PDA

View Full Version : Mvp



ChadCollins
11-07-2003, 11:26 AM
a topic of good discussion. What does MVP mean and who is the mvp so far?

In my opinion, the mvp means a player most valuable to your team. Or do you think its most valuable all around player? I think the MVP would have to be Priest Holmes or Favre. If you take Favre or Holmes away from there teams, their teams would not do a thing. I would say for Favre especially. If the Packers dont have Favre, they win 5 games. If KC doesnt have Holmes, Id say they win 6 or 7 games. I would also consider Peyton Manning and Mcnair in the same regard. Now if your talking the most valuable or "best overall player", I think thats a different story. There are still players who can change games in a drop of a hat that play on bad teams. I will still say Marshall Faulk is a MVP player even though he has had some injury problems, and how about players like Issac Bruce? If Bruce played for the Chiefs he would be considered for MVP. I guess its how you look at the word MVP. In my opinon, the best overall player in the NFL is Harrison. The MVP or player most valuable to a team would be Favre

Javalon
11-07-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by ChadCollins
a topic of good discussion. What does MVP mean and who is the mvp so far?

In my opinion, the mvp means a player most valuable to your team. Or do you think its most valuable all around player? I think the MVP would have to be Priest Holmes or Favre. If you take Favre or Holmes away from there teams, their teams would not do a thing. I would say for Favre especially. If the Packers dont have Favre, they win 5 games. If KC doesnt have Holmes, Id say they win 6 or 7 games. I would also consider Peyton Manning and Mcnair in the same regard. Now if your talking the most valuable or "best overall player", I think thats a different story. There are still players who can change games in a drop of a hat that play on bad teams. I will still say Marshall Faulk is a MVP player even though he has had some injury problems, and how about players like Issac Bruce? If Bruce played for the Chiefs he would be considered for MVP. I guess its how you look at the word MVP. In my opinon, the best overall player in the NFL is Harrison. The MVP or player most valuable to a team would be Favre

If you're talking about the most important players to their team, why not Jake Plummer? Look at what happened to the Broncos after he went down. :)

Actually, people rarely look at the defensive side of the ball when talking about the MVP. Why not Ray Lewis? I'm not a fan of his but I fully respect the kind of player he is. That Ravens' defense would be completely average or worse without him.

bklynbronco
11-07-2003, 12:20 PM
most valuable player to me means that if that player wasn't on the team, the team would lose or at least be a 500 team. that's a valuable player. that player could be on defense or offense. i also think that another award should go to the player with the best numbers and they should get awarded player of they year. a most valuable player might not have the great numbers but does everything to help his team win while a player of the year might have the numbers but the team doesn't make the playoffs.

broncos4ever
11-08-2003, 03:09 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Javalon
[B]If you're talking about the most important players to their team, why not Jake Plummer? Look at what happened to the Broncos after he went down. :)

Jake has my vote for MVPf if we are keeping this to the Broncos. We have lost three games since he went down. Look at our record before he quit playing, we had lost one game and it was a close one. Since he went down we have lost three games using two quarterbacks. Sure we won one, but there is something that a MVP brings to the team.

We definitely need Jake back. Clinton is important, but we are not winning games, even with him healthy and running for 100 yards per game.

BroncoCy
11-08-2003, 03:37 PM
MVP=Steve McNair. The dude has brass balls and brings it week in and week out. The Titans would blow without him.

BroncoCy
11-08-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
As much as you don't like it, Dante Hall has to be a prime candidate so far.

He should be...but I just don't think he's on the field enough to get it. I don't think he'll be considered much though because everyone is kicking away from him now. The dude is a playmaker though.

Javalon
11-08-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
As much as you don't like it, Dante Hall has to be a prime candidate so far.

I disagree. And it's not because I don't like the Chiefs.

I think Priest Holmes is a viable candidate for MVP. But it's nearly impossible for a return man like Hall to to compete with full time offensive stars.

For instance, Holmes has 12 TD's while Hall has 5 (1 off. + 4 ret.). Priest has a ton of offensive yards while Hall has very little. Yeah, Hall has a ton of kick return yards but it's hard to to compare that to offensive yards because most kick returners get decent chunks of yardage on every return.

Now, I'll admit that Hall is probably the best return man in the game right now but he can't win the game every week. Even in the case of the Chiefs, if you replace Hall with an average kick returner, the Chiefs probably still have a 6-2 record and that's only because Priest helped keep them in a position to win. However, replace Priest with an average back and the Chiefs could be 4-4 or worse. I base that not just on his stats but on the fact that he opens up the Chiefs offense just by making defenses gameplan with the specific intent of shutting him down.

And I'll reiterate that Dante Hall's game winning kick returns didn't specifically win the games for the Chiefs. He just got the final big play that looks real glamorous but wouldn't have mattered if the rest of the team hadn't done their job.

If you had to pick a single player to build a team around would you pick Holmes or Hall? Holmes, no question. Same goes for Steve McNair, Randy Moss, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, etc. There are a ton of players I would pick over Hall because they are more valuable to a team than Hall is. MVP = Most VALUEABLE Player.

But again. I think Hall is great and I'm not putting him down. I just feel he's not even close (and no kick returner is) to being an MVP.

BroncoCy
11-08-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
Hall is not only a kick/punt returner. He has more receptions than a lot of other wide receivers. Hall can instantly change a game. He's dangerous any time he touches the ball. He just might be a guy to pick to build a team. I wouldn't doubt that the current NFL players would have him in the top 2 or three as I do.

I don't think I'd go so far to pick him as a guy to build a team around. I would want a guy that touches the ball atleast 20 times a game like a QB or RB.

Javalon
11-08-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
Hall is not only a kick/punt returner. He has more receptions than a lot of other wide receivers. Hall can instantly change a game. He's dangerous any time he touches the ball. He just might be a guy to pick to build a team. I wouldn't doubt that the current NFL players would have him in the top 2 or three as I do.

According to the NFL's rankings, Hall is listed as the #66 receiver. I don't think that qualifies him as one of the better WR's.

He's a great kick returner. But returners can only return so many kicks in a game. If a returner got TD's in 1/2 of his games, it would freakin' incredible. If Hall get 8 TD's this season he'll be considered possibly the best ever (although I doubt it will happen).

But a great running back or receiver could be expected to average at least 1 TD a game. In fact there are 6 of them doing it right now and a bunch that are close. A great QB could be expected to throw 2 TD's a game.

A kick returner can't compare to that. After Hall got his last TD return lots of people said they'd consider him for MVP. But everybody knew Hall couldn't keep getting TD's every game...and he hasn't. It's just not possible.

And I truly doubt you'd find anybody, including players, who would put Hall anywhere close to the top of their list to build a team around.

Javalon
11-08-2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
Did I say he was one of the better WRs? No I did not, I said that he has more catches than a lot of WRs. Don't misrepresent what I said. Also I said that I would be willing to bet that a lot of players would pick him to be the MVP based on the first half of the season.

My mistake. I assumed that by bringing up his catches relative to other receivers you were implying his receiving skills contributed to his potential as an MVP candidate or as a reason to build a team around him.

I still think that 4 weeks ago the players and/or analysts would have considered him as a serious MVP candidate...but not now. And the longer he goes without another TD the further down the list he'll fall.

Elway
11-08-2003, 10:10 PM
I'm going with McNair, Hall has some returns big deal. McNair has been bringing it evergame, everytime his offense is on the field. Tennessee is never out of it with him at QB. He took them from their poor start last year to the AFC Championship game and has them going string this year even with a deteriorated Eddie George and his anemic runs.

Captain Kirk
11-08-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
As much as you don't like it, Dante Hall has to be a prime candidate so far.
No, believe it or not, I am going to agree with you on this. The Cheifs are riding on this young man and would be lucky to have a winning record without him. Even when I take in to account the uncalled illegal blocks he got in the famous return against our Broncos, nobody can deny he is the best returner in the NFL today, and possibly if he stays healthy, perhaps ever.

Return of Lava
11-08-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by klund
No, believe it or not, I am going to agree with you on this. The Cheifs are riding on this young man and would be lucky to have a winning record without him. Even when I take in to account the uncalled illegal blocks he got in the famous return against our Broncos, nobody can deny he is the best returner in the NFL today, and possibly if he stays healthy, perhaps ever. what? without hall, the chiefs are still a good 6-2 at the worst

Javalon
11-08-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by klund
No, believe it or not, I am going to agree with you on this. The Cheifs are riding on this young man and would be lucky to have a winning record without him. Even when I take in to account the uncalled illegal blocks he got in the famous return against our Broncos, nobody can deny he is the best returner in the NFL today, and possibly if he stays healthy, perhaps ever.

Heh. Ok, I want to see how many Chiefs fans agree with you that they "would be lucky to have a winning record without him."

They would have lost maybe 2 games without Hall: Denver & Baltimore.

We all know that Hall's TD return against Denver shouldn't have counted...but I guess we should give him credit for having the refs so star-struck they failed to see at least 2 clips. ;)

And against the Ravens his return just broke a 10-10 tie. The Chiefs would have had the ball even if Hall doesn't return it all the way. They still have a 50-50 shot at winning that game.

I think Hall is not only NOT a legitimate MVP candidate, I don't even think he's the Chiefs' MVP. There's no way Hall is more important to the Chiefs than is Priest Holmes.

Javalon
11-08-2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
HAll has had some good returns which did not score, but got KC out of very poor field position in close games. He's simply incredible. Under 5'10" and 185 lbs? he's a tough little fella too.

Hey, there's no doubt he's a great returner. I'd love to have him on the Broncos. I just don't think he's a legitimate MVP candidate.

Javalon
11-08-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
Well I do, so we agree to disagree.

Sounds good. I find that happens a lot when talking football.

Just out of curiosity, do you personally think that Hall is more important to the Chiefs than Priest Holmes?

Javalon
11-08-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by tahuya man
Let's see who's the man in January.

I'll take that as a "no comment." No problem. I just hope Hall doesn't make a game-winning TD return this Sunday and respark the whole debate. :)

Elway
11-08-2003, 11:29 PM
I think Cleveland will be geared up for this week, no Dwayne Rudd to toss the helmet, should be a good game, with Cleveland improving on the run defense since the Baltimore debacle.

Elway
11-08-2003, 11:35 PM
If the Browns have nothing, they have nothing to lose and that makes them dangerous, the way Minnesota was at the end of last year.

Elway
11-08-2003, 11:51 PM
It's not college, that's why it is called the NFL. A team like Arizona can beat Greenbay & SanFran, or Houston beats Miami & Carolina. No game is a given, that's why they have upsets.

broncos4ever
11-08-2003, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Elway
It's not college, that's why it is called the NFL. A team like Arizona can beat Greenbay & SanFran, or Houston beats Miami & Carolina. No game is a given, that's why they have upsets.

If I remember right there was a team called the N.Y. Giants that was not supposed to beat Denver and handed Denver their first loss of the season in our Superbowl years. Any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday.

Javalon
11-09-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by tahuya man
The Giants were good enough to get to the Superbowl, so that's not quite like an upset of the century. As I recall, I think the Giants were favored anyway with that awesome defense they had. What was their record that year?

Wrong season. The Giants were 8-8 that season.

Elway
11-09-2003, 12:06 AM
Giants were good enough to get there two years later after they had Kerri Collins, not when Kent Graham was the starter and they were not favored in that game.

invisogothworld
11-09-2003, 12:07 AM
Torry Holt or Ahman Green

Elway
11-09-2003, 12:15 AM
No the 1998 season when Denver was 13-0 going into NY.

broncos4ever
11-09-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Elway
No the 1998 season when Denver was 13-0 going into NY.

That's exactly the year I was talking about. I should have said the winning superbowl years. But I did say in the other post, "Giants that was not supposed to beat Denver and handed Denver their first loss of the season in our Superbowl years." Key words "first loss". My point was we had a much better record and someone that we were supposed to beat, beat us. It can happen on any Sunday. Not saying it will, but it can.

Javalon
11-09-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by tahuya man
I'd argue that the Giants then were much better than the Browns of today. The Browns are sorry. They have no chance against KC. None, nada, zip...mail in the score.

Heh. If the Chiefs have that same attitude that would be the exact recipe for an upset.

If the Chiefs keep their wits about them, they obviously should win.

broncos4ever
11-09-2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by tahuya man
I'd argue that the Giants then were much better than the Browns of today. The Browns are sorry. They have no chance against KC. None, nada, zip...mail in the score.


What about the Browns defense? They are pretty good.

The Giants that year were pitiful. 8-8

Cleveland this year is 3-5. They do have a tough schedule for the second half this year though, so who knows...

Perry1977
11-09-2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Elway
Giants were good enough to get there two years later after they had Kerri Collins, not when Kent Graham was the starter and they were not favored in that game.

I do believe that the Quarterback that year for the Giants, when they beat the undefeated Broncos, was a young QB named Danny Kanell.

Hooo-wah!!

Arab Bronco
11-09-2003, 07:02 AM
if i would pick one, i would say randy moss. maybe he's not getting as much media coverage as jamal lewis, but i think he's a better contributer to his team (that lateral play against us speaks for its self and his presence of mind) and he's actually quiet for a change.

BroncoCy
11-09-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by invisogothworld
Torry Holt or Ahman Green

I got Torry Holt as my darkhorse to get it. I think he is still very underrated.

Return of Lava
11-09-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by BroncoCy
I got Torry Holt as my darkhorse to get it. I think he is still very underrated. underrated players never get MVP

thesaint
11-09-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Perry1977
I do believe that the Quarterback that year for the Giants, when they beat the undefeated Broncos, was a young QB named Danny Kanell.


Actually, I think it was Kent Graham.

BroncoCy
11-09-2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Return of Lava
underrated players never get MVP

Put Stephen Davis in this catagory to. The Panthers would not nearly be as good without him. What was Washington thinking letting him go?

HCbronco07
11-09-2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by broncos4ever
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Javalon
[B]If you're talking about the most important players to their team, why not Jake Plummer? Look at what happened to the Broncos after he went down. :)

Jake has my vote for MVPf if we are keeping this to the Broncos. We have lost three games since he went down. Look at our record before he quit playing, we had lost one game and it was a close one. Since he went down we have lost three games using two quarterbacks. Sure we won one, but there is something that a MVP brings to the team.

We definitely need Jake back. Clinton is important, but we are not winning games, even with him healthy and running for 100 yards per game.

I dont think that Jake is the MVP of the broncos. He cant be it is only his first year here and he has only played in what 4 or 5 games. i mean come on how can he be the MVP? The entire offensive line is the MVP of the broncos. There is no way that we could bring in four different runningbacks and all four as rookies run for 1000+ yards with out the offisive line. The reason we arnt winning the games like we should be is b/c plummer is down but it is also b/c Steve is down as well. we have a QB in there that before two weeks ago had not taken a snap in the NFL since 2000. not having a qb is what is killing the broncos right now. not not having plummer.

dont get me wrong i like plummer. he is a great fit with the broncos, and a hell of a lot better than greise but not having him is not the reason we are losing.

Return of Lava
11-09-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by HCbronco07
I dont think that Jake is the MVP of the broncos. He cant be it is only his first year here and he has only played in what 4 or 5 games. i mean come on how can he be the MVP? The entire offensive line is the MVP of the broncos. There is no way that we could bring in four different runningbacks and all four as rookies run for 1000+ yards with out the offisive line. The reason we arnt winning the games like we should be is b/c plummer is down but it is also b/c Steve is down as well. we have a QB in there that before two weeks ago had not taken a snap in the NFL since 2000. not having a qb is what is killing the broncos right now. not not having plummer.

dont get me wrong i like plummer. he is a great fit with the broncos, and a hell of a lot better than greise but not having him is not the reason we are losing. lol u are very confused

Return of Lava
11-09-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by horseface
He's not that confused Lava...Plummer has been key for the Broncos, but he's definitely not the only reason the Broncos are losing. Everyone is ripping on Kanell, but he played a good game last week...He was definitely not the reason for the loss. he says the offensive line is the MVP because they allowed 4 1000 yards backs? thats 1-4 years ago, not even this year. the same o lineman arent even on the team since then. he also says plummer AND buereline are the reason we are losing? Everybody was glad to get stevie b out of there. Steve came in and instantly broke denver's streak of games w/out an INT that Plummer had when steve came and tossed 6 in 2 games????Last, Plummer IS the reason we been losing. With the exception of the monday night game, had plummer been in there, INT's would have dropped DRAMATICALLY! That means more points for us and less for the opponent.

He is very confused.

Return of Lava
11-09-2003, 05:18 PM
and also, if the offensive line is the MVP why are we still losing games? Plummer is obviously the MVP cause without him we are 1-3 but with him we were 4-1 and in that 1 loss, he put us in prime position to win and still helped produced 460+ yards of offense.

HCbronco07
11-09-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Return of Lava
and also, if the offensive line is the MVP why are we still losing games? Plummer is obviously the MVP cause without him we are 1-3 but with him we were 4-1 and in that 1 loss, he put us in prime position to win and still helped produced 460+ yards of offense.

Im not confused. I do retract my statment tho. The oline should still be the MVP but the oline coach should be as well. yes there has been may new olinemen over the years but still have 4 different backs in the last 8 yrs being 1000+ yd rushers. who else has done that? not many. not only has it been just 4 backs but every year for the last 8 yrs they have had 1000+ yd rushers.

Oh and whe ARE NOT LOSING B/C PLUMMER IS OUT. it is b/c we do not have a QB. steve is a good QB. he was with carolina for five yrs. two of those yrs he took them to the playoffs. as a starter. then they just realesed him. i was happy when denver picked him up. he is one hell of a back-up. if you are to look at his stats over the last two yrs he has been with denver his record is what? 6 and 1. now i dont know but i think that is a pretty good record for a back up over a two yr span. so dont diss on the back-up. For the little stats about how plummer had us at 4-1 otherwise we are 1-3. well the other win was steve's and yes one loss was his as well but he did not play that entire game that they lost it is only a lose on his record b/c he started. so really steve is 6-0 on starts and finish's.

now try and tell me i dont know what im talking about and am confused.

Return of Lava
11-09-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by HCbronco07
Im not confused. I do retract my statment tho. The oline should still be the MVP but the oline coach should be as well. yes there has been may new olinemen over the years but still have 4 different backs in the last 8 yrs being 1000+ yd rushers. who else has done that? not many. not only has it been just 4 backs but every year for the last 8 yrs they have had 1000+ yd rushers.

Oh and whe ARE NOT LOSING B/C PLUMMER IS OUT. it is b/c we do not have a QB. steve is a good QB. he was with carolina for five yrs. two of those yrs he took them to the playoffs. as a starter. then they just realesed him. i was happy when denver picked him up. he is one hell of a back-up. if you are to look at his stats over the last two yrs he has been with denver his record is what? 6 and 1. now i dont know but i think that is a pretty good record for a back up over a two yr span. so dont diss on the back-up. For the little stats about how plummer had us at 4-1 otherwise we are 1-3. well the other win was steve's and yes one loss was his as well but he did not play that entire game that they lost it is only a lose on his record b/c he started. so really steve is 6-0 on starts and finish's.

now try and tell me i dont know what im talking about and am confused. OMG! This post makes you sound even more confused. How do you retract your staement, then say all the same things again? OK, let me see where i wanna start this. You say Beureline was good? Were you watching as he threw 6 INT in 2 games? Thats not good right? right. You say steve didnt finish the viking game, so he doesnt deserve the loss? That was just dumb thinking, Steve threw 3 INT and had no TD, while being sacked umteen times! Didnt even try to escape and make a play. We were losing bad with him right? right. As far as the 1000 yard rusher goes, that means nothing! A 1000 yard rusher only averages 75 yards a game right? right. Most Valuable PLAYER, cant go to a coach right? right.

Now what have you learned today?