Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Chris Johnson disappointed not to be NFL MVP

Options
  • 13-01-2010 8:08pm
    #1
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,863 ✭✭✭✭


    Chris Johnson was named the NFL offensive player of the year but said that he was disappointed not to be name NFL MVP after his stunning season. I totally agree with the man as I've said many times before any award was announced. I like the guy even more now for speaking out.
    "I didn't even get one vote at all (for MVP)," Johnson said. "Like the season I had, it seemed like, `What more do they want me to do?' That just felt like rookie of the year; it's a quarterback thing I guess."
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815b39f4&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    luckyboy88
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭luckyboy88


    Chris Johnson def should have got the MVP award for his 2000 plus yards and its refreshing to see him really disappointed and questioning the voting process. Its not as if Peyton had no MVP'S- i think he could have done without it for a year at least :):)


  • Options
    #3
    dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 607 ✭✭✭dougal


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Chris Johnson was named the NFL offensive player of the year but said that he was disappointed not to be name NFL MVP after his stunning season. I totally agree with the man as I've said many times before any award was announced. I like the guy even more now for speaking out.

    Fairly difficult to give MVP to a guy on a losing team.
    He had a great year but what gets MVP votes is wins as well as the numbers.


  • Options
    #4
    TheHeadhunter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 261 ✭✭TheHeadhunter


    dougal wrote: »
    Fairly difficult to give MVP to a guy on a losing team.
    .

    But that just makes Chris Johnson's achievement even better, he gained a 2,000 yard season on a losing team!


  • Options
    #5
    ArmCandyBaby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 201 ✭✭ArmCandyBaby


    Should he even be Tennessee's MVP? They only started winning when Vince Young came in. It was the threat of Young running the ball that opened the lanes for CJ, which is value added to Young not CJ. Besides, raw statistics aren't enough to judge a player on; each yard isn't the same. Johnson is a bit too boom and bust - he gets stuffed at the line of scrimmage to often, causing 3 and outs. Consistent yardage is much more valuable.

    I'm just playing devil's advocate here btw. I hated the way most of the voting went for the Player of the Year awards this year.


  • Options
    #6
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,211 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    TheHeadhunter wrote: »
    But that just makes Chris Johnson's achievement even better, he gained a 2,000 yard season on a losing team!
    They weren't a losing team and their sole purpose for the last 3 weeks was to get CJ over the 2000 mark. Its a nice achievement, but MVP isn't solely about statistics


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    Ultimately it shows how supplementary the running game is in the NFL right now. Nine QB's DOUBLED that number of yards, and unless you're doing what LT or AP have done, and rack up the TD's, 2,000 yards ultimately isn't a lot. Sure, it's huge for rushing, but if it's your teams main source of yards, it doesn't mean a lot.
    That's why he didn't win MVP. He quite simply wasn't the most valuable player in the league, by virtue of the position he plays.


  • Options
    #8
    Tristram
    Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭Tristram


    davyjose wrote: »
    Ultimately it shows how supplementary the running game is in the NFL right now. Nine QB's DOUBLED that number of yards, and unless you're doing what LT or AP have done, and rack up the TD's, 2,000 yards ultimately isn't a lot. Sure, it's huge for rushing, but if it's your teams main source of yards, it doesn't mean a lot.
    That's why he didn't win MVP. He quite simply wasn't the most valuable player in the league, by virtue of the position he plays.

    Well said. Pity though.


  • Options
    #9
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,863 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    davyjose wrote: »
    Ultimately it shows how supplementary the running game is in the NFL right now. Nine QB's DOUBLED that number of yards, and unless you're doing what LT or AP have done, and rack up the TD's, 2,000 yards ultimately isn't a lot. Sure, it's huge for rushing, but if it's your teams main source of yards, it doesn't mean a lot.
    That's why he didn't win MVP. He quite simply wasn't the most valuable player in the league, by virtue of the position he plays.
    He did rack up the tds, he was second in the league in tds.
    Imo he should get it for the rushing total alone, but he had more yards from scrimmage than anybody in history also. And no QB had double his total yardage on the season.
    Manning getting the award the last two years shows what a complete joke it has become.
    He was 6th in yardage, 11th on average completion yardage, 5th on qb rating and 5th on tds thrown in 2008. He was beaten in every statistical category by Rivers and Brees.

    This year he was 2nd in yardage, 8th on avg. completion, 2nd on tds thrown, and 6th on qb rating. Brees beat him in everyone of those categories bar yardage.


  • Options
    #10
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    eagle eye wrote: »
    He did rack up the tds, he was second in the league in tds.
    Imo he should get it for the rushing total alone, but he had more yards from scrimmage than anybody in history also. And no QB had double his total yardage on the season.
    Manning getting the award the last two years shows what a complete joke it has become.
    He was 6th in yardage, 11th on average completion yardage, 5th on qb rating and 5th on tds thrown in 2008. He was beaten in every statistical category by Rivers and Brees.

    This year he was 2nd in yardage, 8th on avg. completion, 2nd on tds thrown, and 6th on qb rating. Brees beat him in everyone of those categories bar yardage.
    i'm not saying Manning should have won it, but Johnson definitely shouldn't have won it.
    You're right, i didn't fact johnsons total yardage, but the fact remains, he didn't take his team to the Playoffs. Manning, Brees and Rivers all had at least 13 wins apiece. How can Johnson compare to that?
    Seems to me the MVP is not about Stats, but about wins. And the fact remains, if your QB has a great season, you make the playoffs; if your RB has a great season, you still might lose.


  • Options
    #11
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    eagle eye wrote: »
    He was beaten in every statistical category by Rivers...

    Except for Yards, TD's, Completion Percentage...... Not quite an accurate statement there, eagle eye. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,863 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    davyjose wrote: »
    Except for Yards, TD's, Completion Percentage...... Not quite an accurate statement there, eagle eye. :D
    In 2008, you should read it again Davy.;)


  • Options
    #13
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    eagle eye wrote: »
    In 2008, you should read it again Davy.;)

    Dammit. Fair enough, you got me there.


  • Options
    #14
    Gisty
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭Gisty


    davyjose wrote: »
    i'm not saying Manning should have won it, but Johnson definitely shouldn't have won it.
    You're right, i didn't fact johnsons total yardage, but the fact remains, he didn't take his team to the Playoffs. Manning, Brees and Rivers all had at least 13 wins apiece. How can Johnson compare to that?
    Seems to me the MVP is not about Stats, but about wins. And the fact remains, if your QB has a great season, you make the playoffs; if your RB has a great season, you still might lose.

    I think you've nailed it there. MVP is the most valuable player. Would the Titans be as good a team with another HB starting? Not at all, but they wouldn't be useless. Would the Colts be as good without Manning? They would be a completely different team. So Manning is more valuable than Johnson.


  • Options
    #15
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,863 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Gisty wrote: »
    I think you've nailed it there. MVP is the most valuable player. Would the Titans be as good a team with another HB starting? Not at all, but they wouldn't be useless. Would the Colts be as good without Manning? They would be a completely different team. So Manning is more valuable than Johnson.
    Lets do it a bit differently.

    Lets say you put Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees or Tom Brady in the Colts team, would they be a worse team. I don't think so.

    Kerry Collins was horrendous this year to be fair, if Vince Young had been in from the start of the season I'm certain the Titans would have made the playoffs. Clearly its a team effort but what Chris Johnson done is better than what any running back bar five others had done in the history of the NFL.
    Every 2000 yard RB has been MVP the year they did that, and Johnson broke the yards from scrimmage record and he doesn't get it.


  • Options
    #16
    Si Conando
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Si Conando


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Lets do it a bit differently.

    Lets say you put Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees or Tom Brady in the Colts team, would they be a worse team. I don't think so.

    Kerry Collins was horrendous this year to be fair, if Vince Young had been in from the start of the season I'm certain the Titans would have made the playoffs. Clearly its a team effort but what Chris Johnson done is better than what any running back bar five others had done in the history of the NFL.
    Every 2000 yard RB has been MVP the year they did that, and Johnson broke the yards from scrimmage record and he doesn't get it.

    Jamal Lewis and Eric Dickerson weren't the MVP the years they did it


  • Options
    #17
    yerayeah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭yerayeah


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Lets do it a bit differently.

    Lets say you put Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees or Tom Brady in the Colts team, would they be a worse team. I don't think so.

    Kerry Collins was horrendous this year to be fair, if Vince Young had been in from the start of the season I'm certain the Titans would have made the playoffs. Clearly its a team effort but what Chris Johnson done is better than what any running back bar five others had done in the history of the NFL.
    Every 2000 yard RB has been MVP the year they did that, and Johnson broke the yards from scrimmage record and he doesn't get it.
    It's such a pass orientated league now that having an elite quarterback is more valuable than an elite rusher. Being able to play smash mouth football is probably also less important now because there are more indoor stadiums and the elements play less of a role in games...


  • Options
    #18
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    yerayeah wrote: »
    It's such a pass orientated league now that having an elite quarterback is more valuable than an elite rusher. Being able to play smash mouth football is probably also less important now because there are more indoor stadiums and the elements play less of a role in games...

    Very true but you still need a healthy balance. Could you imagine Chris Johnson with the Patriots, Colts, Cardinals, Saints any of the heavy Pass oriented teams. Chris Johnson I think is in a league of his own with Adrian Peterson knocking on the door. I will be bashed for saying that. But I would rate Johnson better. Peterson would be a very close second though.

    But one example this season you can use is the Vikings. Im a big fan of Brett Favre big big fan and I like the fact he has given the Vikings that extra edge they lacked in previous years a passing game. I still feel though if they want to win the Superbowl they have to use that explosive running game they have. It makes all the difference and opens up more situational plays when both are working.

    Guys like Johnson and Peterson could be missing all game and then turn up with long runs to win you the game. The Patriots proved in 2007 in the Bowl that not having a running game will kill you when it matters as you have nowhere to go when the Defense is shutting your passing game down.


  • Options
    #19
    Si Conando
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Si Conando


    Arguably the 2 best teams in the league (Colts and Chargers), have the 2 worst running games in the league. I dont believe an 18-1 season from the pats proves much in regards of needing an effective running game. If anything it proves the opposite.


  • Options
    #20
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    Si Conando wrote: »
    Arguably the 2 best teams in the league (Colts and Chargers), have the 2 worst running games in the league. I dont believe an 18-1 season from the pats proves much in regards of needing an effective running game. If anything it proves the opposite.

    You missed my point. Had the Pats had a better running game in that Superbowl they would have been able to mix it up more when the Giants shut down our passing game. And if you have a solid running game it takes pressure off the QB to win the game on his own.

    You mentioned the Colts and the Chargers. Both teams have 2 of the best QBs in the NFL right now and look at the Colts results. Some of the games they scraped had they had a proper running game it would have helped them win those games a lot easier than forcing Manning to throw the ball all the time. Put any other QB in with the Colts right now and you can nearly say that those results would have been different.

    What I am saying to you a good running game can help compliment a Passing team. Could you imagine the fit and healthy LT of old with the Chargers now? A dual threat team is always better than single threat team.

    Sure having the ability to pass can and will win games but if that fails where do you turn to?


  • Options
    #21
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »
    You missed my point. Had the Pats had a better running game in that Superbowl they would have been able to mix it up more when the Giants shut down our passing game. And if you have a solid running game it takes pressure off the QB to win the game on his own.

    You mentioned the Colts and the Chargers. Both teams have 2 of the best QBs in the NFL right now and look at the Colts results. Some of the games they scraped had they had a proper running game it would have helped them win those games a lot easier than forcing Manning to throw the ball all the time. Put any other QB in with the Colts right now and you can nearly say that those results would have been different.

    What I am saying to you a good running game can help compliment a Passing team. Could you imagine the fit and healthy LT of old with the Chargers now? A dual threat team is always better than single threat team.

    Sure having the ability to pass can and will win games but if that fails where do you turn to?
    One thing about the Colts anyway (cos I know them better than other teams) - It's not just the Running Back's fault. The colts have incredible pass Protection, but when it comes to Run blocking they leave a lot to be desired.
    I think you can set a team up for one or the other, but not both - not at an elite level.
    Look at the Vikes for instance, Favre has come in slinging bullets about the place, and AP very much takes a backseat. Look at forte in Chicago too. Coincidence maybe, but I've yet to see a team (in my relatively short time as a Football fan), both rush and pass at an elite level.
    And tbh, if I'm right and that's the case, then If I were a coach, I'd be very much pass-oriented.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    davyjose wrote: »
    One thing about the Colts anyway (cos I know them better than other teams) - It's not just the Running Back's fault. The colts have incredible pass Protection, but when it comes to Run blocking they leave a lot to be desired.
    I think you can set a team up for one or the other, but not both - not at an elite level.
    Look at the Vikes for instance, Favre has come in slinging bullets about the place, and AP very much takes a backseat. Look at forte in Chicago too. Coincidence maybe, but I've yet to see a team (in my relatively short time as a Football fan), both rush and pass at an elite level.
    And tbh, if I'm right and that's the case, then If I were a coach, I'd be very much pass-oriented.

    Cowboys and Saints would disagree with you. Both Top 10 in the Passing and Rushing Categories this season.


  • Options
    #23
    _Buck Rogers
    Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭_Buck Rogers


    Its not often I completely agree with Eagle Eye but I do here! I've nothing to really say that will add to this argument without saying what others have said. Anyway its nice to see he's passionate and coming out and questioning it.


  • Options
    #24
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    davyjose wrote: »
    Ultimately it shows how supplementary the running game is in the NFL right now. Nine QB's DOUBLED that number of yards, and unless you're doing what LT or AP have done, and rack up the TD's, 2,000 yards ultimately isn't a lot. Sure, it's huge for rushing, but if it's your teams main source of yards, it doesn't mean a lot.
    That's why he didn't win MVP. He quite simply wasn't the most valuable player in the league, by virtue of the position he plays.

    Too true.

    How can he possibly merit consideration for Offensive MVP then? I mean, 22 QBs have thrown for more than his total yardage from scrimmage.

    Surely the league MVP should be between the offensive MVP (Johnson) and the defensive MVP (Charles Woodson)?

    In my opinion, Brett Favre should be MVP. He is the most valuable player to his team. When he's hot his team wins; when he's cold or injured his team loses. This is irrespective of which team, Packers, Jets or Vikings. He should have about 10 MVPs at this stage, including this year.


  • Options
    #25
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,211 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Too true.

    How can he possibly merit consideration for Offensive MVP then? I mean, 22 QBs have thrown for more than his total yardage from scrimmage.

    Surely the league MVP should be between the offensive MVP (Johnson) and the defensive MVP (Charles Woodson)?

    He wasn't offensive MVP. He was offensive Player of the Year. You can see a pretty important distinction there

    (likewise Woodson was Defensive Player of the Year)


  • Options
    #26
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Dodge wrote: »
    He wasn't offensive MVP. He was offensive Player of the Year.

    Indeed. Mea culpa.

    If he was offensive player of the year (ahead of Manning), how can Manning win MVP? Or to turn that around, if Manning is MVP then how can another offensive player be offensive POTY ahead of him?


  • Options
    #27
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Indeed. Mea culpa.

    If he was offensive player of the year (ahead of Manning), how can Manning win MVP? Or to turn that around, if Manning is MVP then how can another offensive player be offensive POTY ahead of him?

    Because MVP is an overall award and both offensive and defensive players can win it. By your logic Woodson deserves MVP more than Manning also :D


  • Options
    #28
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »
    Because MVP is an overall award and both offensive and defensive players can win it. By your logic Woodson deserves MVP more than Manning also :D

    Eh, no. I opined that Favre was my MVP. I never actually said that Johnson deserved it more than Manning; I just used their logic to unravel the award system.

    If Manning is the MVP, then why isn't he the offensive POTY? Seems logical to me...

    To labour the point, if he's the most valuable player in the entire league, then he's the most valuable offensive player, right? Then surely he's the offensive POTY?


  • Options
    #29
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Eh, no. I opined that Favre was my MVP. I never actually said that Johnson deserved it more than Manning; I just used their logic to unravel the award system.

    If Manning is the MVP, then why isn't he the offensive POTY? Seems logical to me...

    To labour the point, if he's the most valuable player in the entire league, then he's the most valuable offensive player, right? Then surely he's the offensive POTY?

    :D <
    Smiley face dude, Calm down.

    But they are they are two different types of awards and have nothing to do with each other.

    The NFL Offensive/defensive Player of the Year Award is given annually by the Associated Press to the offensive player of the National Football League believed to have had the most outstanding season.

    The National Football League Most Valuable Player Award is given by various entities, most notably the Associated Press to the player who is considered most valuable in the league.

    Johnson had the most outstanding season for any offensive player which is true he did and Manning is considered more valuable because he single handily took his team to the playoffs.

    The 2 awards do not relate to each other. Had Johnson gotton to the Playoffs he would have gotton it. Now the debate has already been done though to death as to why Johnson didnt get MVP as well.


  • Options
    #30
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »
    :D <
    Smiley face dude, Calm down.

    I'm perfectly calm. Dude.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I'm perfectly calm. Dude.

    See originally I was being sarcastic hence why I put the smiley face there. Next time I will do this [sarcasm][/sarcasm]


Advertisement