NFL 2011 Season Week 17 Picks

Here's some quick stastical Analysis of the guys most people are talking about for MVP, Brady, Rodgers, and Brees

Stats: INT, Multi INT games, passing TDs, Passing Yards, Yards per attempt, Passing Rating, ESPN's QBR
Brady: 11, 3, 65.6, 36, 4897, 8.5, 105.1, 87.5
Brees:13, 5, 70.7 41, 5087, 8.18 108.4, 82.7
Rodgers: 6, 0, 68.3, 45, 4643, 9.25, 122.5, 85.2

And it should be noted that Brees will have played 11 games in a dome this season, while Rodgers has played 3 in a dome.

The only case for Rodgers now is ints, and the fact that a ton of ppl may have pre decided the MVP in week 6.

Peter King explains his vote for Rodgers. It turns out, Peter King took a lot of the exact same things into consideration that I mentioned with my stats breakdown from earlier. Apparently do think these things through.

It's clear to me Peter King wanted Rodgers, and found evidence to support his conclusion, rather than the other way around, and this is why Rodgers will win.

This is MVP of the season, not of the last 8 games. I agree that using the Week one matchup where both QBs played well while only one was capable of winning is weak. Especially since QBs have never once in the history of the NFL actually played against another QB. They play against the defense. But, the timing of bad games shouldn't matter either. Brees played 2 or 3 stinkers this year (and by "stinkers" I mean better than the average QB but not MVP caliber). Rodgers played 1 bad game, but that one bad game was better than 2 of Brees's bad games. And just because Brees's two bad games came in the first half of the season and Rodgers single solitary bad game came 2 weeks before the season ended shouldn't matter either. It should be about the entire season, not "what have you done for me lately".

Rodgers set a passing record this year two, a couple of them actually. Consecutive games with passer rating over 100, and overall passer rating for the season.

The first one is a made up one, and the latter I'd throw in as "minor" with Brees' completion record.

Every QB every season is going to be the first to do something, if you dig enough.

And whose streak did that beat and what was the old mark?

Penalizing a QB because he "only" put up the big numbers when passing more is crazy, baffingly, stupid. Maybe Rodgers throws 3 more ints if he has 150 more attempts. But no, lets only adjust the numbers one way, and pretend like more passing attempts is somehow a bad thing in the first place. Sure this guy had twice as many stikeouts as this other guy, but only cause he was asked to pitch in twice as many innings!!

BECAUSE he was more efficient.

The Saints offense beat the greatest show on turf for most team yards. Being successful at executing plays, leads to more plays. The whole point of earning a first down is to get more plays, so penalizing the guy that had more attempts is silly, considering a bulk of the game is earning more attempts. The Saints passed about 60% of the time, and the Packers passed about 58% of the time, so penalizing the guy that just got "more" is stupid at best, and totally unfair at worst, because presumably the point is "well if the Packers let Rodgers pass as many times....." but the Packers essentially DID, they just weren't as good at earning plays, or scored on more big plays.

Each drive is capped at 100 yards and one TD, max.

The answer is a) he didn't, as a percentage of plays, they just ran more plays b) he still did what he did.

The Saints passed about 60% of the time, and the Packers passed about 58% of the time

For the purely stats based approach, check this out:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

By total stats (DYAR) it's Brees, Rodgers, Brady. By per play stats (DVOA), it's Rodgers, Brady, Brees.

Combined ranking: Rodgers (3), Brees (4), Brady (5).

Those are old numbers, but it will be interesting to see that when it's updated.

Yes, there's a difference there that boils down to statistical noise. Both teams passed about 6 times out of every 10 plays.

I guess I'm just curious as to why this is the first time I've ever seen "but this guy played so much less!" as something in a "pro" column in a debate over who was more valuable to his team.

he doesn't include Brett Favre's 1997 MVP which he shared with Barry Sanders

That was a bigger outrage than the Manning/McNair MVP.

Yeah, well, he was wrong.

It "feels like" the MVP should be Rodgers, unless you let evidence lead you to a conclusion, and then at the very least you should make Brees co mvp, if not outright.

I
I agree 100%, however I don't think I'm doing that, and to a certain extent my point is I think people are doing the opposite. This is MVP of the season, not of the FIRST 8 games, 10 games, 12 games, and so on.

Dismissing Brees' "surge" as "people getting caught up in 'what have you done for me lately'" is totally unfair. He still put up the numbers he did, and the numbers are the numbers. Brees catching, and surpassing, Rodgers' numbers over the last few weeks shouldn't "not count" because Rodgers "locked up" the MVP a month and a half ago, facts and evidence from here on out be damned.

Is objective, statstical (by which I mean, only yards and touchdowns) the only criteria that should be used? Is situational evidence valid? Are game-by-game breakdowns valid? Is it valid to analyze whether or not the sheer statistics alone tell the whole story? Is it valid to decide if a touchdown pass late in the 4th qtr of a game you are already winning by 20 points helps to determine if you are any more valuable than a guy who's backup is playing by that point in the game?*

It's one thing to disagree with some of the analysis. It's another to claim that there is no evidence to support the opposition. There is evidence there. Whether you want to see it is another story.


edit: *There's a difference in saying that someone is undesevering of a record because he put up a lot of yards late in games that were seemingly already decided and someone saying a player is undeserving of being awarded the MVP for the same reason. I don't think anyone is saying that Brees's statistics should be called into question because of the manner in which they were achieved (and really, there was nothing really all too manipulative about it). It's another to decide of said excess was unnecessary or to decide that it doesn't add to the player's value.

But if someone's better is better, can't that offset more bad?

Rodgers will win MVP and Brees will win offensive Player of the Year. Which always amuses me because MVP always goes to an offensive player anyway, and yet that player often does not win both awards. I'm pretty sure I know the reasons why this happens, but it's funny to think about what it implies if you just take it at face value.