J.J. Watt is the 2014 NFL MVP.

[smackababy]

Watt is impressive -- unquestionably defensive player of the year, but if you take him off the Texans, it's not like their record gets any worse. you remove Rodgers from the Packers and they are lucky to win 5 games.

The same argument can be made for Romo, IMO. Rodgers is likely to get it though, due to him edging Romo in every stat except for QBR and completion percentage (Romo at around 5% better than his career average, 69.9% and Rodgers sitting right at his, 65.6%).

And, for what it's worth, Big Ben has been playing almost as well.

 

[gorcorps]

Rodgers will win, it's a done deal.

I'd love to see Watt win it (being from WI and all), but an MVP is the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER to a team. Take Rodgers out of the Packers lineup, and players like Nelson and Cobb and Lacy begin to suck.

A QB is the single most important position in any sport -- period. They either make or break a team. Why do you think GB has had this incredible string of all-pro WRs? You think they are just that lucky? No... they have had 20 years of HoF quarterbacks running the offense (not to mention great coaches and play callers)

Watt is impressive -- unquestionably defensive player of the year, but if you take him off the Texans, it's not like their record gets any worse. you remove Rodgers from the Packers and they are lucky to win 5 games.

I would make the same argument for Murray. Yes he's a product of a good O line, but it's a team sport and everybody is helping on every play... so you have to draw the line somewhere. The Cowboys wouldn't be where they are this year without Murray playing at this level (and actually staying fairly healthy), just like GB wouldn't be where they are without Rogers.

I think it's a tossup between Rogers and Murray, and I'd pick either of them before Watt.

 

[Homerboy]

The same argument can be made for Romo, IMO. Rodgers is likely to get it though, due to him edging Romo in every stat except for QBR and completion percentage (Romo at around 5% better than his career average, 69.9% and Rodgers sitting right at his, 65.6%).

And, for what it's worth, Big Ben has been playing almost as well.

Yeap, I totally agree. Romo (another WI boy!) has been playing his best ball ever. He'd be in the MVP talks if not for Rodgers and Watt.

 

[smackababy]

I would make the same argument for Murray. Yes he's a product of a good O line, but it's a team sport and everybody is helping on every play... so you have to draw the line somewhere. The Cowboys wouldn't be where they are this year without Murray playing at this level (and actually staying fairly healthy), just like GB wouldn't be where they are without Rogers.

I think it's a tossup between Rogers and Murray, and I'd pick either of them before Watt.

I think a lot of Murray's success if a product of the line. Both Dunbar and Randle, in their limited runs, have shown to be very promising at continuing Murray's success. Murray also had some costly fumbles. Had he not fumbled early on in that SF game to start the season, Dallas are 13-3 and the number 1 seed.

As far as mistake free football, Rodgers has been the best. 5 INTs all year on 340+ pass attempts is just amazing. I think he wins based on simply not screwing up.

 

[Homerboy]

I think a lot of Murray's success if a product of the line. Both Dunbar and Randle, in their limited runs, have shown to be very promising at continuing Murray's success. Murray also had some costly fumbles. Had he not fumbled early on in that SF game to start the season, Dallas are 13-3 and the number 1 seed.

As far as mistake free football, Rodgers has been the best. 5 INTs all year on 340+ pass attempts is just amazing. I think he wins based on simply not screwing up.

That's an excellent point.

In football you simply can not win if you're turning the ball over. And Rodgers simply didn't do that this year. In fact out of the few INTs he had, several were tips by his receivers (I still think these sort of INTs should be classified as something else)

 

[JEDI]

Texans at 9-7 didn't make the playoffs?

guess u needed 10-6 to make playoffs? (ravens)

hm.. eagles at 10-6 also didn't make it.

 

[smackababy]

Texans at 9-7 didn't make the playoffs?

Nope. They needed Ravens to lose.

 

[JujuFish]

JJ Watt is the reason Houston won their game against Buffalo. Anyone who watched it saw him have a monster game. Had Buffalo won that game, they'd be in the playoffs by beating the Ravens in a tiebreaker (though the Texans may not have beaten the Ravens last week if they were already eliminated from contention by that point).

Anyway, if he played anywhere near the level of game he had against Buffalo, he gets my vote for MVP. Easily the best performance any individual had against Buffalo this year.

 

[ElFenix]

So they fired Kubiak which was a poor move

watt?

 

[Homerboy]

Texans at 9-7 didn't make the playoffs?

guess u needed 10-6 to make playoffs? (ravens)

hm.. eagles at 10-6 also didn't make it.

Yet the Panthers at 7-8-1 made it.
Crazy!

 

[Phoenix86]

lol ^ wtf does that image have to do with this discussion?

before you answer--consider whether or not you are actually paying attention to the arguments being made.

(hint: you aren't)

Do you even see Watt on that list? That's how bad he is. :sneaky:

 

[smackababy]

Yet the Panthers at 7-8-1 made it.
Crazy!

I know! It is like people don't understand how conferences and wild card playoff spots work!

 

[Phoenix86]

Watt has way more QB sacks/hits/pressures combined this year than in 2012. About 2x. It's not as sexy as sacks, but more effective in game.

You can't weigh as sack the same as a hit/pressure though. Sacks are sexy for a reason.

 

[ElFenix]

You can't weigh as sack the same as a hit/pressure though. Sacks are sexy for a reason.

i'm not. it's not like he had 40 sacks in 2012. same number of sacks, but way more hits/hurries this year.

 

[smackababy]

i'm not. it's not like he had 40 sacks in 2012. same number of sacks, but way more hits/hurries this year.

The problem with hits / hurries is they don't tell any meaningful story other than to attempt to prop up defensive player's impact. Even if he hurried the QB, or hit him right after release, and the pass was made and a TD was scored, it "looks good" for Watt, even though he had virtually zero impact on that play. Sacks do have a direct impact that is tangible. The play is stopped for a loss.

 

[phreaqe]

The way i look at it is if you replace that player with an average player how does the teams record change. If you replace watt and they probably only have a 1-2 game difference in their record. If you replace rodgers with an average QB we are probably under 500. Look at the play when our backup goes in. Its a whole difference team. In a way its a shame because watt is having one of the best seasons ever for a defensive player, but he is just not a valuable and a player who has the ball every down. As someone who watches rodgers every week i know that packer fans have been spoiled beyond belief for the last 20 years. Rodgers makes it look so easy that when he has a pedestrian game we scratch our heads wondering what is going on while most of the league would kill to have the production of one of his "down" games.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem with hits / hurries is they don't tell any meaningful story other than to attempt to prop up defensive player's impact. Even if he hurried the QB, or hit him right after release, and the pass was made and a TD was scored, it "looks good" for Watt, even though he had virtually zero impact on that play. Sacks do have a direct impact that is tangible. The play is stopped for a loss.

but tackles for loss aren't weighed as heavily as sacks when it comes to "sexy stats," which is stupid, because they have the exact same impact on the game as sacks do.

I hate sacks. I think it's a garbage stat considering the importance placed on them.

So you hit a QB for a 5 yard loss and the announcers start cumming in their pants through the airwaves, and the replay guys go nuts. 20 seconds later, QB hits his slot receiver for an 18 yard gain and a 1st down. So the fuck what?

Why don't they go nuts every time the HB is hit behind the line, or a WO hunted down and smacked for a 10 yard loss on a botched reverse?

I understand them as a quantifiable necessity when it comes to reviewing a player's value--in terms of salary negotiations and season honors, especially considering that these options are so limited for defensive players--but why do we separate sacks from any tackle for loss? No reason, really.

 

[smackababy]

but tackles for loss aren't weighed as heavily as sacks when it comes to "sexy stats," which is stupid, because they have the exact same impact on the game as sacks do.

I hate sacks. I think it's a garbage stat considering the importance placed on them.

So you hit a QB for a 5 yard loss and the announcers start cumming in their pants through the airwaves, and the replay guys go nuts. 20 seconds later, QB hits his slot receiver for an 18 yard gain and a 1st down. So the fuck what?

Why don't they go nuts every time the HB is hit behind the line, or a WO hunted down and smacked for a 10 yard loss on a botched reverse?

I understand them as a quantifiable necessity when it comes to reviewing a player's value--in terms of salary negotiations and season honors, especially considering that these options are so limited for defensive players--but why do we separate sacks from any tackle for loss? No reason, really.

I think they are separated because a tackle for a loss implies there is no threat of a pass. A sack means the QB was intending to throw the ball, and was stopped before he had a chance to make a play. While, both are very important, one stops a play after it has happened and the other prevents a play, which is why the "hurried" stat is pretty meaningless. Announcers are annoying in their gushing of sacks, but they have to be excited about something. And who doesn't love it when Tom Brady is thrown to the dirt with the ball still in his hands?

 

[Homerboy]

The way i look at it is if you replace that player with an average player how does the teams record change. If you replace watt and they probably only have a 1-2 game difference in their record. If you replace rodgers with an average QB we are probably under 500. Look at the play when our backup goes in. Its a whole difference team. In a way its a shame because watt is having one of the best seasons ever for a defensive player, but he is just not a valuable and a player who has the ball every down. As someone who watches rodgers every week i know that packer fans have been spoiled beyond belief for the last 20 years. Rodgers makes it look so easy that when he has a pedestrian game we scratch our heads wondering what is going on while most of the league would kill to have the production of one of his "down" games.

Like when Flynn was in last night? He looked like he never played QB before in his life. (and I'm a Flynn fan!)

 

[midwestfisherman]

J.J. Watt is a BEAST!! He definitely deserves the MVP!!

 

[ElFenix]

The way i look at it is if you replace that player with an average player how does the teams record change. If you replace watt and they probably only have a 1-2 game difference in their record. If you replace rodgers with an average QB we are probably under 500. Look at the play when our backup goes in. Its a whole difference team. In a way its a shame because watt is having one of the best seasons ever for a defensive player, but he is just not a valuable and a player who has the ball every down. As someone who watches rodgers every week i know that packer fans have been spoiled beyond belief for the last 20 years. Rodgers makes it look so easy that when he has a pedestrian game we scratch our heads wondering what is going on while most of the league would kill to have the production of one of his "down" games.

there's also a difference between average starter and average backup. lets say it wasn't flynn that came in, but a healthy carson palmer. then what's the difference?

 

[zinfamous]

I think they are separated because a tackle for a loss implies there is no threat of a pass. A sack means the QB was intending to throw the ball, and was stopped before he had a chance to make a play. While, both are very important, one stops a play after it has happened and the other prevents a play, which is why the "hurried" stat is pretty meaningless. Announcers are annoying in their gushing of sacks, but they have to be excited about something. And who doesn't love it when Tom Brady is thrown to the dirt with the ball still in his hands?

I can buy that, but distinguishing the two types of plays in such a way still has no differential effect on the game from play to play.

 

[ElFenix]

I can buy that, but distinguishing the two types of plays in such a way still has no differential effect on the game from play to play.

sack is one syllable so taps into that anglo-saxon part of the language of simple, powerful words. tackle for loss is way more unwieldy.

 

[phreaqe]

there's also a difference between average starter and average backup. lets say it wasn't flynn that came in, but a healthy carson palmer. then what's the difference?

Looking at espn the 15th ranked QB(out of 30) is Mark Sanchez. Since he did not play a whole season, i will go up one to number 14 which is Ryan Tannehill. Do you believe that he would put this team above 500? I sure dont. Rodgers has 38 TD's and 5 int's(4 of those were balls that hit his receivers and were tipped). Tannehill had 27 TD's and 12 int's. Rodgers did that with 70 less attempts. I watch this team every week, so i get a good feel for the team. I think if rodgers is out, lacy doesn't get half the yards he has right now because teams could stack the box. I do think cobb and nelson are very good receivers, but even still alot of the catches they make are because Rodgers make the perfect throw to them. On top of that he makes the throw to a place only he can get to it and in a way that keeps them from being clobbered after they catch it. Its not just the raw numbers with him, its all the small things as well.

Edit: While i think it is harder to quantify the impact of JJ Watt, i think if you replace him with and average player they might go 7-9 or 8-8 vs 9-7, because there defense was not that great to begin with.

 

[Phoenix86]

i'm not. it's not like he had 40 sacks in 2012. same number of sacks, but way more hits/hurries this year.

I'm with you on the overall production is up part, just not the lazy combining into a meta stat.

I think people need to consider what MVP stands for. Most Valuable Player. It isn't the best player on the best team, nor is it the best player in a position. Blowing up stats on a shit team doesn't make the player valuable, just the same as picking the best team then finding the best player.

In order for those stats to translate to value you have to have improved the team. Murray doesn't deserve MVP, while he had impressive numbers he benefited from many other things (strong O-line, amazing QB, excellent receivers).

I think of MVP kind of like WAR, the idea not the specific methodology. If you take out a given player and replace them with the average player, who helped the team the most.

For me, that leaves it between Rogers and Watt.