About Me

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Warner for MVP

In response to this article, I posted the following:

You said:

running game (76.9 yards per game, 31st in the league coming into Sunday's game), it would be fair to say the Colts rode Manning's arm into the playoffs.

Guess who was 32nd? Yup, the Cardinals with 71.1 YPG. Warner had more yards, more TD's and only one more INT. He took a team that was flat out terrible last year to a division title. Yes the west is incredibly weak, but the Cards have no running game, no offensive line, no defense. That team is 6-10 at best without him.

Manning? He is one of the top 5 QB's of all time, but the Colts are a strong team regardless. They have a much better defense than the Cards at 19.9 PPG vs 27 PPG for the cards, their offensive line is substantially better. Obviously we found out that Brady is Valuable but the Pats were still able to get 10 wins without him. The Colts are the same way

Seems your analysis needs some help as you didn't actually compare Manning to anyone, you just talked about Manning taking a bad team to the playoffs. Well, sorry, the Cards were worse and Warner played better.

For example, although Warner has Breaston, Boldin and Fitzgerald, he has no outlet like a Dallas Clark, Addai or Rhodes. In addition, Manning still has Harrison, Gonzalez, and somebody by the name of Reggie Wayne. Thus, the Cards were one diminsional and Warner still got it done.

So please, go back, actually compare stats and the team and then get back to us, instead of making conclusions with no analysis.

The same can be said for AP. The Vikes had a platoon of offense this year but AP came through and carried that team. However, even comparing Warner and AP. The Vikes had one more win than the Cards but gave up 7 less points a game on Defense. With that kind of defense the Cards would have won 12-13 games

I would really like to hear why, with analysis, you think Manning or anyone deserves the award over Warner.

More Comments:
I really wouldn't have a problem with AP winning the MVP, the Vikings would be no where without him. I just think Warner was more valuable.

2 comments:

Fuji said...

I am by any means an expert in this area, but I'm going to throw out a couple of reasons why some people might not pick Warner as MVP.

#1: Arizona as a whole, isn't that good. Looking at the past 10 MVP's, all of them were on teams with strong regular seasons:

2007 Brady (16-0)
2006 Tomlinson (14-2)
2005 Alexander (13-3)
2004 Manning (12-4)
2003 Manning/Mcnair (12-4/12-4)
2002 Gannon (11-5)
2001 Warner (14-2)
2000 Faulk (10-6)
1999 Warner (13-3)

Now I know that the MVP should go to the player who is most valuable to his team, but for one reason or another that's not how the voters vote. Arizona's schedule wasn't that tough (6 of their wins came against the Rams, Seahawks, and Niners). They were 1-5 against playoff teams. That lone win came against Miami during their poor 1-5 start (after they got their act together they finished 9-1).

#2: You called it in your blog. He has arguably the best wide receiver tandem in the league in Boldin and Fitzgerald. Throw in Breason and his 77 receptions and you have some serious talent. I know that the reverse argument could be that they wouldn't have all of those receptions without Warner. But somehow I think a lot of people believe you could put any top 10 QB in Warner's shoes and get similar results.

Once again, I'm not saying I think Warner wasn't valuable to his team. I just don't think he'll win the MVP based on how the voters vote.

Keep up the great blog.

stusigpi said...

I think you are right, but no one can tell me why anyone was more valuable than Warner. The guy on SI was talking about Manning, but Peterson was much more valuable than Manning. I wouldn't have a problem if Pennington, Brees, or AP won. I was just a little ticked that the guy said manning with no reason why it shouldn't be one of the others.

Warner may get some sentimental votes, but that game in NE really hurt. Hopefully the Cards wont play so many tough road games next year.