iron error
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2003
- Messages
- 3,051
- Reaction score
- 564
Offline
First of all, I have always felt the MVP award is misunderstood.
It should be given to that player that makes the most relative difference to his team. That is, what would the team's viability be with or without that one player. Secondly, the team should be atleast at .500 or in contention for the post-season.
That is why I don't understand the pick of L.T. for MVP. Is he probably the best offensive talent in the NFL? Likely. Problem, is you plug in Michael Turner instead of L.T. and you have almost the same production. Maybe an extra loss or two over the season. Not a big enough difference.
However, lose Brees and we lose what, four, five, six of the games we have won. That is your MVP. Same might apply to Manning, as I am not trying to be a Saints homer on this.
What do you all think?
It should be given to that player that makes the most relative difference to his team. That is, what would the team's viability be with or without that one player. Secondly, the team should be atleast at .500 or in contention for the post-season.
That is why I don't understand the pick of L.T. for MVP. Is he probably the best offensive talent in the NFL? Likely. Problem, is you plug in Michael Turner instead of L.T. and you have almost the same production. Maybe an extra loss or two over the season. Not a big enough difference.
However, lose Brees and we lose what, four, five, six of the games we have won. That is your MVP. Same might apply to Manning, as I am not trying to be a Saints homer on this.
What do you all think?