boltnlava Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Right now? Rivers. Hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausagekingchi Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Watt is arguably the most dominant player in the game, but like so many have pointed out he is not playing a typical MVP position and that certainly works against him. The NFL is all about the offense, and right now no one is more dominant at their position than Murray has been on that side of the ball. The guy has more rushing yards on 1st down alone than any other RB has total. The Jim Brown accomplishment helps his case as well. If he stays healthy and productive and the Cowboys continue to be a playoff caliber team he may end up being the front runner to win it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Thing with Murray is (as other pointed out) the improved offensive line is a huge part of his success. (Was he this good last year or the year before? Did he suddenly get that much better?) Plus the defense being better makes it easier to run, they play more with the lead and therefore they run more. Not saying he isn't good and a huge part of the Cowboys success, just that he isn't as key as others. Rivers and Luck, they were very good QBs before, and there is no change on their teams (that I'm aware of) that has suddenly made them so much better. They carry their teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 So by this logic, Watt shouldn't in it either. If Houston's offense didn't suck so bad Watt wouldn't be on the field so much and his #'s wouldn't be near what they are now Huh? You're saying Watt only has good numbers because of sheer volume? That's not the case, and I didn't say that about Murray, either. He said that Murray "has dragged America's 4th most popular team back to relevance." I disagreed. It's not like Murray has single-handedly led the Cowboys to their fast start. If there's been one side of the ball that's been more of a pleasant surprise for the Cowboys thus far, it's been the defense, no? Again, I have nothing against Murray. I just don't think he'll win MVP. There's no way to say what would happen "if the season ended today" because it won't. So, we're all just speculating, obviously. But, even if there was an "MVP through Week 6" award, I don't think Murray is in the top five. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I agree that Murray could not be doing what he is without an improved offensive line, without a commitment to the running game by the coaching staff and without a defense to keep games close enough that the game plan can still include the run game. But last time I checked both Luck and Rivers have offensive lines blocking for them, coaches that call passing plays and wide receivers and tight ends that catch the ball. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 If there's been one side of the ball that's been more of a pleasant surprise for the Cowboys thus far, it's been the defense, no? Definitely. You did say though that,,,, "This year, with the defense playing well, they're able to run as much as they want, and the numbers show that " That implies to me that the only reason Murray and Jim Brown are the only guys ever with 6 100 yd rushing games in a row is because the D is playing so well. Is that why Brown was so successful too? FWIW I think just about any RB not named Trent would be putting up good #'s behind that line the way they've played so far. And fwiw I voted for Watt in this poll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This is becoming a chicken or the egg argument... Speaking of which I'm pretty sure a 1-legged chicken can run behind the 'boys line and pick up 5 per carry. Isn't Randle or Dunbar getting something like 7 per also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Definitely. You did say though that,,,, "This year, with the defense playing well, they're able to run as much as they want, and the numbers show that " That implies to me that the only reason Murray and Jim Brown are the only guys ever with 6 100 yd rushing games in a row is because the D is playing so well. Is that why Brown was so successful too? FWIW I think just about any RB not named Trent would be putting up good #'s behind that line the way they've played so far. And fwiw I voted for Watt in this poll Brown played in a different era, when teams passed less than they do now. That's about all I can say (I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Jim Brown, as he played before my time). I agree with the bolded part, for sure. I also think that speaks to the RB position, in general. There's a reason why there were FIFTY-THREE players drafted this year before a RB was taken. Most teams realize that even the best RB's aren't going to be playing a game-changing position. In other words, in large part, RB's are replaceable. There are exceptions. But, teams realize that drafting a RB early is in all probability a wasted pick. Does that change the way MVP voters vote, in terms of considering a RB for MVP? I have no idea. Maybe not. Murray certainly COULD win the MVP (after all, Peterson won it just a couple of years ago)... I just think the odds are against him. Of course, the odds are against Watt as well, but for slightly different reasons. Watt is hurt by the fact that his team probably won't make the playoffs. If they do, I think he's got as good of a shot as anybody since LT in 1986 (assuming he stays healthy, obviously). But, I think the odds are against him. Because of the fact that one defensive player has won MVP in 40+ years, and because of who the Texans have playing QB (a game-changing position like no other). I think the odds are against Murray for a few reasons. Number one, he's not a QB, obviously. Secondly, it's unlikely he keeps up his current pace. A lot of things could impact this. He could get hurt. The Cowboys could decide to start using other RB's more, to keep him fresh for the post-season. They could have to play more from behind (and therefore pass more). On top of that, there's the fumble thing. I don't think it's a deal-breaker, but it might make it more difficult. If, hypothetically, he breaks the NFL rushing record, I think he could win MVP, even if he leads the league in fumbles. I might not agree with it, but I could see it happening. But, if he doesn't do something great numbers-wise (like break a record), leading the league in fumbles will all but destroy any chance he has, in my opinion. In other words, right or wrong, I think there are voters who would be willing to look past a major flaw, if there's a major accomplishment. If he just has a really good year (let's say 1850 yards), and has a relatively high number of fumbles (or leads the league in that area), I don't think he has a chance of winning the award, even if the Cowboys go 13-3. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausagekingchi Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Yes the Dallas offensive line has improved, but let's stop with pretending any RB could be putting these numbers up behind that line. DeMarco Murray is an elite talent, and that is why he is having an amazing year so far. It's not like Murray was putting up garbage numbers before this year. FYI - according to Pro Football Focus Dallas has the 6th best overall offensive line and the 10th best offensive line at run blocking to date. So somehow Murray is blowing out his peers despite running behind a line that has over 30% of the leagues offensive lines blocking better in the run game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpayers Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This is becoming a chicken or the egg argument... Speaking of which I'm pretty sure a 1-legged chicken can run behind the 'boys line and pick up 5 per carry. Isn't Randle or Dunbar getting something like 7 per also? This type of discussion inevitably drifts into the area of "best" player vs the literal meaning of "most valuable". The cows will be home and tucked away in bed long before there would be a consensus. Perhaps we should apply Wins Above Replacement (WAR) as done in baseball. If that were the case I would have to go with a QB. Manning, Luck or Rivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Yes the Dallas offensive line has improved, but let's stop with pretending any RB could be putting these numbers up behind that line. DeMarco Murray is an elite talent, and that is why he is having an amazing year so far. It's not like Murray was putting up garbage numbers before this year. FYI - according to Pro Football Focus Dallas has the 6th best overall offensive line and the 10th best offensive line at run blocking to date. So somehow Murray is blowing out his peers despite running behind a line that has over 30% of the leagues offensive lines blocking better in the run game. It's not just the line. I think it's a combination of all three... He's an elite (or at least much better than average) RB, the line is playing better than they have in a long time, and he's getting more carries than ever before. With all three of those things happening, he's on a record pace. Take away one of the three, and that pace changes. If the line plays worse (or is decimated by injury), Murray stops putting up huge numbers. If Murray gets less carries, he gets less yards (obviously). And, if Murray gets hurt, his replacement might still put up better than average numbers (or maybe not), but I certainly don't think it would be exactly the same. Which factor has the biggest impact? That's not a rhetorical question (I don't know the answer). Most would say that two things have changed (the number of carries, and the O-Line play), while one has remained the same (Murray is still Murray). Or, maybe not (maybe he's playing better than ever before?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I don't think Murray is elite, not like an AP type player. Good and better than average is different than elite. Not every RB in the NFL could step in and produce like he could, but there are a bunch that could (AP, Lynch, Foster, Gore, Forte to name a few). And of course Luck and Rivers have supporting casts, but I'm not aware of that supporting cast suddenly being that much better (like the DAL OL) to help them produce better numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This type of discussion inevitably drifts into the area of "best" player vs the literal meaning of "most valuable". The cows will be home and tucked away in bed long before there would be a consensus. Perhaps we should apply Wins Above Replacement (WAR) as done in baseball. If that were the case I would have to go with a QB. Manning, Luck or Rivers Therein lies part of the problem. I think some voters do use that "metric" as a gauge of who should win. And, you're right in that it changes things... If that is used in the literal sense, a QB is going to win 95% of the time. My question is this... It's a league award, right? In other words, they're voting on the most valuable player for the entire league, not who is most valuable to their team. So, if Houston goes 8-8 (and doesn't make the playoffs), how is Watt the most valuable player in the league, overall? He might be the most valuable player on his team. He might even be the player who is most clearly better than anybody else at his position. But, that doesn't necessarily mean he's the MVP of the league, if his team is basically irrelevant when the season ends. Same goes for Rivers (or any QB)... If they finish on the outside looking in, it's hard to argue that they were the league's most valuable player. Obviously, there's a lot of interpretation that goes into this, and everybody looks at it slightly differently. And, to some degree, I'm playing devil's advocate (I actually think Watt might be the MVP through 6 games, or at least very close, even though the Texans are slightly outside the current playoff picture). I guess that's why they vote, and that's what makes it interesting. Nobody would care if there was a set of black-and-white MVP criteria, and the commissioner just handed the award out at season's end (with no voting involved). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Right now? Rivers. Hands down. I believe the teams the Chargers have beaten have like 4 total wins combined. Let's not get carried away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Therein lies part of the problem. I think some voters do use that "metric" as a gauge of who should win. And, you're right in that it changes things... If that is used in the literal sense, a QB is going to win 95% of the time. My question is this... It's a league award, right? In other words, they're voting on the most valuable player for the entire league, not who is most valuable to their team. So, if Houston goes 8-8 (and doesn't make the playoffs), how is Watt the most valuable player in the league, overall? He might be the most valuable player on his team. He might even be the player who is most clearly better than anybody else at his position. But, that doesn't necessarily mean he's the MVP of the league, if his team is basically irrelevant when the season ends. Same goes for Rivers (or any QB)... If they finish on the outside looking in, it's hard to argue that they were the league's most valuable player. Obviously, there's a lot of interpretation that goes into this, and everybody looks at it slightly differently. And, to some degree, I'm playing devil's advocate (I actually think Watt might be the MVP through 6 games, or at least very close, even though the Texans are slightly outside the current playoff picture). I guess that's why they vote, and that's what makes it interesting. Nobody would care if there was a set of black-and-white MVP criteria, and the commissioner just handed the award out at season's end (with no voting involved). Yeah the criteria used for determining who the MVP of the league has never been clear. I personally think the award should be the player who is most valuable to his team - the player without whom the team loses more games. I do not understand how a player is most valuable in the league ... is this the guy that is responsible for bringing in the most cash? The guy that brings the most positive PR? How exactly are players bringing value to the league as a whole and how is this measured quantitatively? How is the MVP different than the offensive player of the year? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I'd love to see Watt get it but there is merit for Murray...I know people think the Dallas D is soooooo much better this year, but in reality they're not that improved and the improvement that they are seeing can largely be attributed to Murray and the running game. Clicky clicky 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I'd love to see Watt get it but there is merit for Murray...I know people think the Dallas D is soooooo much better this year, but in reality they're not that improved and the improvement that they are seeing can largely be attributed to Murray and the running game. Clicky clicky Eli moved the ball pretty easily against them yesterday, for the most part. And, I believe they are giving up roughly the same average yards per play as last year (but their defense is on the field for 10 or so plays less than last year, per game). So, in that regard, I would agree. On the other hand, they were pretty much terrible, week in and week out, last year. This year, one could argue that they have at least played well at times (SEA and NOS come to mind). In some of their other wins, I think their defensive performance could be attributed to lackluster offense by their opponents (TEN and HOU), as opposed to great defense by Dallas. And, against STL, they got behind big, the offense brought them back, and defense sealed the deal with the Carter pick-six. Still, they gave up 31, so I can't exactly say that was a great (or even good) game for the defense. I think they're playing better than last year (at least at times), but the success Murray has had has certainly made it easier for the defense. So, yeah, it's certainly a chicken vs egg argument (and I'll agree that Murray is more of the cause than the effect). I will give him this... The longer he can extend this 100-yard game streak, the better I like his chances of winning MVP. I still don't think he's the front-runner, but every time he has a big week, I can see him getting a bit closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausagekingchi Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 The Dallas offensive line was actually better last season, so they haven't improved this year despite it being repeated ad nauseam. They ranked #4 last season, well ahead of their current ranking in the run game. So how is that Murray is having a superior year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 The Dallas offensive line was actually better last season, so they haven't improved this year despite it being repeated ad nauseam. They ranked #4 last season, well ahead of their current ranking in the run game. So how is that Murray is having a superior year? Do you have a link to those rankings? I'm just curious if it's the same as (or similar to) what I've linked below. In terms of their improvement, I'm talking rushing yards per game. They're #1 in the league this year, and they were something like 24th last year. So, it seems pretty clear to me that their running game has improved. It's hard to believe that at least some of the credit (for that improvement) shouldn't go to the O-Line. In terms of the rankings below, the Cowboys are 6th this year, and were 4th last year. Not exactly "well ahead" of their current ranking, but I guess it depends on where you look (maybe?). They're also somewhat flawed (in my opinion) because they don't give the O-Line any credit for yards gained past 10 yards. In other words, the "logic" in these rankings assumes that the O-Line impacts a run of 10 yards or less, but anything beyond 10 yards is essentially the RB doing it all himself. That may be true in some cases, but it could also be a bad assumption in others. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausagekingchi Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I use Pro Football Focus. They do not grade things in the same fashion as Football Outsiders (although FO does a good job as well in general). PFF is actually used by NFL teams when grading players. They literally grade each player on every single play using coaches tape. I was referring to the running game rank by PFF. Dallas was ranked 4th last year in run blocking, despite them being #24 in total rushing yards. They still averaged 4.5ypc which was tied for 5th place. This year they were ranked 10th in run blocking heading into this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I use Pro Football Focus. They do not grade things in the same fashion as Football Outsiders (although FO does a good job as well in general). PFF is actually used by NFL teams when grading players. They literally grade each player on every single play using coaches tape. I was referring to the running game rank by PFF. Dallas was ranked 4th last year in run blocking, despite them being #24 in total rushing yards. They still averaged 4.5ypc which was tied for 5th place. This year they were ranked 10th in run blocking heading into this week. They grade all the games using TV coverage. Coaches tape isn't released until later in the week well after PFF's grades and games are done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tripleshot Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Watt is a total freak and probably the most dominating player at any position. However, I wouldn't call him the most valuable. Denver, Indy, Green Bay and San Diego might not even be playoff teams without Manning, Luck, Rodgers, and Rivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Watt is a total freak and probably the most dominating player at any position. However, I wouldn't call him the most valuable. Denver, Indy, Green Bay and San Diego might not even be playoff teams without Manning, Luck, Rodgers, and Rivers. well of course not silly. Who would the center snap the ball to with no QB? duh...... QB and RB bias for MVP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 QB and RB bias for MVP Maybe. Pretty sure the Texans could suck just as much without Watt though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausagekingchi Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Thanks for the correction. They do indeed use the tv broadcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.