MVP in the true sense

[SWATcha]

18 minutes ago, mse326 said:

The player who had the best year. If you had the best year you provided the most value.

What defines "Best Year"? Record? Pure stats? Playoffs or not? All of the above?

[Hunter2_1]

1 hour ago, mse326 said:

The issue is you can't fence sit like that on different definitions of value but call one of them "True."

Who's fence sitting?

[SWATcha]

9 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Who's fence sitting?

Well, whoever it is, let's hope it isn't a razorwire fence 

[mse326]

4 hours ago, SWATcha said:

What defines "Best Year"? Record? Pure stats? Playoffs or not? All of the above?

There isn't a strict definition. You have to watch and say who had the best year. But record and playoffs and anything else that is a team stat is irrelevant

[mse326]

3 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Who's fence sitting?

You are when you talk about how the argument is about two different types of value. It might be used different ways in economics, but not here. It's one or the other. Given that you think relative value is what makes the "true" MVP I'll assume you are on the wrong side.

[Pats#1]

8 hours ago, Darth Pees said:

Wilson accounts for 80+% of their offense, and 90+% of their touchdowns. An average QB would get killed behind that OL and considering they don't have any run game to speak of and a defense that's struggling to stop the pass and generate pressure, it's hard to imagine them winning even 3 games without Wilson.

So we agree they'd win some games, and not be a 0-16 team.

 

Like I said, we see bad QBs on bad teams win games in the NFL every year.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

5 hours ago, Pats#1 said:

So we agree they'd win some games, and not be a 0-16 team.

Like I said, we see bad QBs on bad teams win games in the NFL every year.

And so Seattle goes from a 10-win team to maybe a 3 win team without Wilson, the guy who accounts for almost all of their touchdowns and 80% of their offense, and that's just something to be shrugged off? 3 games was a conservative, best case scenario estimate. That offensive line and that run game is that bad, and the defense has completely fallen apart.

[Pats#1]

18 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

And so Seattle goes from a 10-win team to maybe a 3 win team without Wilson, the guy who accounts for almost all of their touchdowns and 80% of their offense, and that's just something to be shrugged off? 3 games was a conservative, best case scenario estimate. That offensive line and that run game is that bad, and the defense has completely fallen apart.

Who's shrugging off what Wilson is doing?

 

Everyone has acknowledged his importance to Seattle, sorry we all aren't acting like he's a god and the only person on Earth that could possibly win with Seattle.

[Hunter2_1]

9 hours ago, mse326 said:

You are when you talk about how the argument is about two different types of value. It might be used different ways in economics, but not here. It's one or the other. Given that you think relative value is what makes the "true" MVP I'll assume you are on the wrong side.

No, I said I meant the "relative value". You even quoted me.

[MacReady]

Best way to judge this is injured players.  Watson gets my vote because the Texans are an exciting and scary team with him.  Without him, they're a "you better not lose to them" team. 

[Hunter2_1]

10 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Best way to judge this is injured players.  Watson gets my vote because the Texans are an exciting and scary team with him.  Without him, they're a "you better not lose to them" team. 

same as Rodgers and GB, no?

[mse326]

2 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

No, I said I meant the "relative value". You even quoted me.

I get that but you are also saying based on the title that is the "true" meaning. That means you don't think gross value exists? Or it does but it isn't true? I don't see how you can say one is true but the other exists as well in this context. Like I said they both exist in economics, but if you are asking who the MVP is you can only have one meaning of value. So they other in this context doesn't exist. But you simultaneously claim relative value is true while gross still exists. That doesn't make sense here.

[MacReady]

Just now, Hunter2_1 said:

same as Rodgers and GB, no?

Yes, but I didn't want to seem like a homer.  Tried to take my team out of the equation. 

[Pugger]

On 12/11/2017 at 4:14 PM, Darth Pees said:

Yeah for me this year it wouldn't even be close, it would be Russell Wilson. The thing Watson and Rodgers have going for them in this argument is they actually got hurt, so we see how bad their teams are without them. If Wilson went down, which he never has, all we have is speculation, but this Seahawks team, especially offensively, is not good. If Wilson went down, I don't think they'd win a single game.

 

This is an interesting take.  We've actually seen what happened to the teams that lost their starter but you state Wilson is because of speculation?  Seattle may very well be screwed if they lost Wilson but we really don't know for sure.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 hours ago, Pugger said:

This is an interesting take.  We've actually seen what happened to the teams that lost their starter but you state Wilson is because of speculation?  Seattle may very well be screwed if they lost Wilson but we really don't know for sure.

If Watson and Rodgers weren't hurt, and we didn't know how far those teams have fallen without them playing, would this argument remain the same? What if they were healthy and Wilson was injured and Seattle wasn't winning any games, would the argument change?

My point was that since Wilson doesn't get injured, we don't know how truly bad Seattle would be this year without him in the roster. But the fact that he accounts for almost all of their touchdowns and over 80% of their total offense (something no player has done in decades), gives us a good insight, IMO.