Why is the talk about who is better more dependent on Super Bowls than MVPs?

[JJBroncoFan]

Way more? Manning's advantage in MVP awards (two) equals Brady's advantage in SB rings (two.) And the MVP award isn't usually given to the "most valuable player." It's usually given to the player with the most impressive stats. These two aren't mutually exclusive, but they also don't have to coincide. And since Manning has had a better supporting cast on offense, it makes sense that he would have more MVPs.

Why would regular season MVP mean more than SB MVP though? Brady has more SB MVP awards than Peyton.

I actually think this is a somewhat fair argument but you have to consider the perspective. You're naturally going to find ways to convince yourself that Brady is the GOAT. Just the same Broncos fans will with Elway, 49ers fans with Montana/Young, Dolphins fans Marino, etc. Its the nature of fanhood.

Stats are naturally flawed in that the person gathers said stats in order to provide evidence of their own beliefs. So naturally, the person would ignore things thar go against their argument and feature those that support.

At the end of the day, this league has seen many great players. Who the greatest is will always be pure opinion and honestly there is no way to know.

[ERoyal248]

He hasn't. You're making stuff up.

Since 07 he has, no?

OL's always good, great OL coach.

Weapons since 07 have been very good.

Defenses are ALWAYS good, and stingy.

But keep obsessing on a Broncos board, for whatever reason.

[RandomVariable]

Yeah, not like he's had pretty good weapons, elite line/run game, and a top 5-10 defense pretty much every year, oh wait.......

He hasn't. You're making stuff up.

[ERoyal248]

Since he's been in the league, no other QB has taken his team to the AFCCG or SB more than Brady. He's had some good teams, but also some very flawed teams (2006, 2011, 2012) yet he still gives the team a chance to go to the SB and win.

Don't let facts get in the way of your agenda.

Yeah, not like he's had pretty good weapons, elite line/run game, and a top 5-10 defense pretty much every year, oh wait.......

[RandomVariable]

Why do I keep reading this dudes garbage? I lose IQ points every time.

Since he's been in the league, no other QB has taken his team to the AFCCG or SB more than Brady. He's had some good teams, but also some very flawed teams (2006, 2011, 2012) yet he still gives the team a chance to go to the SB and win.

Don't let facts get in the way of your agenda.

[Elwaysminion]

Notice I never said anything about head to head record? Eli still has fewer rings and is nowhere near as consistent as Brady is. He has two rings and his other playoff appearances are one-and-done. He's like Peyton one year, and Brady the next.

Tom Brady is the only QB in the league that gives his team a chance to win a SB each and every single year. This is evident by the amount of times he has taken us to the AFCCG and to the SB.

Why do I keep reading this dudes garbage? I lose IQ points every time.

[PManningTKO]

Terry Bradshaw has 4 rings, but I personally don't think he's a better QB than Dan Marino. Marino has no one. Bradshaws team was stacked.

[AFCfanatic]

and what is brady's record since they stopped cheating? oh yea thats what i thought...

What's the Bronco's since they stopped cheating the salary cap?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep17.html

[Cutler4tw]

Because It's a team game duh??
It will always be that way just ask Dan Marino

[Hanzo the Razor]

You don't at all think it's a little bit silly to link me to a forum post from 2010 based on a long all time list? That isn't meaningful at all.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. People making up lists isn't GOAT, and nothing that is said while these guys are still playing the game of football matters. I don't think you're understanding what I am saying at all.

And I'm not sure someone who thinks that MVP awards are better than rings should be calling anyone foolish.

The fact that Bret Favre is where he is says plenty about your list.

I have no idea when that list was made up, or who voted on it, or what it was based on, but it was a mere ten years after Marino retired. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are still playing football. Where people rank in an all time list before they're even retired is pretty silly. If you had all the same people who voted on that list in 2010 (or 2009 when it was in production) and had them vote again, it would look a lot different, and it still wouldn't be useful because these people are still playing football.

I'm not really understanding the purpose of posting that link to a forum post from a vote that took place 4 seasons ago but it seems mildly ridiculous to think that is going to stand in 30 years.

There can also only be one greatest of all time.

Also, Terry Bradshaw not making that list with four Championships basically completely discredits it.
I have no idea who voted on it, but it looks pretty pointless given the conversation and the fact it's almost 2014.

Uh, can you read? That list wasn't created by a guy on a forum, it was created by a panel of coaches, players, fron of staff, HOF voters, etc.

It was transcribed onto a message board -- not created by one.

[adamgonzalesblu]

most valuable player =/= best player. Terrell Owns could have been the best player (debateable) but that does not mean he was the most valuable. That's akin to trying to decide who is most valuable based solely on stats.

Regular season MVP is based on 16 games, and most of those games are against poor competition that will not see the playoffs. Manning is very good at padding his stats against lesser opponents. Hence the Star Wars numbers. The SB MVP is based on performance against the top team from the opposing conference in a high pressure, do or die situation in which both teams are vying for something every other team strives to achieve at the beginning of every season.

The claim that Vinatieri should have been SB MVP is also absurd. Vinatieri was not responsible for the drives which put the team within FG range. He was on the field for probably less than 10 seconds in each game. Most other kickers would have made those FGs - it's not like he was attempting from 60 yards. His FG against Oakland in the snow was impressive though.

Thank you for your overly confident depiction of your team. I have a feeling you will bring them bad luck. Just saying. have a good night

[Doogansquest]

The thing with Manning's stats though, is that they are always big, no matter who is around him, how good or bad his defense is, how patchwork his o-line is, etc. He's always a 4000+ yard 30+ TD guy. He was doing that before the rules got so passer friendly. He did that with the worst average starting field position in the league, a defense that was last in opposing 3rd down conversions, last in time of possession, and the 29th ranked rush offense all in the same year. Oh, and Blair White was his 2nd best receiver because Austin Collie was on concussion number 72, Reggie Wayne was triple covered, and Dallas Clark was being put back together by all the King's Men.

The guy is always the same kind of productive, and that's why stats get attributed to him as part of his greatness. He's been that way throughout his career.

Brady, on the other hand, was a "ho-hum" game manager that struck gold and won a few Super Bowls early in his career. His numbers put him in the middle of the pack most years. Once he started putting up bigger numbers, suddenly the Patriots weren't winning anymore. How is that possible?

I fully believe Brady has been a better QB the last 5 years than he was the first 5 years of his career. Not just stats, but the eye test, his cerebral play, his efficiency, everything. If the QB deserves so much credit for Super Bowls, Brady is the guy who's numbers, over the course of his career, just don't equate to the championships his teams won.

The "he did more with less" is a cute quip that's easy to recite, but it doesn't make sense. Now he has more, but the Patriots aren't winning Super Bowls.

[broncolee]

MVP's don't even belong in the discussion. MVP's aren't fought for in a football game with a monster defense trying to stop you. They're voted on purely subjectively. I don't value the worth of MVP awards at all, because who votes? And who is to say his opinion is more valid then yours? Or more valid than mine? MVP awards are ribbons, pinned on your chest like a 2nd grade prize. I could care less about Manning's, Brady's Montana's, etc. It's just a little celebration. It isn't a tangible feat.

Stats matter. I'm not trying to say they're not - they are. But your dismissal of championships reeks of agenda.
It's wanting something to be true for a purpose so bad you're really reaching and essentially dismiss the Superbowl and the warpath it requires to get there.

There is a huge difference in playing the absolute best from the opposite conference on the greatest stage of them all. Winning that game has required some of the most unbelievable plays in NFL history. The Superbowl trophy is the supreme end all for immortality in the National Football League.

Stats too, but stats usually come with a story as well.

I would never take Dan Marino over Elway for that reason. The greats blaze their way through the gauntlet.

Edit: Oh sorry, didn't mean to direct "your" to the quote author. I was addressing others more generally after throwing my two cents in about MVPs

There's no agenda.

Championships are team accomplishments.

Stats are greatly influenced by the contributions of teammates.

There is no way to objectively prove that one quarterback is better than any other to have played the game.

[Hawaii007]

MVP's don't even belong in the discussion. MVP's aren't fought for in a football game with a monster defense trying to stop you. They're voted on purely subjectively. I don't value the worth of MVP awards at all, because who votes? And who is to say his opinion is more valid then yours? Or more valid than mine? MVP awards are ribbons, pinned on your chest like a 2nd grade prize. I could care less about Manning's, Brady's Montana's, etc. It's just a little celebration. It isn't a tangible feat.

Stats matter. I'm not trying to say they're not - they are. But your dismissal of championships reeks of agenda.
It's wanting something to be true for a purpose so bad you're really reaching and essentially dismiss the Superbowl and the warpath it requires to get there.

There is a huge difference in playing the absolute best from the opposite conference on the greatest stage of them all. Winning that game has required some of the most unbelievable plays in NFL history. The Superbowl trophy is the supreme end all for immortality in the National Football League.

Stats too, but stats usually come with a story as well.

I would never take Dan Marino over Elway for that reason. The greats blaze their way through the gauntlet.

Edit: Oh sorry, didn't mean to direct "your" to the quote author. I was addressing others more generally after throwing my two cents in about MVPs

And your whole diatribe misses the point of my OP, are you going to deny that championships are more team dependent than MVPs even if you take your disdain for the voter aspect into account? You belittle the idea that Manning gets credit for a 70 yard TD when throwing a 10 yard pass while being protected by his offensive line, but how about a QB who gets credit for a Super Bowl "win" while going 16/27 and throwing for 195 yards?

[one_bad_55]

You throw touchdown passes, gain rushing yards, and get sacks as a team too (unless you're Barry Sanders).
You do everything as a team. To say stats belong exclusively to the individual and not also the team mates, but world championships are a team effort only, is to be hypocritical.

How many times this season has Peyton Manning's offensive line protected him while he dumped a 10 yard pass off to a WR who ran for 60 yards and a TD that had little to do with Manning?

How many touchdown passes did Brady throw up into double (and even tripple) coverage to have Randy Moss pull it down where no other receiver would?

How many rushing yards would Emmit Smith have gained if his offensive line was horrible? Or if teams didn't need to defend against Michael Irving?

There are no purely individual stats in a team sport. To say championships don't determine who the greatest is but some stat does is completely ridiculous.

I am not saying that stats only or championships should determine who is best. There are too many variables as you have pointed out that have a lot to do with how the team ends up winning a SB.

Personally I think Mareno was a better QB than Montana, but Montana played on a team full of ALL Pro Players on both sides of the ball while Moreno had nothing. The same could be said for Elway in his early days as he had no help and then got some help to win the SB's. Look at Terry Bradshaw, he has to be one of the most overrated QB's but he had a team that bailed him out time and again.

What we are seeing now for example is Brady had his team of players when he got his rings and now he doesn't. Brady's post season record hasn't been very good the last decade so has Brady been worse as a player or has the team been worse?