NFL MVP Predictions

[King Bootz]

Your #1 and #4 points are confusing me. The first stat is true for 4th quarter comebacks. How can he have 18 4th quarter comebacks and be 1-41 when behind in the 4th quarter?

The 1-41 stat is against teams with winning records. The majority of his comeback wins are against the Lions and Bears who have rarely had winning records in the years Rodgers has been in the league. So the comebacks are against losing teams.

Where did you find this information?

[kaimaru]

Your #1 and #4 points are confusing me. The first stat is true for 4th quarter comebacks. How can he have 18 4th quarter comebacks and be 1-41 when behind in the 4th quarter?

The 1-41 stat is against teams with winning records. The majority of his comeback wins are against the Lions and Bears who have rarely had winning records in the years Rodgers has been in the league. So the comebacks are against losing teams.

Gotcha, see that's why you led with reading comprehension.

[Pirate Life]

The 1-41 stat is against teams with winning records. The majority of his comeback wins are against the Lions and Bears who have rarely had winning records in the years Rodgers has been in the league. So the comebacks are against losing teams.

Where did you find this information?

Several places. I'd seen it on the BBC NFL show a few years back, here's a link to a Newsweek article about it: https://www.newsweek.com/aaron-rodgers- ... ou-1238470

Googling Rodgers 0-42 brings up a lot.

A few other writers over the years have updated it here and there. There's some Green Bay fans that do their best to debunk it or downplay it. More than a few games are ones where Crosby misses the FG or after GB scores the other team has enough time to go down the field and win the game. And, of course, one of those in the stat is the Fail Mary game so there's some oddities in there as well. And, like the article I linked talks about in that season he lead GB back against Chicago when down by 17 in the 4th quarter (also his biggest deficit overcome to win a game I believe), but it was the first game of the season so Chicago technically didn't have any record at that point.

[Snake]

That 0-42 stat is so insane I don’t even know where to start. Just from a probability standpoint. Odd.

[King Bootz]

Where did you find this information?

Several places. I'd seen it on the BBC NFL show a few years back, here's a link to a Newsweek article about it: https://www.newsweek.com/aaron-rodgers- ... ou-1238470

Googling Rodgers 0-42 brings up a lot.

A few other writers over the years have updated it here and there. There's some Green Bay fans that do their best to debunk it or downplay it. More than a few games are ones where Crosby misses the FG or after GB scores the other team has enough time to go down the field and win the game. And, of course, one of those in the stat is the Fail Mary game so there's some oddities in there as well. And, like the article I linked talks about in that season he lead GB back against Chicago when down by 17 in the 4th quarter (also his biggest deficit overcome to win a game I believe), but it was the first game of the season so Chicago technically didn't have any record at that point.

Perhaps this is why wins shouldn't be categorized as a QB stat? Good argument made here by you as to why they shouldn't.

[Pirate Life]

Several places. I'd seen it on the BBC NFL show a few years back, here's a link to a Newsweek article about it: https://www.newsweek.com/aaron-rodgers- ... ou-1238470

Googling Rodgers 0-42 brings up a lot.

A few other writers over the years have updated it here and there. There's some Green Bay fans that do their best to debunk it or downplay it. More than a few games are ones where Crosby misses the FG or after GB scores the other team has enough time to go down the field and win the game. And, of course, one of those in the stat is the Fail Mary game so there's some oddities in there as well. And, like the article I linked talks about in that season he lead GB back against Chicago when down by 17 in the 4th quarter (also his biggest deficit overcome to win a game I believe), but it was the first game of the season so Chicago technically didn't have any record at that point.

Perhaps this is why wins shouldn't be categorized as a QB stat? Good argument made here by you as to why they shouldn't.

Eh, it's not the best stat to use for them but it is a stat that should be part of the equation like wins are for a pitcher in baseball. They are the ones with the ball in their hands every play when they are on the field and have the most direct effect on the success/failure of the team. Championships and Super Bowls won by the likes of Trent Dilfer are the exception rather than the rule.Even back in the 60s and 70s when QBs weren't throwing the ball nearly as often and a good completion percentage was in the 50s wins were usually attributed to them rather than the team. There is a reason we all remember Namath's guarantee of a Super Bowl win but not Plaxico Burress' or Shannon Sharpe's even though all three were correct.

*edited to add: And Burress' prediction was every bit as bold as Namath's was as it was the year the Patriots were 18-0 heading into the Super Bowl.

[King Bootz]

Yes, given the context of the modern NFL, no other position can provide as much value as QBs and it's not even close.

Case in point, Henry and Taylor. Both were getting MVP talks about midway through the season and still gets mentioned even now. Yet Henry goes down midway through the season and the Titans barely skipped a beat in securing the #1 overall seed. Meanwhile, Taylor supplanted Henry as the leagues best RB and was helpless while the Colts got blown out by the Jaguars due to Wentz being historically terrible and the Jaguars doing a good job shutting down the run.

How about Cooper Kupp? Well we watched him play amazing against the 49ers, yet no matter how well he played, his value still can't overcome what Stafford brings(or in this case doesn't bring) to the table as Matt chokes by throwing a game losing interception.

It's cute to mention other positions for MVP, but it's not grounded in reality.

Yup, I'd argue that Matt Stafford is more valuable to Rams than Cooper Kupp is. That is no disrespect to Kupp, who just had one of the best seasons in NFL history for a WR.

Kupp is a better WR than Stafford is a QB relative to their peers, but Stafford is still the more valuable player. Which is why the "Most Valuable Player" is a now a QB award.

Don’t buy this at all.

Exactly how valuable is Stafford to the Rams? All they did with Jared Goff is make the playoffs 3 out of 5 years, win their division twice and an NFC Championship. So we know this is a team that has and can win without Matthew Stafford.

But can they win without Cooper Kupp? Stafford looks his way more than any other QB in the league looks for a singular target in the league. While he lead the league in catches, TD catches, receiving yards, the only thing Stafford led the league in was INTs. That doesn’t equate to being more valuable.

[King Bootz]

Perhaps this is why wins shouldn't be categorized as a QB stat? Good argument made here by you as to why they shouldn't.

Eh, it's not the best stat to use for them but it is a stat that should be part of the equation like wins are for a pitcher in baseball. They are the ones with the ball in their hands every play when they are on the field and have the most direct effect on the success/failure of the team. Championships and Super Bowls won by the likes of Trent Dilfer are the exception rather than the rule.Even back in the 60s and 70s when QBs weren't throwing the ball nearly as often and a good completion percentage was in the 50s wins were usually attributed to them rather than the team. There is a reason we all remember Namath's guarantee of a Super Bowl win but not Plaxico Burress' or Shannon Sharpe's even though all three were correct.

*edited to add: And Burress' prediction was every bit as bold as Namath's was as it was the year the Patriots were 18-0 heading into the Super Bowl.

Trent Dilfer. Brad Johnson. Eli Manning x2. Joe Flacco. Nick Foles. The corpse of Peyton Manning. Exactly how many “exceptions” are there over the last 20 years?

Oh and anybody who is a fan of this league remembers Burress’ prediction. That was basically the headline on ESPN during Super Bowl week.

[MJW]

Eh, it's not the best stat to use for them but it is a stat that should be part of the equation like wins are for a pitcher in baseball. They are the ones with the ball in their hands every play when they are on the field and have the most direct effect on the success/failure of the team. Championships and Super Bowls won by the likes of Trent Dilfer are the exception rather than the rule.Even back in the 60s and 70s when QBs weren't throwing the ball nearly as often and a good completion percentage was in the 50s wins were usually attributed to them rather than the team. There is a reason we all remember Namath's guarantee of a Super Bowl win but not Plaxico Burress' or Shannon Sharpe's even though all three were correct.

*edited to add: And Burress' prediction was every bit as bold as Namath's was as it was the year the Patriots were 18-0 heading into the Super Bowl.

Trent Dilfer. Brad Johnson. Eli Manning x2. Joe Flacco. Nick Foles. The corpse of Peyton Manning. Exactly how many “exceptions” are there over the last 20 years?

Oh and anybody who is a fan of this league remembers Burress’ prediction. That was basically the headline on ESPN during Super Bowl week.

I agree wins are a flawed metric to judge a QB - but I still think you need one apart from raw passing stats. If we're just relying on things like TD/INT, yardage, etc, you have to potentially include A LOT of guys in the HOF discussion you really don't want to - Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, Matt Stafford, etc. Guys who never had a signature moment, who never elevated their franchises, and who their teams were always low-key looking to replace. But they stayed healthy, played from behind a ton, and threw the ball a lot.

There's gotta be a stat somewhere between raw passing production and team wins to account for the difference between Russell Wilson and Derek Carr, which will seem pretty negligible if just left to passing stats, when it reality it was huge.

[King Bootz]

Trent Dilfer. Brad Johnson. Eli Manning x2. Joe Flacco. Nick Foles. The corpse of Peyton Manning. Exactly how many “exceptions” are there over the last 20 years?

Oh and anybody who is a fan of this league remembers Burress’ prediction. That was basically the headline on ESPN during Super Bowl week.

I agree wins are a flawed metric to judge a QB - but I still think you need one apart from raw passing stats. If we're just relying on things like TD/INT, yardage, etc, you have to potentially include A LOT of guys in the HOF discussion you really don't want to - Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, Matt Stafford, etc. Guys who never had a signature moment, who never elevated their franchises, and who their teams were always low-key looking to replace. But they stayed healthy, played from behind a ton, and threw the ball a lot.

There's gotta be a stat somewhere between raw passing production and team wins to account for the difference between Russell Wilson and Derek Carr, which will seem pretty negligible if just left to passing stats, when it reality it was huge.

That's what makes watching the games so important. It brings together those missing elements that separate the Kirk Cousins' from the Aaron Rodgers'.

[Nobody]

Game Winning Drives and 4th Quarter Comebacks absolutely do matter to a QB's resume.

They don't define them, but they are, without a doubt, an important line of evidence (along with all of the others) to support a QB's case for greatness. Just because, historically, there are a couple handfuls of quarterbacks across the entire QB distribution that have been carried by historically good defenses (again, overwhelmingly an artifact of the past...in the last 8 years they become hugely reduced), doesn't make the case that QB play across the population of all NFL games and all NFL postseasons is reduced. It just tells you that (again, overwhelmingly an artifact of the past), if you have a historically good defense, QB play at the tail of the distribution isn't a prerequisite to winning.

But, in a league where the margin of victory is overwhelmingly 1 score + most games come down to the final drive, the guy who can reliably take his team from his teams 20 to FG range (or get 6) through the air with 2 minutes to play and limited timeouts is an entirely different beast than the guy who you (as a fan...as a teamate...as a coach who has to make gameplanning/play-calling decisions...as a GM who has to make personnel decisions...as an opposing defense/coach who understands the dynamics at play) know can't reliably get 3 or 7 in those situations.

And GWD and 4QC are a proxy. They're not 1:1, so you're going to have some weird outliers that you'll have to tease out of the dataset. Aaron Rodgers data on this is weird, but his clutch playoff resume has a lot of not great moments:

* Sack/Fumble Return for TD on 3rd down against Arizona to lose in OT.

* Utterly spanked by the Giants where he put up a 78.4 Passer Rating which included 1 Pick, 4 Sacks, 1 Fumble Lost and 6/13 on 3rd/4th down.

* 2 Score loss to SF where he had only a 91.5 Passer Rating and not much gross production and (again) 6/13 on 3rd/4th down.

* 17 Completion, 177 yard performance w/ 4 Sacks in loss to SF where the defense played well enough to win.

* 55.8 Passer Rating, 178 yard performance w/ 7 Sacks in loss to Seattle where the GB defense was absolutely fantastic.

* 77.9 Passer Rating, low production game against Arizona where the defense played well enough to win again.

* Utterly spanked by Atlanta. GB was shut out in the first half and the game was essentially over at that point. Rodgers padded his stats with inconsequential 2nd half numbers in a 23 point loss.

* Exact same as above. Utterly spanked by SF. GB was shut out in the first half and the game was essentially over at that point. Rodgers padded his stats with inconsequential 2nd half numbers in a 17 point loss.

* We know what happened last year!


None of this is to say anything about Aaron Rodger's 2021/2 MVP candidacy (its neck-and-neck with Brady), but all of that stuff is an albatross around the neck of his football legacy. Every thing matters when it comes to QB resume, particularly the nuance when you're sifting through the greatest QBs of all time (which is a conversation that Rodgers is in...but lower on the list than he would have been if some of those results, and his play that seriously impacted those results, were different).

[Pirate Life]

Eh, it's not the best stat to use for them but it is a stat that should be part of the equation like wins are for a pitcher in baseball. They are the ones with the ball in their hands every play when they are on the field and have the most direct effect on the success/failure of the team. Championships and Super Bowls won by the likes of Trent Dilfer are the exception rather than the rule.Even back in the 60s and 70s when QBs weren't throwing the ball nearly as often and a good completion percentage was in the 50s wins were usually attributed to them rather than the team. There is a reason we all remember Namath's guarantee of a Super Bowl win but not Plaxico Burress' or Shannon Sharpe's even though all three were correct.

*edited to add: And Burress' prediction was every bit as bold as Namath's was as it was the year the Patriots were 18-0 heading into the Super Bowl.

Trent Dilfer. Brad Johnson. Eli Manning x2. Joe Flacco. Nick Foles. The corpse of Peyton Manning. Exactly how many “exceptions” are there over the last 20 years?

Oh and anybody who is a fan of this league remembers Burress’ prediction. That was basically the headline on ESPN during Super Bowl week.

Outside of Dilfer and Peyton's second Super Bowl, the rest of those QBS had good seasons in the years their teams won the Super Bowl Eli gets a bit of a bad rap (ironically because of his record of 117-117), he's not a great QB by any means but he wasn't terrible either. Pro Bowl the year he got his second ring, 37 4th quarter comebacks, second to only Drew Brees in TD throws to tie or go ahead in the 4th quarter or overtime and a lower interception percentage than Favre. Johnson threw 22 TDS and 6 INTs in 2002 while missing three games and made the Pro Bowl. Flacco had one of his best seasons in 2012 - and the 11 TDS and 0 INTS in the playoffs. Baltimore's defense wasn't as great in the 2012 playoffs either, gave up 30 points twice in four games. Foles also played very well after becoming the starter when Wentz blew out his knee.

You say opponents should be looked at in the context of what n we play them, need to do the same with QBS in the seasons they win the ring IMO.

[King Bootz]

Trent Dilfer. Brad Johnson. Eli Manning x2. Joe Flacco. Nick Foles. The corpse of Peyton Manning. Exactly how many “exceptions” are there over the last 20 years?

Oh and anybody who is a fan of this league remembers Burress’ prediction. That was basically the headline on ESPN during Super Bowl week.

Outside of Dilfer and Peyton's second Super Bowl, the rest of those QBS had good seasons in the years their teams won the Super Bowl Eli gets a bit of a bad rap (ironically because of his record of 117-117), he's not a great QB by any means but he wasn't terrible either. Pro Bowl the year he got his second ring, 37 4th quarter comebacks, second to only Drew Brees in TD throws to tie or go ahead in the 4th quarter or overtime and a lower interception percentage than Favre. Johnson threw 22 TDS and 6 INTs in 2002 while missing three games and made the Pro Bowl. Flacco had one of his best seasons in 2012 - and the 11 TDS and 0 INTS in the playoffs. Baltimore's defense wasn't as great in the 2012 playoffs either, gave up 30 points twice in four games. Foles also played very well after becoming the starter when Wentz blew out his knee.

You say opponents should be looked at in the context of what n we play them, need to do the same with QBS in the seasons they win the ring IMO.

Moving those goal posts. This wasn't even your initial argument. In this context, the season would be the exception, not the player. That's if THIS argument you made had any merit.

Eli lead the league with 20 INTs during the Giants 1st run to just 23 TDs and completed 56% of his passes. That's not a "great season". None of them had great seasons during their Super Bowl run. But the team and coaching was great.

Even what you're saying now lends its to the argument that wins shouldn't be counted as a QB statistic. Brad Johnson had one of the greatest defenses of all time backing him. Eli had a top notch defense both times. The Ravens D and run game were better than Flacco. Peyton had a top defense backing him. Literally won the Super Bowl without throwing a TD pass.

There's too many elements of football for it to be considered a QB stat. Defense. Kicking game. Run game. Special Teams. Receivers. The ultimate team sport but people pretend that kicking or missing game winning field goals falls on the QB. Or if a defense gives up 0 points that the QB won it all by himself. Misguided at best.

[Pirate Life]

Nah, not moving goal posts. Responding to your theory about wins as a QB stat. Also didn't say they were great seasons by the QBs listed, said they were good. You really need to work on that habit.

Baltimore's defense wasn't great in 2012, weren't even top 10. Offense was though. Flacco had a 2-1 TD/INT ratio, no turnovers in the playoffs and tied the record for most TD passes in a single playoff season (Montana and Warner also had 11). All-time great season? No. Good season? Yes.

Manning's 07 season saw him finish 12th in yards, 11th in TDs. Tied for league lead in INTs. Second to Brady in 4th quarter comebacks and second in game winning drives in 2007. Numbers not stellar, but still good enough to finish in the upper third of the league statistically.

Brad Johnson finished 8th in TDs, lowest INT percentage in the league, and 6th in completion percentage in 2002. Only stat he's not top ten is yards. As great as the 2002 defense was, it's not wrong to say Johnson pulled his weight in earning a ring and that for one season at least he was a top QB in the league.

[nybf]

The only stat that matters is BET. The boots eye test. All your real stats mean nothing. Only BET can prove everything and nothing all at the same time.

[Pirate Life]

The only stat that matters is BET. The boots eye test. All your real stats mean nothing. Only BET can prove everything and nothing all at the same time.

Yeah, i know. Poster child for his argument is the QB he calls trash all the time.

[King Bootz]

The only stat that matters is BET. The boots eye test. All your real stats mean nothing. Only BET can prove everything and nothing all at the same time.

All you can prove his how much real estate I own in that dome, kiddo.

[nybf]

The only stat that matters is BET. The boots eye test. All your real stats mean nothing. Only BET can prove everything and nothing all at the same time.

All you can prove his how much real estate I own in that dome, kiddo.

You post more than 25x a day. More than 10% of the posts on this entire board were made by your boots account. And considering how much you like to bipost, that number is probably higher.

You think you own real estate in people's heads when they reply to you. The truth of the matter is the mod team has let you completely overrun the board and there's no real way to post here without replying to you.

But.... We all know how shitty a life you have so your imaginary flex on a message board is probably the only thing stopping you from offing yourself. So enjoy.

[King Bootz]

All you can prove his how much real estate I own in that dome, kiddo.

You post more than 25x a day. More than 10% of the posts on this entire board were made by your boots account. And considering how much you like to bipost, that number is probably higher.

You think you own real estate in people's heads when they reply to you. The truth of the matter is the mod team has let you completely overrun the board and there's no real way to post here without replying to you.

But.... We all know how shitty a life you have so your imaginary flex on a message board is probably the only thing stopping you from offing yourself. So enjoy.

Oh please. You count my posts per day. You consistently follow me around looking for petty arguments. You're the only one who does that. So don't bring your own insecurities onto others.

I definitely own real estate in your head. You have a harder time NOT replying to me than everyone else here and you do so with conflict in mind.

I would tell you to try harder to ignore me, but we both know it's not possible. You need me.

[nybf]

Oh please. You count my posts per day.

It's in your profile you dumb fuck.

[King Bootz]

Oh please. You count my posts per day.

It's in your profile you dumb fuck.

Exactly. You bother clicking on my profile? I don't know the last time I've gone into someone's profile. For what exactly?

Keep proving how obsessed you are with me. I've got time today.

[nybf]

For what exactly?

To show exactly how much you have overrun this board.

[King Bootz]

For what exactly?

To show exactly how much you have overrun this board.

At least you know your purpose here: Keep tabs on Bootz.

Keep it up. You're doing a great job, kiddo.

[Backside]

Post count is literally right below the username/profile. Don't need to click anything, just FYI.

[King Bootz]

Post count is literally right below the username/profile. Don't need to click anything, just FYI.

Posts per day & board percentage of posts are below the username without clicking anything? Show me.

[nybf]

So you mean (thing you actually didn't say)? Prove it.

Oh you can't prove thing you didn't say, well checkmate. Rent free. Goal posts moved.

[King Bootz]

So you mean (thing you actually didn't say)? Prove it.

Oh you can't prove thing you didn't say, well checkmate. Rent free. Goal posts moved.

Please stop trying to be purposely vague. It insults both of our intelligence.

You admitted you kept track with my posts per day and the percentage of posts I make in TD. @Backside here opened his mouth without checking out the discussion. No doubt he shuts the fuck up now and moves along. But we both know what you said, kiddo.

[nybf]

I didn't @ you. I didn't quote you. What makes you think I was talking about you?

[King Bootz]

I didn't @ you. I didn't quote you. What makes you think I was talking about you?

Oh then who were you talking about then if not me?

[nybf]

We've now reached the point where we just answer questions with questions.

[King Bootz]

We've now reached the point where we just answer questions with questions.

Oh we are? This your way of avoiding an answer, huh?

[nybf]

We've now reached the point where we just answer questions with questions.

Oh we are? This your way of avoiding an answer, huh?

You really can't make this shit up. My work here is done.

[King Bootz]

Oh we are? This your way of avoiding an answer, huh?

You really can't make this shit up. My work here is done.

Oh please. We both know that ain't true.

[Backside]

@Backside here opened his mouth without checking out the discussion. No doubt he shuts the fuck up now and moves along.

What is your problem dude, lol? I’m sorry the idea of quick maths in so incomprehensible to you.

[King Bootz]

@Backside here opened his mouth without checking out the discussion. No doubt he shuts the fuck up now and moves along.

What is your problem dude, lol? I’m sorry the idea of quick maths in so incomprehensible to you.

Quick math? So you're saying that you also know the date I started posting as well as how many posts there are total in TD? That would be the only way to calculate how many posts per day there are or the percentage of posts in TD.