Russell Wilson - MVP Discussion

[dontbelikethat]

Your opinion, however by stating you not a fan of Lacey you make it obvious that it is an opinion of emotion not fact. Lacey is a top 10 Rb (7th in yards and has 9 tds and avg a higher YPA than Lynch.

Just cause I'm not a fan of Lacy, that's all based on emotion lol? I' m not saying he sucks, but I definitely don't think he's that great either. Lynch is a far superior player to Lacy imo and actually they have the same YPC/YPA (4.7). That being said, you can't base everything on stats alone. Context plays a HUGE part also (and that's the thing, it can be subjective). I mean Jamaal Charles is #11 in rushing and Lacy has him beat in almost every stat category aside from YPC, and pretty much anyone not a homer would obviously take Charles > Lacy.

Also GB Wr are very very good and have shown it even without Rodgers. Last year both Wrs had several great games even without Rodgers as their QB as did Lacey. Lacey Avg over 80 YPG while Rodgers was out and as a rookie. Nelson Avg over 60 ypg while Rodgers was out(that would give him over 1000 yards in a season), Jones who was on the team last year avg over 53 YPG while Rodgers was out. So sorry the RB and those Wr are really good with or without Rodgers and in the case of the WR way better than anything we have.

When Rodgers was out, Packers went 2-5-1, when he wasn't out, they went 6-2. That's a pretty big discrepancy and that alone shows he definitely has great importance (can't compare anything to Wilson obviously since he's started every game for the past 3 seasons), but we can go into more player stats. When Rodgers was out Lacy was about the same (4.1YPC, 80YPG as you say, some terrible games,and some really good games) and with Rodgers out I would expect him to get a bigger load, that's fine though. No change for Lacy and sure top 10 RB, but definitely some space between him and say the likes of Lynch,McCoy,Peterson,Murray,Charles,Foster, etc. could even argue Bell (#2 rushing), Hill, Morris, Forte, etc.

Again, context is very important. You argue James Jones had 50 YPG after Rodgers was out, well there's a very good explanation for that. When Rodgers was still playing, Jones was the #3 receiver behind Cobb and Nelson, when Rodgers went out Cobb also went out which elevated Jones to #2. That explains the rise in his stats because obviously he he had a bigger role in the offense as the #2 receiver.

Now we can keep going. Again, I want to make sure it's understood I NEVER SAID THESE PLAYERS ARE BAD. I'm just saying Rodgers has great importance on the success to the team. Can Nelson still put up a decent game without Rodgers, sure, but can he but up better stats with Rodgers? I believe so.

Nelson avged 60 YPG in the 8 game span that Rodgers was out. That's alright. I'll keep it simple to show that Rodgers definitely elevates the play.

8 Games Rodgers was out, Nelson WR yards: 504
8 Games Rodgers was in: Nelson WR yards: 810, and that's 100YPG.

Would like to reiterate, again, I want to make sure it's understood I NEVER SAID THESE PLAYERS ARE BAD. I'm just saying Rodgers has great importance on the success to the team. (Rodgers was out, Packers went 2-5-1, when he wasn't out, they went 6-2)

Yes our defense helps but to make a point about field position GB avg starting field position this year is 28 yard line, ours 31 yards line, so our great defense is getting us 3 more yards of field position than GB. You see you are forgetting GB has a better kick and punt returner than we do. So sorry Rodgers is great, but it is easy to be when you have that much talent around you. Imagine if Wilson had those Wrs, and that oline and that offense.

I did acknowledge that GB has a good KR/PR game, mentioned that I didn't know much about Packers ST beside from Cobb being a good KR/PR (and even you can agree that when we had Tate like in 2013, our field position game was stupid crazy). The role of a defense doesn't only play a part on field position, the defense does many things for a team and it would be naive to think that field position is all they do (and even then SEA still has it better). SEA's was on historic levels allowed significantly lower PPG,YPG,etc.

You can't seriously diminish what this defense means to this team and at the same time expect me to believe all this defense is good for is 3 yards better in starting field position compared to the Packers. Cmon now, we all know it means a lot more than that.

 

[TwilightError]

I personally don't believe you can be asked to pass less often than everybody else and be deserving of the MVP award. Not saying Russell isn't the best, just that he isn't the most valuable.

I cant see any logic in this. A yard is a yard. If Wilsons rushing yards are accounted in, he does not trail anyone by much.

 

[themunn]

It doesn't matter who you've got around you and who makes who better. All that matters is what you do with it, and as far as I'm concerned, it's Aaron Rodgers who has done the most.

Wilson's totals over the season look impressive next to anybodies, but it belies poor games against Dallas, Oakland, Carolina, New York (at least throwing the ball anyway) and arguably San Francisco last week.

Rodgers had a poor game against Buffalo, but let's not forget that 1.5 months ago we were asking the questions whether Wilson had progressed as a player and wondering what funk he was in. As has been the case for the last few years now, Wilson has been great but he's not even the TEAM MVP, Lynch was far more important in 2012, no player stood out about the rest last year and the defense was our "best player" (as signified by our "no-name" superbowl MVP). This year our best player has absolutely without a doubt been Wagner when in. Of course, that's not a sexy choice for league MVP...

 

[BASF]

Brady hands down. It comes down to this for me:

Brady has significantly less talent around him offensively than Rodgers and Manning. Brady has significantly less talent on the defensive side of the ball than Wilson (while you can make a case for their CB's being very close to ours, their front seven and safeties are not nearly as good). You can call the defense for Green Bay, Denver and New England a wash talent wise as far as I am concerned.

Those are your four legit contenders for MVP this season (I discount the Cowboys players, since their strength of schedule is league average).

So, does the advantage that Wilson has on defense outweigh the advantage Brady has on offense? I would say yes. We have a historically good defense. Their offense is better than ours but not by as much as you would think. Lynch is vastly superior to their running backs, none of whom would start over Turbin or Michael I believe. Gronkowski is vastly superior to any TE we have. I'd call Baldwin and Edelman a wash talent wise. I'd take LaFell over Kearse talent wise, but not by much. Amendola has been a shadow of the Ram that would give us problems.

If you swap the two QB's, Wilson does as well as Brady with the Patriots. Brady is on IR before half way through the season for the Seahawks, but that does not mean that he isn't the more valuable player of the two this season.

 

[hawknation2014]

My top three would be J.J. Watt, Richard Sherman, and then Aaron Rodgers, who appears to be limping into the playoffs. Watt and the Texans still have an outside chance to make the playoffs if Baltimore and San Diego lose. Sherman is shutting down receptions in a way that has not happened in 20 years. It's time for a defensive player to win MVP again.

 

[-The Glove-]

I don't know if I'd argue Romo as the MVP...without Murray, how would he do?

 

[SomersetHawk]

If we're thinking about true value then it'd be hard to see San Diego not picking in the top 5 next year but for Rivers. I don't think any team does worse without a player than they do without him.

 

[hawknation2014]

If we're thinking about true value then it'd be hard to see San Diego not picking in the top 5 next year but for Rivers. I don't think any team does worse without a player than they do without him.

His 16 INTs this year take him out of the discussion.

 

[SomersetHawk]

If we're thinking about true value then it'd be hard to see San Diego not picking in the top 5 next year but for Rivers. I don't think any team does worse without a player than they do without him.

His 16 INTs this year take him out of the discussion.

Well Andrew Luck's haven't. Sure, he's thrown more TDs, but he's also lost 6 fumbles to Rivers' 1.

 

[hawknation2014]

If we're thinking about true value then it'd be hard to see San Diego not picking in the top 5 next year but for Rivers. I don't think any team does worse without a player than they do without him.

His 16 INTs this year take him out of the discussion.

Well Andrew Luck's haven't. Sure, he's thrown more TDs, but he's also lost 6 fumbles to Rivers' 1.

Luck should not be in the discussion either.

 

[SomersetHawk]

If we're thinking about true value then it'd be hard to see San Diego not picking in the top 5 next year but for Rivers. I don't think any team does worse without a player than they do without him.

His 16 INTs this year take him out of the discussion.

Well Andrew Luck's haven't. Sure, he's thrown more TDs, but he's also lost 6 fumbles to Rivers' 1.

Luck should not be in the discussion either.

 

[TXHawk]

I'm so tired of the hypothetical arguments about how this player would do if swapped with that player or what would happen if he had more or fewer weapons or a better or worse offensive line or defense. To me these are useless arguments because NOBODY KNOWS! You have to judge players by how they actually perform in the real world, not by how they might perform in an alternate universe.

When you add in Russell Wilson's running totals he is producing nearly as many total yards per game as the top QBs (and more than Tom Brady). Right now, though, I think the main difference is he doesn't turn those yards into touchdowns as often as the top QBs do. A lot of this probably has to do with a lack of true playmakers and red zone targets in his receiver corps but, as I said, you have to judge him based on how he does in the real world and producing touchdowns is the name of the game for an NFL QB. He's getting closer to the elite level but he's not quite there yet. That stretch of mediocre games during midseason also hurts his case, IMO.

I love the fact that he's in the MVP discussion and I do think he'll win it one of these years but I don't think this is the year. I'll happily settle for a second SB ring instead.

 

[-The Glove-]

I'm so tired of the hypothetical arguments about how this player would do if swapped with that player or what would happen if he had more or fewer weapons or a better or worse defense. To me these are useless arguments because NOBODY KNOWS! You have to judge players by how they actually perform in the real world, not by how they might perform in an alternate universe.

When you add in Russell Wilson's running totals he is producing nearly as many total yards per game as the top QBs (and more than Tom Brady). Right now, though, I think the main difference is he doesn't turn those yards into touchdowns as often as the top QBs do. A lot of this probably has to do with a lack of true playmakers and red zone targets in his receiver corps but, as I said, you have to judge him based on how he does in the real world and producing touchdowns is the name of the game for an NFL QB. He's getting closer to the elite level but he's not quite there yet. That stretch of mediocre games during midseason also hurts his case, IMO.

I love the fact that he's in the MVP discussion and I do think he'll win it one of these years but I don't think this is the year. I'll happily settle for a second SB ring instead.

Good post!

 

[Anthony!]

Your opinion, however by stating you not a fan of Lacey you make it obvious that it is an opinion of emotion not fact. Lacey is a top 10 Rb (7th in yards and has 9 tds and avg a higher YPA than Lynch.

Just cause I'm not a fan of Lacy, that's all based on emotion lol? I' m not saying he sucks, but I definitely don't think he's that great either. Lynch is a far superior player to Lacy imo and actually they have the same YPC/YPA (4.7). That being said, you can't base everything on stats alone. Context plays a HUGE part also (and that's the thing, it can be subjective). I mean Jamaal Charles is #11 in rushing and Lacy has him beat in almost every stat category aside from YPC, and pretty much anyone not a homer would obviously take Charles > Lacy.

Also GB Wr are very very good and have shown it even without Rodgers. Last year both Wrs had several great games even without Rodgers as their QB as did Lacey. Lacey Avg over 80 YPG while Rodgers was out and as a rookie. Nelson Avg over 60 ypg while Rodgers was out(that would give him over 1000 yards in a season), Jones who was on the team last year avg over 53 YPG while Rodgers was out. So sorry the RB and those Wr are really good with or without Rodgers and in the case of the WR way better than anything we have.

When Rodgers was out, Packers went 2-5-1, when he wasn't out, they went 6-2. That's a pretty big discrepancy and that alone shows he definitely has great importance (can't compare anything to Wilson obviously since he's started every game for the past 3 seasons), but we can go into more player stats. When Rodgers was out Lacy was about the same (4.1YPC, 80YPG as you say, some terrible games,and some really good games) and with Rodgers out I would expect him to get a bigger load, that's fine though. No change for Lacy and sure top 10 RB, but definitely some space between him and say the likes of Lynch,McCoy,Peterson,Murray,Charles,Foster, etc. could even argue Bell (#2 rushing), Hill, Morris, Forte, etc.

Again, context is very important. You argue James Jones had 50 YPG after Rodgers was out, well there's a very good explanation for that. When Rodgers was still playing, Jones was the #3 receiver behind Cobb and Nelson, when Rodgers went out Cobb also went out which elevated Jones to #2. That explains the rise in his stats because obviously he he had a bigger role in the offense as the #2 receiver.

Now we can keep going. Again, I want to make sure it's understood I NEVER SAID THESE PLAYERS ARE BAD. I'm just saying Rodgers has great importance on the success to the team. Can Nelson still put up a decent game without Rodgers, sure, but can he but up better stats with Rodgers? I believe so.

Nelson avged 60 YPG in the 8 game span that Rodgers was out. That's alright. I'll keep it simple to show that Rodgers definitely elevates the play.

8 Games Rodgers was out, Nelson WR yards: 504
8 Games Rodgers was in: Nelson WR yards: 810, and that's 100YPG.

Would like to reiterate, again, I want to make sure it's understood I NEVER SAID THESE PLAYERS ARE BAD. I'm just saying Rodgers has great importance on the success to the team. (Rodgers was out, Packers went 2-5-1, when he wasn't out, they went 6-2)

Yes our defense helps but to make a point about field position GB avg starting field position this year is 28 yard line, ours 31 yards line, so our great defense is getting us 3 more yards of field position than GB. You see you are forgetting GB has a better kick and punt returner than we do. So sorry Rodgers is great, but it is easy to be when you have that much talent around you. Imagine if Wilson had those Wrs, and that oline and that offense.

I did acknowledge that GB has a good KR/PR game, mentioned that I didn't know much about Packers ST beside from Cobb being a good KR/PR (and even you can agree that when we had Tate like in 2013, our field position game was stupid crazy). The role of a defense doesn't only play a part on field position, the defense does many things for a team and it would be naive to think that field position is all they do (and even then SEA still has it better). SEA's was on historic levels allowed significantly lower PPG,YPG,etc.

You can't seriously diminish what this defense means to this team and at the same time expect me to believe all this defense is good for is 3 yards better in starting field position compared to the Packers. Cmon now, we all know it means a lot more than that.

so given the fact I already showed you why pretty much everything you are posting is wrong, and I even put out an olive branch and you refused to take it I am just going with your wrong and making it the end. Nothing you wrote changes the fact Wilson is just as deserving as Rodgers and has done it with way less.

 

[Anthony!]

It doesn't matter who you've got around you and who makes who better. All that matters is what you do with it, and as far as I'm concerned, it's Aaron Rodgers who has done the most.

Wilson's totals over the season look impressive next to anybodies, but it belies poor games against Dallas, Oakland, Carolina, New York (at least throwing the ball anyway) and arguably San Francisco last week.

Rodgers had a poor game against Buffalo, but let's not forget that 1.5 months ago we were asking the questions whether Wilson had progressed as a player and wondering what funk he was in. As has been the case for the last few years now, Wilson has been great but he's not even the TEAM MVP, Lynch was far more important in 2012, no player stood out about the rest last year and the defense was our "best player" (as signified by our "no-name" superbowl MVP). This year our best player has absolutely without a doubt been Wagner when in. Of course, that's not a sexy choice for league MVP...

Actually that is all untrue who you have around you does matter, and also lets not forget it was not that long ago everyone was wondering what was wrong with Ridges your point is not really relevant at all. FYI yeah Wilson is the team MVP, ask anyone on ESPN.

 

[Anthony!]

I'm so tired of the hypothetical arguments about how this player would do if swapped with that player or what would happen if he had more or fewer weapons or a better or worse offensive line or defense. To me these are useless arguments because NOBODY KNOWS! You have to judge players by how they actually perform in the real world, not by how they might perform in an alternate universe.

When you add in Russell Wilson's running totals he is producing nearly as many total yards per game as the top QBs (and more than Tom Brady). Right now, though, I think the main difference is he doesn't turn those yards into touchdowns as often as the top QBs do. A lot of this probably has to do with a lack of true playmakers and red zone targets in his receiver corps but, as I said, you have to judge him based on how he does in the real world and producing touchdowns is the name of the game for an NFL QB. He's getting closer to the elite level but he's not quite there yet. That stretch of mediocre games during midseason also hurts his case, IMO.

I love the fact that he's in the MVP discussion and I do think he'll win it one of these years but I don't think this is the year. I'll happily settle for a second SB ring instead.

I can agree with this

 

[Evil_Shenanigans]

We all know Wilson stands no chance in the MVP race simply because of the (perhaps outdated) metrics involved. But how about this one stat. With a win next week Wilson will have 36 regular season victories to his name in his first three seasons. No other QB in history has averaged 12 wins a season for his first three years. Id say thats relevant.

 

[hieroglyphics]

842 yards rushing on the ground for a QB is ridiculous. I think Wilson should at least get 60 next week against the Rams, so you have to figure 900 yards rushing on the ground for the season.

As of today, Wilson has nearly 4,100 total yards, and Rodgers has 4,400 total yards.

I can only recall Wilson having a really poor game against Dallas, perhaps someone can remind me any other games this year he's done badly.

Rodgers has mailed it in against some good defenses this year. Seattle, Buffalo and Detroit, all great defenses, he was just really poor. Not sure how its MVP worthy to pad your stats against bad defenses and lose while playing horrible against the best defenses.

Also, Rodgers this year threw for 40-55 for 617 yards and 10 TDs against the Bears, who are truly horrible defensively. So basically 10 of his 36 tds are against ONE team in the NFL who just happens to be one of the worst defenses in the league.

The case for Aaron Rodgers is extremely weak in my opinion.

 

[IndyHawk]

Can we have Anthony and Packer Backer in a steel cage to settle who wins?I mean both of you will not concede anything on your guys ..The stats and pov's you both post are good..I just want the one award the whole team shares and it's not called MVP.

 

[dontbelikethat]

Your opinion, however by stating you not a fan of Lacey you make it obvious that it is an opinion of emotion not fact. Lacey is a top 10 Rb (7th in yards and has 9 tds and avg a higher YPA than Lynch.

Just cause I'm not a fan of Lacy, that's all based on emotion lol? I' m not saying he sucks, but I definitely don't think he's that great either. Lynch is a far superior player to Lacy imo and actually they have the same YPC/YPA (4.7). That being said, you can't base everything on stats alone. Context plays a HUGE part also (and that's the thing, it can be subjective). I mean Jamaal Charles is #11 in rushing and Lacy has him beat in almost every stat category aside from YPC, and pretty much anyone not a homer would obviously take Charles > Lacy.

Also GB Wr are very very good and have shown it even without Rodgers. Last year both Wrs had several great games even without Rodgers as their QB as did Lacey. Lacey Avg over 80 YPG while Rodgers was out and as a rookie. Nelson Avg over 60 ypg while Rodgers was out(that would give him over 1000 yards in a season), Jones who was on the team last year avg over 53 YPG while Rodgers was out. So sorry the RB and those Wr are really good with or without Rodgers and in the case of the WR way better than anything we have.

When Rodgers was out, Packers went 2-5-1, when he wasn't out, they went 6-2. That's a pretty big discrepancy and that alone shows he definitely has great importance (can't compare anything to Wilson obviously since he's started every game for the past 3 seasons), but we can go into more player stats. When Rodgers was out Lacy was about the same (4.1YPC, 80YPG as you say, some terrible games,and some really good games) and with Rodgers out I would expect him to get a bigger load, that's fine though. No change for Lacy and sure top 10 RB, but definitely some space between him and say the likes of Lynch,McCoy,Peterson,Murray,Charles,Foster, etc. could even argue Bell (#2 rushing), Hill, Morris, Forte, etc.

Again, context is very important. You argue James Jones had 50 YPG after Rodgers was out, well there's a very good explanation for that. When Rodgers was still playing, Jones was the #3 receiver behind Cobb and Nelson, when Rodgers went out Cobb also went out which elevated Jones to #2. That explains the rise in his stats because obviously he he had a bigger role in the offense as the #2 receiver.

Now we can keep going. Again, I want to make sure it's understood I NEVER SAID THESE PLAYERS ARE BAD. I'm just saying Rodgers has great importance on the success to the team. Can Nelson still put up a decent game without Rodgers, sure, but can he but up better stats with Rodgers? I believe so.

Nelson avged 60 YPG in the 8 game span that Rodgers was out. That's alright. I'll keep it simple to show that Rodgers definitely elevates the play.

8 Games Rodgers was out, Nelson WR yards: 504
8 Games Rodgers was in: Nelson WR yards: 810, and that's 100YPG.

Would like to reiterate, again, I want to make sure it's understood I NEVER SAID THESE PLAYERS ARE BAD. I'm just saying Rodgers has great importance on the success to the team. (Rodgers was out, Packers went 2-5-1, when he wasn't out, they went 6-2)

Yes our defense helps but to make a point about field position GB avg starting field position this year is 28 yard line, ours 31 yards line, so our great defense is getting us 3 more yards of field position than GB. You see you are forgetting GB has a better kick and punt returner than we do. So sorry Rodgers is great, but it is easy to be when you have that much talent around you. Imagine if Wilson had those Wrs, and that oline and that offense.

I did acknowledge that GB has a good KR/PR game, mentioned that I didn't know much about Packers ST beside from Cobb being a good KR/PR (and even you can agree that when we had Tate like in 2013, our field position game was stupid crazy). The role of a defense doesn't only play a part on field position, the defense does many things for a team and it would be naive to think that field position is all they do (and even then SEA still has it better). SEA's was on historic levels allowed significantly lower PPG,YPG,etc.

You can't seriously diminish what this defense means to this team and at the same time expect me to believe all this defense is good for is 3 yards better in starting field position compared to the Packers. Cmon now, we all know it means a lot more than that.

so given the fact I already showed you why pretty much everything you are posting is wrong, and I even put out an olive branch and you refused to take it I am just going with your wrong and making it the end. Nothing you wrote changes the fact Wilson is just as deserving as Rodgers and has done it with way less.

My entire premise on the second post is nothing about Wilson > Rodgers or Rodgers > Wilson in terms of VALUE TO THEIR TEAM. I already stated on my first post that I COULD UNDERSTAND how someone could believe Rodgers > Wilson in terms of value to the team, but I'm not saying it is, just that I could understand. All I was arguing was that Rodgers definitely does impact the team while you were trying to diminish his value that and say he doesn't an impact or doesn't have a big impact on GB. RE-READ YOUR OWN POST lmao, all you did was try to diminish Rodgers value by saying he doesn't have an impact on the squad (Lacy is still good w/o him, WR's are still good w/o him).

All I needed to post was this "When Rodgers was out, Packers went 2-5-1, when he wasn't out, they went 6-2" and that alone shows that Rodgers has impact on the team, but even then I showed stats to prove that you're wrong. You spent the entire post responding to my initial post saying trying to diminish his value, I proved you wrong.

All you're saying "you're wrong, I'm right" lmao. I explained everything in my post to show how you're "facts" are interpreted incorrectly and even showed stats to prove you wrong.

Anyone who had read anything in the past from you about Wilson knows you're the biggest homer and anyone who's read anything in this thread and is at the least bit objective can tell that you need to just take a break from posting. "so given the fact I already showed you why pretty much everything you are posting is wrong, and I even put out an olive branch and you refused to take it I am just going with your wrong and making it the end. Nothing you wrote changes the fact Rodgers is just as deserving as Wilson and has done it with way less." (threw in some minor changes in there for you)