Umm, MVP has a lot to do with a team's record. It's not an individual award nor does MVP stand for "Most Outstanding Player", which is what you're trying to argue here. It stands for Most Valuable, and Manning was more valuable than Brees that year.
Okay, based on what line of thinking? That the TEAM won more games?
Once again, unlike the Saints, Manning completely carried our team, bad defense and all. Brees had one of the better defenses in the league that year, I believe they gave up quite a bit of yards like they do every year, but they forced around 39 turnovers I believe.
So your argument that Manning deserved it is that his team had more wins and he, more than anyone, is responsible for that. I'm not going to disagree with you, but can you really say that Brees, more than anyone, is responsible for the success of the Saints in 2009? Was Brees not of equal importance to the Saints as Manning and the Colts?
That's impressive and that's what lead to Brees higher TDs in fewer attempts. Field position means a lot in football and the Saints' defense gave that to Brees.
Dude, I played football for 13 years, so I don't need your e-luctures on the importance of field position. I included the average of 14 yards per play on the WHOLE 46 more plays we ran hoping that you'd see how far fetched your "got more turnovers that means they got shorter field" stuff. Turnovers happen inside the other teams territory, too.
He statistically outperformed, but didn't win more games than him.
So did the Colts lead the league in wins during all of Manning's MVP years? Again, applying logic selectively.
Once again, that stat means more than anything and a team's record does play a big part in who wins the MVP. If you're not winning then that means your value clearly doesn't mean all that much to your team, which is why AD shouldn't have won the award this year had the Vikings not made the playoffs.
Barry Sanders says hi.
The TEAM was carried by Manning. Collins' value to the team and Manning's value to the team are not comparable. Why you're even trying to include this in the argument is beyond me, the two players are hardly comparable.
Because you selectively apply logic.
"Manning deserves it over Brees because he was closer to 16-0."
"But Collins went 10-0 and was closer to 16-0 than Manning was during his 2008 MVP year. Does that mean Collins deserves MVP."
"No because Collins isn't as good as Manning is."
Saints had more total yards? That's great, the Colts had more passing yards that year. Saints had a good rush offense that was ranked sixth in the league and could hold their own and keep teams honest. Indy's rush offense was ranked 32nd. They were dead last. Teams knew Manning was going to pass and that he was the only threat on offense and he still beat them, kind of like what AP did this year.
Colts had about 200 more passing yards on 60 more passing attempts (about 3 yards per attempt, way less efficient) but less YPA, TD's, and completion %. Indianapolis' rush offense was ranked last because they were 31st in the league in rushing attempts! You can't get yards if you don't run the ball.
Your points are awful as you don't realize that Brees had the BETTER team. Better in EVERY way, except maybe offensive lineup and wide receivers which are still comparable.
So Manning had the better offensive lineup which he did far less with and didn't operate as efficiently as Brees did and this is why he deserved MVP. Read that again. He had the better offensive players, didn't do as much with them, but because the team won, Manning gets the credit. Okay.
Your logic is the one that doesn't make sense. You can't bring in Collins into an argument about Brees and Manning when it comes to the value they added to their team and the amount of credit they deserve to their own team's winning. Brees and Manning obviously had a far greater impact than Collins did so that's why he shouldn't be included in the 16-0 argument. Like honestly, how don't you see this?
Your logic can't apply to selective players. You mentioned nothing about total value when first bringing up the "closer to 16-0" bullshit, so I shoved Kerry Collins in there to show you that team wins don't really mean anything. How are you going to determine value? More TD's? Less INT's? Better completion %? Oh, wait...