In a few weeks, it will be announced that Tom Brady won the 2010 NFL MVP award. But should Brady be the MVP? Sure, if you only count the first 16 games.
The Patriots' untimely demise in the playoffs is further proof that the NFL needs to revamp its annual awards and consider postseason accomplishments. Yes, I'm aware that MVP, Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year, Rookie of the Year and every other award is based on the regular season. But why?
Wouldn't playoff success go a long way in determining who is the league's Most Valuable Player? I'm not trying to rub salt in the wounds of Patriots fans, but how can a guy be considered the most valuable when he was unable to lead his team to a home playoff win against a team it smacked around a few weeks prior?
Of course, Brady can't do everything himself, but the very notion of an MVP suggests that player does a lot of it by himself, or with little help. For 17 weeks of the regular season, Brady was that guy, without question. Take him off the Patriots and maybe they get a wild card spot, but there's no way the Patriots finish 14-2.
Hence, I submit for your ridicule and hostility, the man who is the league MVP (so far): Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
Despite losing his starting running back, tight end and right tackle, Rodgers passed for 3,922 yards, 28 touchdowns and 11 interceptions during the regular season. Sure, those numbers don't compare to Brady's 36 touchdowns and four picks (although Rodgers did have 22 more yards). But in the playoffs, Rodgers has thrown for six touchdowns (and run for one) with no interceptions.
There are plenty of reasons why the Packers are a No. 6 seed competing for a Super Bowl berth, but Rodgers is a huge one.
Sorry, Patriots fans, but this postseason, Rodgers has been much more valuable to his team than Brady was to his. Fortunately for Brady, playoffs don't factor in the award, so while some team other than New England will win the Super Bowl, shortly before the big game, Brady will be named league MVP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This argument is ludicrous. So if you want to give Aaron Rodgers the MVP for his postseason performance, why don't we give the Patriots the Vince Lombardi trophy for their 14-2 record during the regular season? We'll just make everything bizarro world!
I have to disagree that the post season should be considered. It is as it should be, who contributed the most to their team over the long haul of the season. You don't give first place in a marathon to the guy who only ran the last 100 yards over the guy who ran the 26 miles just because he may have been faster in those 100 yards.
I'm not a Brady fan but as our old Packer rival Jim McMahon used to say, it ain't bragging if you can back it up. Brady backed it up for 16 games. I think he deserves MVP.
Really, Scott? That's the best you can come up with?
The point I was trying to make is that the NFL should place more emphasis on the playoffs and less on the regular season. Your Patriots 14-2 record during the regular season doesn't mean a thing.
We take into account playoff performances when deciding our high school Players of the Year for various sports. And more than once, a playoff run has swayed the award from one player to another.
I'm not comparing Newport Daily News Player of the Year to NFL MVP, but it's going to seem strange to hear that Tom Brady is the MVP when his team didn't win a playoff game.
It's happened before in pro sports (Dirk Nowitzki was the NBA MVP in 2007 and his top-seeded Mavericks lost to Golden State in the first round), but my point is that it shouldn't happen and could be easily avoided.
I like the marathon analogy, but you also don't give first place to the guy who got to Mile 25 first. The playoffs are that last 1.2.
Post a Comment