It’s not those guys that held the Bills to 3 points yesterday, or Chicago to 7 a few weeks ago or the Jets to 3 the week before that.
The offense is potent, no one is denying that, but you’re undervaluing the defense. A Bill Belichick defense.
They’re a balanced team. When their defense can’t do it, their offense can. When their pass game struggles they figure out a way to run it. So on and so forth. They’re just a good team all around, so one can’t just lay it all on the offense and on one player in the offense.
I dunno, I’d say they are. (they’re a bit different than they were in Post 31, too.)
In the context of a 16-game season, playing in 13 games, as Vick undoubtedly will, is very different from playing in 16. (Or maybe 12 and 15 if they both sit out the last week or something, but that’s neither here nor there.) Per-game averages don’t account for the fact that Brady will end up playing in 16 games to Vick’s 13; that’s a pretty significant gulf in terms of their relative contributions to their teams.
Even if their averages were precisely the same I’d be inclined to choose Brady because of the difference in games played. Don’t get me wrong; Vick would not be a poor choice.
Fair enough… they’re first in points for and 20th in points against so they’re offensively potent and defensively average.
Take Brady out of the equation and where does that leave them? They’re still likely walking away with the division title. The next closest team in that division is the Jets with 151 total points less than the Patriots.
They win through scheme and match-ups and guys making plays when they need to and they could do it without Brady. It wouldn’t be as easy, but they could.
One can’t say that about the Eagles. He is far more important to that team’s success than Brady is to the Patriots.
I think you’re crazy if you think the 2010 Patriots without Brady finish with a winning record, much less win the division. Matt Cassel is actually good. 2008 was not an indictment of Brady or a demonstration of a coaching god. It was an almost exact replica of 2001 when Brady took over for an injured Bledsoe: good QB goes down, good QB steps in.
By contrast, I think the Eagles under Kolb finish .500 at minimum, easily better than a Brady-less Patriots team. (Unless Brady’s backup is good. Anyone know who it is?)
And besides that, the MVP award has never been about being a precise literal interpretation of what “most valuable” technically means. It is a combination of value and greatness. Otherwise the majority of mvps in the past should have been awarded to the best player on the last-in playoff team (since thats the most clearly proven case of a team that wouldn’t have made the playoffs without them),and no player who happens to have good teammates should ever win the award. Thats ridiculous.
I’ve been called worse, but I stand by my opinion.
No one is saying he’s not, but his success shows that other QBs can be successful in that system. It should be noted, also, that Cassel is succeeding* in KC right now under Scott Pioli… the guy who helped build the Patriots into what they are.
*Success being somewhat relative, as the Chiefs are 22nd in completion percentage, 29th in passing attempts per game, 27th in total passing yards, and inexplicably 8th in passing TDs. This isn’t to dump on Cassel or dispute that he’s good, but to put it in proper perspective.
Agree to disagree, then. Kolb looked awful to start the season and rightfully lost his starting job, and then had one good game when Vick was injured but otherwise looked average to worse. I think they finish at .500 at best with Kolb.
Brian Hoyer. It’s all I can do not to confuse him with Steny Hoyer. And the Pats must have some confidence in the guy, since they didn’t have a third QB last year or this year.
Who cares who the fucking backup is? It’s completely irrelevant. Did anyone care who else might play first base for the Cardinals when deciding that Albert Pujols was the MVP those three times? Did anyone think that the presence of Jim Sorgi (2008) or Curtis Painter (2009) on the Colts’ roster was relevant to Peyton Manning’s recent MVP victories?
It’s the logical conclusion of the train of thought that begins “The most valuable player is the one who has the biggest impact on his team. Without him, the team would be much worse.”
You can’t invoke such an argument without the backup becoming extremely relevant. If you want to argue that this makes that argument in general a stupid one, you could probably convince me.
It’s Brady. He’s taken every snap for the Pats. Vick hasn’t taken every snap for the Iggles. If he had, I’d go with him, but the Eagles were still pretty good with Kolb under center.
I think the right way to look at it in this exercise is to disregard the actual backup and instead assume, for the sake of analysis, that the team has a *typical *backup. So, the Eagles wouldn’t lose much (IMO) going from Vick to Kolb, but they would lose a ton going from Vick to, say, Jon Kitna.
Bad example. Kitna has thrown for 237 yards and 1.6 touchdowns per game this season.
I know it will never happen, but Josh Freeman deserves at least one vote. He’s led a team which is starting six rookies and two second-year players on offense to 10 wins.
