Was AP the most deserving?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

This will pretty much cover what Ngata alluded to so I'll just answer both of those at the same time.

 

It doesn't hold up with the Vikings. As I told Rain Man, the Vikings offense did not grind the clock out, nor did they successfully run that type of offense.

 

The defense was on the field on a per game basis longer then the offense was, almost a whole 4 minutes more. The defense ran more plays a game then the offense. Additionally, the Vikings were below average on 3rd down conversion percentage as well as total 3rd downs made per games on offense.

 

The whole grind out the clock thing by having a great run game works in theory but it holds no water in this conversation as the Vikings didn't do so successfully.

 

You have to pick a side Dmac.

 

You first tell us it is the defense as much as AP. Well then if they were so great why were they on the field more than the offense ? Apparently they could not get off the field on 3rd down. They could not have been that great.

 

So either they were really good and allowed the offense more time on the field to score. Or they were not and could not get the offense the opportunity to run it out. Either way your whole "It was the defense" thing is defeated by your own admission.

 

AS to the 3rd down thing. How many were third and long ? How do you blame AP for failures that are not of his creation ? How many 3rd and shorts >1 yard did they fail on? I bet that raises quite a bit.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It doesn't hold up with the Vikings. As I told Rain Man, the Vikings offense did not grind the clock out, nor did they successfully run that type of offense.

 

The defense was on the field on a per game basis longer then the offense was, almost a whole 4 minutes more. The defense ran more plays a game then the offense. Additionally, the Vikings were below average on 3rd down conversion percentage as well as total 3rd downs made per games on offense.

 

BECAUSE THEIR QB SUCKS! Dude, this isn't hard to comprehend. The RB, by the very nature of the position, is not going to take over an offense like a QB can. This does not disqualify them from the award.

 

How often can you say that about the Broncos last year? Once? Twice maybe?

 

The Broncos defense held their opponent to under 20 points *nine* times in 2012.

 

The defense was a major reason for many of the wins: Week 1 vs Pitt, Week 4 vs Oakland, Week 6 vs San Diego, where they completely shut down the Chargers in the second half, Week 7 vs the Saints where they held that vaunted offense to 14 points, Week 10 vs Carolina where they set up Peyton several times and completely shut down Newton, Week 12 vs KC, where their offense struggled to do anything, and they pulled out a win 17-9, Week 14 against Oakland again where they held them to 13, Week 16 vs Cleveland where they held the Browns to 4 FGs, and finally Week 17, where they ended the season by holding the Chiefs to 3 points.

 

To say the Broncos defense doesn't deserve more credit for the Broncos success than the Vikings D did for theirs is just completely ignorant.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

Right, and while you are at it, lemme know how many football related threads on TGP this offseason has garnered the activity this thread has.

You're right. More of us should create stupid, Bware-esque controversial threads that are (most importantly) blessed by Mikey's dumbfuckery to attract attention.

 

lol.

[56AceInDaPlace 110]

You're right. More of us should create stupid, Bware-esque controversial threads that are (most importantly) blessed by Mikey's dumbfuckery to attract attention.

 

lol.

 

You of all people tryna call me out? Lol. I guess its like when a BITCH calls other people a bitch. Your the troll on this site and havent ever seen u post any legit or smart or even true. All i see if u make insults, gif posts or a off topic post. Fuck outta here with that.

[Barracuda 629]

 

Yes, AP Deserved it. Are there arguments for others? Sure. Should anyone else have won it? No.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Barracuda

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

You of all people tryna call me out? Lol. I guess its like when a BITCH calls other people a bitch. Your the troll on this site and havent ever seen u post any legit or smart or even true. All i see if u make insults, gif posts or a off topic post. Fuck outta here with that.

How often do you even read my posts anyway? Typically, I don't post in the same threads as you because it's usually some video game, rap thread, or some annoying topic on Chris Johnson.

 

BTW, you should work on fixing those grammatical/spelling errors. It'd be best to do away with the ebonics.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Sorry Dmac, I just think your argument is completely naive. The Broncos WERE one of the top defenses in the league.. The Vikings were middle of the road as a whole. You're proving yourself wrong with your own argumenT against Peterson. If Petersons average defense made him less important, than Peytons great defense had to make him even less of a factor. So who should win the award? By your standards, JJ Watt or Aaron Rodgers are the only two guys that have a chance, that isn't what you're saying.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

You're right. More of us should create stupid, Bware-esque controversial threads that are (most importantly) blessed by Mikey's dumbfuckery to attract attention.

 

lol.

 

Don't try to compare this to Bwareesque BS. I've presented numbers to back up everything I've said on this thread, and just about all of them have been legit.

 

You have to pick a side Dmac.

 

You first tell us it is the defense as much as AP. Well then if they were so great why were they on the field more than the offense ? Apparently they could not get off the field on 3rd down. They could not have been that great.

 

So either they were really good and allowed the offense more time on the field to score. Or they were not and could not get the offense the opportunity to run it out. Either way your whole "It was the defense" thing is defeated by your own admission.

 

AS to the 3rd down thing. How many were third and long ? How do you blame AP for failures that are not of his creation ? How many 3rd and shorts >1 yard did they fail on? I bet that raises quite a bit.

 

I'm not blaming AP for their 3rd down failures, he hardly played on 3rd downs anyway, as do most starting HBs. I am saying that the idea that the offense as a whole helped the Vikings defense by playing the clock and keep away is false.

 

Also, as to your later question of how many times they succeeded on short yardage situation I couldn't find one for the whole team, but FO has their power success (% of runs on 3rd and 4th that resulted in either a TD or a 1st down) at 53% which is ranked 30th.

 

Like mentioned earlier, he didn't play on 3rd downs, but how is he a supposed MVP and he's never on the field on arguably the most important down on a offense that can't produce on short yardage situations.

 

BECAUSE THEIR QB SUCKS! Dude, this isn't hard to comprehend. The RB, by the very nature of the position, is not going to take over an offense like a QB can. This does not disqualify them from the award.

 

It doesn't disqualify them for the award, but it does require them to do more to earn it though. Like I said, if AP played a bigger role in the offense's overall success by doing more then just running for a lot of yards then I wouldn't even of entertained this thread.

 

You really think the offense as a whole would not of been more successful if AP played a role in teh passing game? If AP scored more then 13 total TDs?

 

The Broncos defense held their opponent to under 20 points *nine* times in 2012.

 

The defense was a major reason for many of the wins: Week 1 vs Pitt, Week 4 vs Oakland, Week 6 vs San Diego, where they completely shut down the Chargers in the second half, Week 7 vs the Saints where they held that vaunted offense to 14 points, Week 10 vs Carolina where they set up Peyton several times and completely shut down Newton, Week 12 vs KC, where their offense struggled to do anything, and they pulled out a win 17-9, Week 14 against Oakland again where they held them to 13, Week 16 vs Cleveland where they held the Browns to 4 FGs, and finally Week 17, where they ended the season by holding the Chiefs to 3 points.

 

To say the Broncos defense doesn't deserve more credit for the Broncos success than the Vikings D did for theirs is just completely ignorant.

 

There's a huge difference b/w how much the Broncos D led to the Broncos overall compared to that of the Vikings.

 

In just about all of those games the Broncos probably would of won regardless of what the D held the apposing offense unless if their defense was godly bad because of the sheer amount of points they scored. That's not the case with the Vikings. The fact of the matter is that the Broncos were ahead in way more situations then they were behind. The Minnesota Vikings on the other hand won a lot of games simply due to the fact that they were able to hold apposing offenses to lower then normal scoring and the offense getting by on average production.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Sorry Dmac, I just think your argument is completely naive. The Broncos WERE one of the top defenses in the league.. The Vikings were middle of the road as a whole. You're proving yourself wrong with your own argumenT against Peterson. If Petersons average defense made him less important, than Peytons great defense had to make him even less of a factor. So who should win the award? By your standards, JJ Watt or Aaron Rodgers are the only two guys that have a chance, that isn't what you're saying.

 

Not really. because once again, regardless of how great the defense played, the offense would still be putting up a ton of points, which ultimately would lead to more wins.

 

If the Vikings defense was terrible, or even as bad as they were 2 seasons ago, the Vikings as a whole and as a competitive team would be irrelevant outside of AP's historic numbers.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

That goes back to what Thanatos said earlier I believe, if you're running the football then you don't need to score 40 points to win. Its two different styles of football. What aren't you understanding.

 

Now you're just clinging to something you know isn't going to hold up.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

That goes back to what Thanatos said earlier I believe, if you're running the football then you don't need to score 40 points to win. Its two different styles of football. What aren't you understanding.

 

Now you're just clinging to something you know isn't going to hold up.

 

No, I understand the concept. What you don't understand is that it didn't work that way for the Vikings.

 

The Vikings were not controlling the clock. The Vikings were not playing keep away, and the Vikings were not staying on the field on 3rd downs. Rather, the fact that the Vikings didn't give up more points with how lopsided those two basic stats are tells you all you need to know about how much of a difference the defense made.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Also its a lot easier to put up a lot of points via the passing game than running. If your defense is keeping guys from scoring, then you have more opportunities to score, it takes Peyton less time to get down field than it did AP. So of course they are scoring more points. Peyton ALSO has a lot of help from his receivers making plays and getting YAC. How does that make AP less important to his offense? Peyton had a better D, better o lone, better supporting cast in receivers. AP had a solid line, but not great, and did it mostly by himself.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Peterson had NO control in most 3rd and long situations. He isn't a quarterback. It stands that you are eliminating every one but the quarterback as a contender for this award based on control of the game, you can't do that.

[Dutch 874]

Not really. because once again, regardless of how great the defense played, the offense would still be putting up a ton of points, which ultimately would lead to more wins.

 

If the Vikings defense was terrible, or even as bad as they were 2 seasons ago, the Vikings as a whole and as a competitive team would be irrelevant outside of AP's historic numbers.

 

Regardless of how great the defense played?? So if the Broncos defense sucked, that means it's possible that the Broncos opposing teams could run up the score and put up as many points as Peyton did to possibly win the game right? You saw that play off game against the Ravens right? The Broncos defense sucked and they lost; so it's no regardless of how the defense played when you've been riding the defense card to discredit A.P. It goes hand in hand bro.You're contradicting yourself in every post. You can't downplay A.P s impact on his team because of his defense and commend Peyton when his defense was substantially better; the #4 ranked scoring defense.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Also its a lot easier to put up a lot of points via the passing game than running. If your defense is keeping guys from scoring, then you have more opportunities to score, it takes Peyton less time to get down field than it did AP. So of course they are scoring more points. Peyton ALSO has a lot of help from his receivers making plays and getting YAC. How does that make AP less important to his offense? Peyton had a better D, better o lone, better supporting cast in receivers. AP had a solid line, but not great, and did it mostly by himself.

 

Did he really? The same DEN Oline that gave up 41 sacks 2 years ago gave up 21 this past season. You really think that had nothing to do with Manning?

 

According to PFF, Manning ranked 6th among QBs in terms of percentage of yards in each one of his passes that were in the air with around 60%. No QB in the top 10 in that category outside of him had a as close to a completion %. In other words, even though his receivers helped play a part in his passing success, Manning did more then hold up his end of the bargain.

 

AP's line this season was more then just solid. I watched around 8 games of Minnesota's this past season and just about every game he had a solid 4 yards or so before anyone was trying to make a solid tackle. And don't take my word for it, every single metrics site has the Vikings run blocking ranked somewhere in the top 10.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Regardless of how great the defense played?? So if the Broncos defense sucked, that means it's possible that the Broncos opposing teams could run up the score and put up as many points as Peyton did to possibly win the game right? You saw that play off game against the Ravens right? The Broncos defense sucked and they lost; so it's no regardless of how the defense played when you've been riding the defense card to discredit A.P. It goes hand in hand bro.You're contradicting yourself in every post. You can't downplay A.P s impact on his team because of his defense and commend Peyton when his defense was substantially better; the #4 ranked scoring defense.

 

 

In just about all of those games the Broncos probably would of won regardless of what the D held the apposing offense unless if their defense was godly bad because of the sheer amount of points they scored. That's not the case with the Vikings. The fact of the matter is that the Broncos were ahead in way more situations then they were behind. The Minnesota Vikings on the other hand won a lot of games simply due to the fact that they were able to hold apposing offenses to lower then normal scoring and the offense getting by on average production.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You have to pick a side Dmac.

 

You first tell us it is the defense as much as AP. Well then if they were so great why were they on the field more than the offense ? Apparently they could not get off the field on 3rd down. They could not have been that great.

 

So either they were really good and allowed the offense more time on the field to score. Or they were not and could not get the offense the opportunity to run it out. Either way your whole "It was the defense" thing is defeated by your own admission.

 

I still need this as an answer.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Lol, are you kidding?! Now not only did the defense have no effect on his success, but Peyton is why the offensive line didn't give up sacks? You can say all you want on his audible abilities calling out blitzes and such, but he DIDN'T help them block. Players do get better, and lines do eventually mesh. Peyton isn't exactly nimble or quick, you act as if he was running and throwing defenders off his back. Wake the heck up man.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I still need this as an answer.

 

Answer to what?

 

They were on the field more then the offense because the offense couldn't stay on the field more. Once again that shows just how much the defense improved and how big of a role they played.

 

The were in the top 10 (as in worst) in terms of TO/P against, 1st downs against, top 5 (as in worst) in terms of plays of scrimmage against, you'd think a defense that was on the field for that long would be one of the absolute worst in the league in terms of yardage. But they give up less yards then just about everyone else in the group outside of B-More.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Lol, are you kidding?! Now not only did the defense have no effect on his success, but Peyton is why the offensive line didn't give up sacks? You can say all you want on his audible abilities calling out blitzes and such, but he DIDN'T help them block. Players do get better, and lines do eventually mesh. Peyton isn't exactly nimble or quick, you act as if he was running and throwing defenders off his back. Wake the heck up man.

 

Well, when as a QB you can diagnose a defense quicker, make quicker decisions and get rid of the ball quicker, along with being able to make proper audible, calls, get a great sense of where the pressure comes from, who do you think it helps more then anyone else?

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Ay. This conversation is dumb. You know you're wrong...

[Dutch 874]

In just about all of those games the Broncos probably would of won regardless of what the D held the apposing offense unless if their defense was godly bad because of the sheer amount of points they scored. That's not the case with the Vikings. The fact of the matter is that the Broncos were ahead in way more situations then they were behind. The Minnesota Vikings on the other hand won a lot of games simply due to the fact that they were able to hold apposing offenses to lower then normal scoring and the offense getting by on average production.

 

 

Do you realize what you're doing? How can you say "the Broncos probably would of won regardless of what the D held"... which means in spite of everything then you say "unless if their defense was godly bad" giving room for exceptions in your argument (stance).You said two contradicting words that means the opposite of each other in the SAME sentence trying to prove your argument... That is a logical fallacy if I ever saw one. You can't state an argument then give conditions / circumstances how that argument may not hold valid. That's a weak argument.

 

/Thread bro. You're contradicting yourself in every post and now you're contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

Edited February 23, 2013 by dutchff7

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Answer to what?

 

They were on the field more then the offense because the offense couldn't stay on the field more. Once again that shows just how much the defense improved and how big of a role they played.

 

The were in the top 10 (as in worst) in terms of TO/P against, 1st downs against, top 5 (as in worst) in terms of plays of scrimmage against, you'd think a defense that was on the field for that long would be one of the absolute worst in the league in terms of yardage. But they give up less yards then just about everyone else in the group outside of B-More.

 

Or it could be the defense could not get off the field on third down. I think you are trying to argue one's impact on the other which is impossible.

 

It will become a circular argument because Minny had the 14th scoring offense while their defense was close but behind at 16th in PA. So statistically in terms of points their offense was better than their defense. That should put this argument to rest.

[Dutch 874]

Ay. This conversation is dumb. You know you're wrong...

 

Don't feed the thread. He's having a circular argument with himself. You can split up his post and have a side A countering his other post side B. He's been pointed out contradicting himself on like every page by several members and isn't defending his stance properly. He's either stubborn, doesn't get it, or is trolling us hard.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

Aaron Rodgers > Peyton Manning