NFL MVP

Garoppolo was pretty banged up when Brady came back. Brisett also was hurt.

 

And yet, the voters left Sean Lee off the Pro Bowl roster.

 

I'm not a Cowboys fan by any means, but that really is a travesty. That defense has been way better than anyone ever thought it would be, and Lee is the No. 1 reason. He's been fabulous.

 

Do the Giants have any offense at all without Beckham?

 

Does anyone score a touchdown without crossing the goal line?

 

I hate to say it, but Rodgers should win it. I think Carr will, though.

 

I can't really fathom how Brady gets much MVP consideration when he missed 25 percent of the season and his team went 3-1 with a MASH unit of QBs under center during that stretch. He's great, one of the best ever. But he missed a quarter of the season and the team didn't miss a beat without him.

 

At worst, don't think anyone thought there was any way they wouldn't win at least two of those first four games without him. In Week 4, they were shut out by the Bills, who have an average defense. Think four games may be a pretty small sample. Pretty sure if Brady was out for the season, they wouldn't have a .750 winning percentage.

 

Have you looked at their schedule? It's the weakest in the NFL. I actually think it's a pretty safe bet they could have finished 12-4 without him. And I really can't find more than five losses on that schedule, even with Garroppolo or Brisset under center.

 

And the difference between 12-4 and 14-2 might end up being the difference between making the Super Bowl and not.

I get the argument. But that means Bell is out of consideration (and let's be honest; he's not really there anyway) for the same reason. But if you're going to play the "Brady missed 4 and they went 3-1 without him" game, then you need to play the replacement game with everyone.

But Dak shouldn't get it over Brady. Right now Dak is a better Alex Smith. Personally, I think he's going to end up an all-timer, but he's got fewer TDs than Brady in four more games (and before you bring up Elliot and his TDs, LeGarrette Blount is second in the NFL, IIRC). Dak's behind such legends as Trevor Siemien, Sam Bradford and Andy Dalton in yards per game. His completion percentage and TD/INT ratio are terrific, but that makes him a game manager.

Brady's not MVP either. The problem with Brady is the same reason why the Patriots get criticized so much up here - his numbers need to be 2007 good or he's not having a great season. He's definitely done enough to earn the award but if there wasn't one no-brainer candidate, I'd say it was his. But there is one.

Ezekiel Elliot is the MVP of this league and I don't think it's close. He makes everything go in Dallas. That line helps, but there isn't a candidate who doesn't have help somewhere. Come playoff time, how would you plan for Dallas as a DC? I'm doing everything I can to stop the run and daring Dak to beat me.

I watch Dak and see a lot of Tom Brady 2001. He's still learning NFL football and when he figures it all out, good god. But Elliot? He's playing it. If I'm a fan of an NFC team I'm not happy because those two together are gonna win a lot.

EDIT: The Patriots' easy schedule is overblown. Right now they have the same strength of victory as Dallas. The only teams with schedule beef are the KC/DEN.

 

Brady's been MVP level in the 10 games he has played. Is 75 percent of the season enough? Since the other leading candidate is Rodgers, who was the subject of much "what's the matter with him?" talk when the Packers were slumping, it's an interesting debate.
Rhody, you make a fine case for Elliott. But the voters are so QB-centric now, I think the poor child will have to settle for Rookie of the Year and first-team All-Pro.

 

Whom does Putin want to win?