LT AP's MVP

[CharlieDontSurf]

Nerd can be swapped with stathead etc.
its not really derogatory.

once you realize that the MVP has nothing to do with who is the most valuable player just like the oscar's best picture has nothing to do with who made the best film...you'll realize its pointless to argue peyton should be the MVP instead of LDT.

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]
Nerd can be swapped with stathead etc.
its not really derogatory.

once you realize that the MVP has nothing to do with who is the most valuable player just like the oscar's best picture has nothing to do with who made the best film...you'll realize its pointless to argue peyton should be the MVP instead of LDT.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, what you're saying is that there's no point in argueing the most deserving player/film doesn't always win. It's not that we're missing the point of the award.

[onlinebeginner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think peyton could have done a better job than brees with that saints team?

[/ QUOTE ]

We assume something like this to be true but we have no way of knowing if it is the case. Peyton has played in a system with the same coach, wr, great line, etc for awhile now.

I have a hard time believing that Peyton is so awesome that he is the same QB on any team no matter what the personel, coaching, system etc. I would think the same of just about any QB in the league

[/ QUOTE ]
ya same situation... if peyton signed with the saints as a free agent instead of the saints...... Peyton would be better

[CharlieDontSurf]

so peyton would be the best qb in the league no matter what team he played on.
so your saying peyton manning is the greatest football player of all time.

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
so peyton would be the best qb in the league no matter what team he played on.
so your saying peyton manning is the greatest football player of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and yes.

[prohornblower]

You bring up some good points, in a tasteful way. Thanks.

I do have a question though, why does everyone say touchdowns are overrated? I really don't understand that. If touchdowns are overrated, than are kickers the most underrated players of all time?

Also, once inside the 10 yard line or so, the difficulty of throwing a TD pass goes up, because the field is is now only 60 feet long. In this instance, an RB's relative value goes up, as the difficulty of an RB to pick up a typical 4 yards per touch doesn't change much when the field is shortened this drastically.

If you can prove to me why touchdowns are overrated, then I suppose this point is negated.

[Jack of Arcades]

It's not so much that touchdowns are overrated so much that the other plays leading up to it get no love.

[Needle77]

Tommy Vardell says touchdowns are not overrated.

[THAY3R]

Moe Williams and Mike Alstott ftw!

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have a question though, why does everyone say touchdowns are overrated? I really don't understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Touchdowns aren't overrated as a team accomplishment. They're vastly overrated as an individual feat, however. Most TDs are the result of the offense working its way down the field and into scoring position. Focusing on the last play of the drive tends to obscure the ultimate cause of the score.

For example, say the Chargers offense takes the opening kickoff for a touchback. They march 79 yards down the field with balanced mix of Tomlinson runs and short-intermediate passes. On 1st & Goal from the 1, Philip Rivers sneaks into the end zone for a TD. Was Tomlinson's contribution to the score significantly different than if he'd carried the ball that last yard? No. At that point the EV of the drive was probably around 6.5 points, and the difference in effectiveness between LDT and some other runner is miniscule at that point, so there just isn't much more vaule to be gained.

Or take another hypothetical: On the first play of the game, San Diego's opponent is on offense and throws an interception, which is returned all the way to the 1. On the next play, Tomlinson plows into the end zone. How much has he actually helped his team? They would score a TD the overwhelming majority of the time in that spot with or without LDT. Now say, for argument's sake, that with 1st & Goal on the 1 the Chargers would score a TD about 90% of the time. Let's also be really generous and say that without Tomlinson, that number drops all the way to 85%. That would mean that Tomlinson's actual contribution on the goalline was about 1/3 of a point.


That's all a long-winded way of saying that TDs are a poor measure of any RB or WR because they are so heavily dependent on opportunities provided by the rest of the team. What if, prior to Week 1, the Chargers had traded Tomlinson to the Raiders and had to use Michael Turner as a full-time RB. Who would have more TDs in 2006, Turner or Tomlinson? In fact, I would be surprised if Turner didn't wind up with twice as many TDs. That wouldn't mean, though, that Tomlinson was any less of a RB than he is now, nor would it mean that Michael Turner was one of the best backs in the league.

LDT isn't a great RB because he crosses the goalline so frequently. He's a great RB because he helps his team get down around the goalline so much. What's needed is a statistic that measures the approximate expected value in points of all of a RB's touches, then adds them up and compares how many points a given player contributed to his team above what a typical backup player would be expected to accomplish.

Oh, right: DPAR.