL, LB, and DB all contain a 1st team all-pro. In terms of overall talent, there's no team even remotely close to the 49ers.

[jonnguy2015]

Even in his worst game of the season Purdy did have what would have been a game-winning drive/4th quarter comeback against the Browns, but he can't control for the kicker missing. He did the same against the Raiders last year

[scar988]

1 minute ago, Art_Vandalay said:

I agree Josh Johnson wasn't leading them to victory. I don't want it to seem like I'm saying Purdy isn't a good QB. He's playing great. He has an argument as being a top 10 QB in the league.

My issue is with people saying, "Well, [these teams] are stacked too..." There's being a stacked team, then there's the 49ers. They literally have an all-pro at every unit on their team. OL, RB, WR, TE, DL, LB, and DB all contain a 1st team all-pro. In terms of overall talent, there's no team even remotely close to the 49ers.

IDK, the Eagles are pretty close.