Rodgers gotta be the run away favorite for MVP after today
MVP is becoming like being selected to the Pro Bowl. Who cares anymore?
I imagine it is hard to care when one cheers for a perennial loser.
Re: Week 15 Games
Posted: 21 Dec 2021 19:20
by Raptorman
Someone has to bring a challenge to you guys, you don't do it on your own anymore. But really? The MVP will go to the QB with the team that has one of the best records. Big deal. You want to impress people, give the award to someone who balled out but was still on a losing team. After all, it's the "most valuable player" not the "most valuable player on a winning team". As any player on a losing team ever won it? Just because the team doesn't win doesn't mean that a player can't be playing lights out. Oh wait, this is the NFL where only winners are allowed to get awards for accomplishments on the field of play. A player who does well on a losing team is a loser. Funny how it's a team game until it's not.
Someone has to bring a challenge to you guys, you don't do it on your own anymore. But really? The MVP will go to the QB with the team that has one of the best records. Big deal. You want to impress people, give the award to someone who balled out but was still on a losing team. After all, it's the "most valuable player" not the "most valuable player on a winning team". As any player on a losing team ever won it? Just because the team doesn't win doesn't mean that a player can't be playing lights out. Oh wait, this is the NFL where only winners are allowed to get awards for accomplishments on the field of play. A player who does well on a losing team is a loser. Funny how it's a team game until it's not.
I mean if a player is near the best in the league, and they still play on a team with a losing record...they might be the "best" player...but they obviously arent the most "valuable" if their value cannot help their team win more games.
Someone has to bring a challenge to you guys, you don't do it on your own anymore. But really? The MVP will go to the QB with the team that has one of the best records. Big deal. You want to impress people, give the award to someone who balled out but was still on a losing team. After all, it's the "most valuable player" not the "most valuable player on a winning team". As any player on a losing team ever won it? Just because the team doesn't win doesn't mean that a player can't be playing lights out. Oh wait, this is the NFL where only winners are allowed to get awards for accomplishments on the field of play. A player who does well on a losing team is a loser. Funny how it's a team game until it's not.
I mean if a player is near the best in the league, and they still play on a team with a losing record...they might be the "best" player...but they obviously arent the most "valuable" if their value cannot help their team win more games.
And that's exactly the point. A player only has value if the team is winning. So it's not the "Most valuable player" award. It's the "Most valuable player on a winning team" award. Thank you for proving my point. One player does not win the games. No matter what you think. Put Tom Brady on the Lions and he will have a losing record.
Someone has to bring a challenge to you guys, you don't do it on your own anymore. But really? The MVP will go to the QB with the team that has one of the best records. Big deal. You want to impress people, give the award to someone who balled out but was still on a losing team. After all, it's the "most valuable player" not the "most valuable player on a winning team". As any player on a losing team ever won it? Just because the team doesn't win doesn't mean that a player can't be playing lights out. Oh wait, this is the NFL where only winners are allowed to get awards for accomplishments on the field of play. A player who does well on a losing team is a loser. Funny how it's a team game until it's not.
I mean if a player is near the best in the league, and they still play on a team with a losing record...they might be the "best" player...but they obviously arent the most "valuable" if their value cannot help their team win more games.
And that's exactly the point. A player only has value if the team is winning. So it's not the "Most valuable player" award. It's the "Most valuable player on a winning team" award. Thank you for proving my point. One player does not win the games. No matter what you think. Put Tom Brady on the Lions and he will have a losing record.
They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.
But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.
A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.
So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.
I mean if a player is near the best in the league, and they still play on a team with a losing record...they might be the "best" player...but they obviously arent the most "valuable" if their value cannot help their team win more games.
And that's exactly the point. A player only has value if the team is winning. So it's not the "Most valuable player" award. It's the "Most valuable player on a winning team" award. Thank you for proving my point. One player does not win the games. No matter what you think. Put Tom Brady on the Lions and he will have a losing record.
They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.
But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.
A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.
So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.
Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.
And that's exactly the point. A player only has value if the team is winning. So it's not the "Most valuable player" award. It's the "Most valuable player on a winning team" award. Thank you for proving my point. One player does not win the games. No matter what you think. Put Tom Brady on the Lions and he will have a losing record.
They have an offensive player of the year award for the best player on offense.
But its not most valuable player on a winning team...its just most valuable player...because value is measured in wins..so they go hand in hand. For instance, if you took Rodgers off the Packers...they might win 8 games (throwing out random number), but with Rodgers they can win a SB. Thats value.
A great offensive player on a bad team can be removed from that team and what changes? the team is still bad! That is not an example of value. Because nothing changed for the team.
So being a winning team is sort of implied when discussing how much value someone brings to their team. Because if a team is a 4 win team with or without them, they arent valuable in securing a win.
Again, thank you for making my point. So you have a good player on a team and that team goes 8-9. Without that player maybe they go 2-15. But because the team as a whole isn't a winning team, his value is diminished by the play of the team around him. But, Rodgers brings his team up from 10-7 to 14-3 and the playoffs and he has more value for 4 games than the other player has for 6 games. Based on the wins of the team, not the value of the player.
So then what attributes do you believe makes someone the most valuable player? The goal of every team in this league is to win it all. Rodgers makes the Packers a SB contender every year. Most of us here would say the Packers are most likely a .500 team if he wasn't on the roster. If that doesn't make him valuable then I don't know what does.
