Tega Posted February 7, 2005 Author Share Posted February 7, 2005 Brady had a part in the fumble and he didn't wrap his arms around the ball quick enough and tight enough to maintain possession (when he was trying to recover the fumble). Also, even though Brady didn't throw an interception, he was not his normal self tonight. He missed some passes he normally would have made. He did well, but not well enough to be MVP. Don't get me wrong, I know McNabb totally blew it in the redzone. Even that one TD he passed between 2 defensive players in the middle, was not a smart move. He lucked out on that one ( was falling backwards at the time). Still my vote is for TO. If I was going to choose a MVP for New England it would have been a defensive player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) Still my vote is for TO. If I was going to choose a MVP for New England it would have been a defensive player. 687344[/snapback] I really don't understand why you think Owens should have won the award when Branch plays the same position, outperformed him, and was on the winning team? That doesn't make any sense...it isn't the greatest medical comeback award, or the "guts" award, it's the Most Valuable Player award. Branch - 11 catches for 133 yards + a Pats win (his 11 catches tied a Superbowl record) Owens - 9 catches for 122 yards + an Eagle loss Edited February 7, 2005 by Skrappy1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tega Posted February 7, 2005 Author Share Posted February 7, 2005 I don't think the MVP should be based only on a win and stats. Sure, it's important, but Branch barely beat Owens in stats and Owens brought so much intensity and confidence out on that field. That helped the Eagles tremendously. Even though they were down, the Eagles kept coming and I think TO was one of the main driving forces behind that. The inspiration the Eagles felt because of TO's efforts made them play harder. That was so valuable for the Eagles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) I don't think the MVP should be based only on a win and stats. Sure, it's important, but Branch barely beat Owens in stats and Owens brought so much intensity and confidence out on that field. That helped the Eagles tremendously. Even though they were down, the Eagles kept coming and I think TO was one of the main driving forces behind that. The inspiration the Eagles felt because of TO's efforts made them play harder. That was so valuable for the Eagles. 687352[/snapback] If he hadn't played, they still would have lost. Edited February 7, 2005 by godtomsatan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizards Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Brady deserved it for competent smart winning field generalship. I think he had around a 110 rating and averaged a 95 rating in the 2 games he won MVP before. 2 TDs and no mistakes and he is the MVP. 687189[/snapback] My vote would have been Branch or Brady...what is really too bad is that the 13th player has no chance of getting it...Belichek deserves the MVP...the team was well prepared and made major adjustments as the game wore on and exposed what weakness the Eagles "D" had...other than one run of 25 yards by Dillon and his TD later..Dillon was shut down...the Pats brain thrus, once again took what was given them and won the game...I have always known you have a conservative (mostly anyways) QB in Brady--smart--doesn't hurt your team most of the time...and Belichek drew up the perfect plan in the second half...screeen plays late in the first half set up the over the middle passes on play action fakes and fake screens...it was a masterpiece---pure Picasso in field general lores..if they ever give an MVP to a coach it would have to been this game and Belichek...JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunysteelfly76 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Branch. Matching the Super Bowl record for receptions should get you the MVP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrambled Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Harrison, he was huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apathy Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 1) Harrison 2) Branch 3) Brady McNabb looked pretty bad passing. 3 interceptions? And several balls thrown very poorly. I have to believe a good bit of that was due to the defense, and spearheaded by Harrison. If you want to give an award to T.O., how about best performance by somebody with a bum ankle, or something like that? He played very well, but wasn't the MVP. If the Eagles had won, and T.O. and Branch had the same stats as they did last night, would Branch have garnered any votes? Probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 The silver lining in the cloud that was this Superbowl is the fact that Brady did not win a third MVP. Branch was hugh, as he was against the Steelers in the AFC Championship. He deserved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Little Bit Special Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Harrison then Branch You don't get to be MVP unless your team wins. 687149[/snapback] I agree. But did you know: One MVP, Dallas' Chuck Howley, came from a losing team in Super Bowl V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) My vote would've been for McNabb, who did extremely well considering that he was running for his life all night. Put a traditional pocket passer back there (Brady, Manning, etc.) against NE's defense and it would've been a blowout. Any QB who was forced to throw the ball 51 times, came up with 3 TDs against a great defense, and can keep the score close did a hell of a job, IMO. Unfortunately, players on losing teams almost never get MVP awards. Rodney Harrison, who also had a very good night, would've been my second choice. Branch was a decent choice, as would've been Brady and TO. It's also unfortunate that offensive linemen typically don't get these awards, as NE's line was absolutely fantastic last night. Edited February 7, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 My vote would've been for McNabb, who did extremely well considering that he was running for his life all night. 687498[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 My vote would've been for McNabb, who did extremely well considering that he was running for his life all night. 687498[/snapback] I think you hit the moonshine a little too hard last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 My vote would've been for McNabb, who did extremely well considering that he was running for his life all night. Put a traditional pocket passer back there (Brady, Manning, etc.) against NE's defense and it would've been a blowout. Any QB who was forced to throw the ball 51 times, came up with 3 TDs against a great defense, and can keep the score close did a hell of a job, IMO. Unfortunately, players on losing teams almost never get MVP awards. Rodney Harrison, who also had a very good night, would've been my second choice. Branch was a decent choice, as would've been Brady and TO. It's also unfortunate that offensive linemen typically don't get these awards, as NE's line was absolutely fantastic last night. 687498[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I don't think the MVP should be based only on a win and stats. Sure, it's important, but Branch barely beat Owens in stats and Owens brought so much intensity and confidence out on that field. That helped the Eagles tremendously. Even though they were down, the Eagles kept coming and I think TO was one of the main driving forces behind that. The inspiration the Eagles felt because of TO's efforts made them play harder. That was so valuable for the Eagles. 687352[/snapback] Think of it this way. If the award is for Most Valuable Player, what value does an effort have in a loss? It's still a loss and the team does not win the championship, no matter what the guy did on the field. The team get's a 'zero' so to speak, and the MVP is the guy that had the biggest part in what the team did. The biggest slice of a zero is still a zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I think you hit the moonshine a little too hard last night. 687514[/snapback] Uh, so he didn't do well? Honestly, how well can a QB be expected to do against a dominant defense when he has no running game and when his only decent WR is injured? Tell me who would've done better than McNabb last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Uh, so he didn't do well? Honestly, how well can a QB be expected to do against a dominant defense when he has no running game and when his only decent WR is injured? Tell me who would've done better than McNabb last night. 687530[/snapback] I'm not saying he played horribly, but he did miss a good number of throws where he threw at his receivers feet or behind them; he also threw 3 interceptions (and a 4th that was overturned due to a penalty). AND his team Lost. I'm sorry, but i don't think that you can say he deserves to be the MVP of the super bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I'm not saying he played horribly, but he did miss a good number of throws where he threw at his receivers feet or behind them; he also threw 3 interceptions (and a 4th that was overturned due to a penalty). AND his team Lost. I'm sorry, but i don't think that you can say he deserves to be the MVP of the super bowl. 687542[/snapback] Yeah, and a lot of those incomplete passes were due to the fact that NE linebackers were in his face because his line couldn't pass protect. And that third INT was on a desperation play at the very end of the game. My point is that McNabb's ability to scramble and thread the ball between NE's linebackers was the only reason that the game was even close. Put a traditional pocket passer back there and the game wouldn't have even been close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 My point is that McNabb's ability to scramble and thread the ball between NE's linebackers was the only reason that the game was even close. Put a traditional pocket passer back there and the game wouldn't have even been close. 687549[/snapback] The Superbowl MVP is not about how one player did in relation to other players who were not in the game. Nor is it about who was valuable in making his team's loss close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Yeah, and a lot of those incomplete passes were due to the fact that NE linebackers were in his face because his line couldn't pass protect. And that third INT was on a desperation play at the very end of the game. My point is that McNabb's ability to scramble and thread the ball between NE's linebackers was the only reason that the game was even close. Put a traditional pocket passer back there and the game wouldn't have even been close. 687549[/snapback] I think McNabb played his heart out for most of the game. He is at least partially at fault for the end of the game, and responsible for 3 and what could have potentially been 5 turnovers, though. He put up some big numbers, but I don't think they were MVP numbers for the reasons I just listed and for the bsame reason I don't think TO qualifies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanruiz13 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 My vote would've been for McNabb, who did extremely well considering that he was running for his life all night. Put a traditional pocket passer back there (Brady, Manning, etc.) against NE's defense and it would've been a blowout. Any QB who was forced to throw the ball 51 times, came up with 3 TDs against a great defense, and can keep the score close did a hell of a job, IMO. Unfortunately, players on losing teams almost never get MVP awards. 687498[/snapback] I would give my vote to McNabb also He won the game for NE NE didn't force those INTs...McNabb overthrew his receiver every time. I totally disagree, if Brady or Manning was QB for the Eagles last night, I think the Eagles could've blown them out. IMO And I actually like McNabb, I think he's a real classy guy and a great leader, but he lost the superbowl. There's no doubt in my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 The Superbowl MVP is not about how one player did in relation to other players who were not in the game. Nor is it about who was valuable in making his team's loss close. 687555[/snapback] So, by your definition, the SB MVP has to be from the winning team? Not sure I agree with that, but OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Yeah, and a lot of those incomplete passes were due to the fact that NE linebackers were in his face because his line couldn't pass protect. And that third INT was on a desperation play at the very end of the game. My point is that McNabb's ability to scramble and thread the ball between NE's linebackers was the only reason that the game was even close. Put a traditional pocket passer back there and the game wouldn't have even been close. 687549[/snapback] Good point. Although, I think they could have helped him out more early in the game by NOT making him rely on his scrambling ability. For example, they should have gone to a three step drop early and tried to hit the "hot" reciever on the slant - it was there. A few completions like that might have taken NE out of their blitz packages to some extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I would give my vote to McNabb also He won the game for NE NE didn't force those INTs...McNabb overthrew his receiver every time. I totally disagree, if Brady or Manning was QB for the Eagles last night, I think the Eagles could've blown them out. IMO And I actually like McNabb, I think he's a real classy guy and a great leader, but he lost the superbowl. There's no doubt in my mind. 687559[/snapback] Crappy coaching by the Eagles staff lost the Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 responsible for 3 and what could have potentially been 5 turnovers, though. 687556[/snapback] "What could have potentially been 5 turnovers"? Come on, you're smarter than that! INTs negated due to penalties don't mean anything. And that last INT was a desperation play at the very end of the game. So, one could argue that only two of those INTs actually meant anything. Yeah, Don's game was far from flawless, but I still think that he did a good job of keeping the Eagles in the game, considering that they couldn't run the ball or pass-protect to save their lives. I don't think that any of the other "elite" NFL QBs (Brady, Manning, Favre, etc.) would've done much better in that situation against that defense. 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.