Roberto71
Well-known member
It's Henry for sure.
Week 8 Other Games
- Thread starter Mazz22
- Start date
Share this page
It's Henry for sure.
OP
OP
Mazz22
A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies.
I really thought Murray looked tight all game. Rodgers is not really in the discussion for MVP. It is Lamar, Brady and Henry. The only way Henry realistically gets it over a QB is if he can get to 2000+ yards and the Titans have a better record than the Ravens/Bucs. A tall order IMO.
TyLawsPick6
Well-known member
Yep. There really isn't one great team in this league.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 8,304
- Reaction score
- 7,518
- Points
- 113
- Location
- the only Henniker on earth
The MVP has not one the superb owl since 1999. Anyone but a Pat can have that MF.
Hawg73
Mediocre with flashes of brilliance
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 25,165
- Reaction score
- 11,541
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 68
- Location
- Gumdrop house on Lollipop Ln.
Yeah, I didn't know the rule and confused it with a fumble. Apparently, you can't fumble a ball until you actually have possession and Moore never had that.
My understanding is that this situation is unique because there is normally only one player positioned deep on the receiving team and it would be too easy to
score on a "muff", which is fucking stupid, but somehow I was oblivious to this rule.
My bad.
Giant Octopodes
Well-known member
It's early in the season but while I agree it's not close, I don't think it's Derick Henry. It's not the "best QB" award, but there's three ways to look at it:
1) The MVP is the person who had the highest level of contribution to a team winning games - this is typically the way it's awarded, which is why it goes to "the highest stats on the best team" sort of thing. From that perspective, Derick Henry has contributed 869 yards, 10 TDs, 45 1st downs. Tom Brady has contributed 2275 yards, 21 TDs, and more 1st downs than you can shake a fist at. In the "who has done more to help their team win" column, any position other than QB just can't compete, they touch the ball the most, passing does more than rushing, and teams which can't run can still win, but teams that can't pass have no hope. It's just the reality of the game as it is played today.
2) The MVP is the person who was most important to their team winning - Slightly different in terms of meaning the person without whom the team would be most weakened. We saw the Bucs without Brady. We see them with him. You could say that without Henry the Titans wouldn't win a game, but on his own team, they have twice as many passing yards as rushing yards and more 1st downs from passing than rushing. Just because he's a feature back in an era without them, doesn't mean he's actually the primary feature of the team, he's just more featured than any other back.
3) The MVP is the person who had the greatest impact on the game as a whole - The irreplaceable, the singular, unique person which not only forms the centerpiece of your team, but forces all other teams to adjust. That I think is what a lot of folks want the MVP to be, and that's the argument for Lamar Jackson. However, Derrick Henry is not that. We're not seeing a change in DB philosophy or rosters to adjust for the damage he can do. Rather, we see Derrick Henry having success because of the roster changes done around the NFL to adjust to Patrick Mahomes. Teams are built to stop the pass, and specifically the deep pass, they're not built to prioritize defending against the run.
In my eyes it's Brady, with Lamar Jackson and Matt Stafford being his most significant competition. I think if Henry gets 2k yards, he'll get it, especially if Brady is the clearcut winner among QBs, for storyline purposes and due to dislike of Brady. However, my view is, if he does win it'll be with half the yards, half the TDs, and on a team with a worse record, and he'll have won it solely because his position doesn't have "QB" as an abbreviation, not because he actually meets any metric one could use to judge him as the "most valuable player".
Flagg the Wanderer
Mourning Algernon
I respect your posts and your logic, but while well written, this doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
By this logic it should be the center on the best team - without the center there would be a fumble on every play and the QB would contribute only fumble recoveries and negative sack yardage. And there is no universe in which a WR could ever get the award, even if he took screens to the house 15 times a game, because those stats would collect to the QB. When you're looking at the impact of the stats, you're not simply subtracting those stats! The counterfactual is not taking the player away or replacing him with a toddler - you're replacing him with an average player. Henry's performance is significantly farther removed from an average player than any QB this season.
I disagree. Replace Brady with an average QB and the Bucs are still a playoff team. Replace Henry with an average running back, and see how far the Tannehill passing attack takes you. The last part of this is actually your stats argument from #1 above. Even with thay, I'd argue that a decent percentage of Tannehill's passing yards and TDs are attributable to Henry's presence.
We didn't see these Bucs without Brady. We saw the Bucs without Brady and all the other guys they signed in that off-season. It's why people joke about Brady joining an all-star team.
Why are teams adjusting their rosters and how defenses are built to take away the long pass? Because there are such a large number of QBs who can beat you with the deep pass. If you didn't plan your roster around it, you couldn't make the playoffs. But we're not having an award for changing the game as a whole - and if we were it couldn't be attributable to one player. By nature it's that there are a growing number of the species that you're worried about stopping. You don't plan your roster and defensive philosophy around one singular talent because the idea of team building is to build something that gets enough wins to get to the playoffs, and from there take each game as it comes. But by this argument, the award is for the player who forces teams to adjust most THIS YEAR.
You're right, teams are built to stop the long pass. Therefore, when they come up against the Bucs or Chiefs in the playoffs, where one game takes all, they adjust much, MUCH less to account for Brady or Mahomes than they do for Henry. In a playoff game, teams have to change everything they're doing to switch their focus away from defending the deep ball at all costs, and to stop the run. The player that forces teams to change what they are doing is Henry.
i'm team flagg on this one.though i do agree g.o.'s post was good.
you can argue the flipside of the mahomes defensive adjustment factor by saying qbs have it easier now rules wise.
Dak is a good mvp candidate as well if you talk team with and without.
you can argue the flipside of the mahomes defensive adjustment factor by saying qbs have it easier now rules wise.
Dak is a good mvp candidate as well if you talk team with and without.
OP
OP
Mazz22
A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies.
Super team? Replace with an average QB? Lol. Have you not watched Tampa's putrid defense this season? Brady has carried that team to 6 wins while playing some of the best football of his career. Even Hawg has said this and he can't stand Brady. Lol
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 41,435
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 76
Desparately calling for reinforcements
Steroids are a hell of a drug.That's it for JJ again.
J.J. Watt will reportedly have shoulder surgery that is "likely" season-ending
Cardinals defensive lineman J.J.profootballtalk.nbcsports.com
Giant Octopodes
Well-known member
Thanks for the response! While I disagree I appreciate the discussion. Broke down your reply for easier response.
1. I agree, there is no universe in which a WR could win MVP by that logic and those metrics - likely why we haven't seen a WR win MVP since, well, ever. As far as the "replacement level player", we can all agree if your starting QB or RB comes out, it's not the 16th best QB or RB stepping in. On average, it'll be about the 48th best. You don't replace Brady with Justin Herbert, you replace him with Blaine Gabbert. Which, we've seen him come in during games. It's not great. So as long as we're careful about how we're talking about what an "average player" is, I'm all in. The trouble is, with Henry going out, you wouldn't replace him with one player, you'd replace him with multiple. His most impressive attribute is his durability. Y/A, he's at 4.6, tied with Damien Harris, and way below Lamar Jackson (6.3) or Ryan Tannehill (6.6), but more importantly other RBs like Nick Chubb (5.8) and Kareem Hunt (5.2) on the Browns. Combine those two and you're at 884 yards and 9 TDs on 154 attempts vs Henry's 869 yards and 10 TDs on 191 attempts. It's not that he's performing at a level which is above anything we're seeing This Year even, it's just that he doesn't have to come out, and that's rare these days. However, a QB, you don't have that option. Durability is normally not the concern in the first place, it's performance, and Blaine Gabbert and Kyle Trask splitting the reps isn't going to help.
2. The Bucs had an above average QB in Jameis Winston, they were not a playoff team. And I know, I know, 'they had the worst QB in the NFL by the amount of INTs thrown' is one way to look at it, but by that logic Mahomes is the worst QB in the NFL right now and I don't think anyone buys that. Replacing Henry with the 48th best RB and we're looking at a Latavius Murray type, whom across 191 attempts by his Y/A would produce 687 yards instead of 869. A dropoff, for sure, (about 30 yards per game) but hardly insurmountable. The whole reason you see the RBBC across the NFL is because it works, you saw the death of the feature back not because no one could do it but because it wasn't needed, and it was better to have multiple RBs still healthy and ready for the playoffs than one person who had 400+ attempts throughout the year who was at best banged up and at worst unavailable come playoff time.
3. The main other people they picked up were AB and Gronk, both of whom have been out for a couple of weeks now. Also Leonard Fournette, who is splitting reps with Ronald Jones so they have two good RBs instead of one. I get the joke, but it's not accurate.
4. I agree with this entirely, which is also why Lamar Jackson wouldn't be my MVP pick, I've just seen the argument and seen it danced around.
5. The thing is, they're built to stop the pass not the run for a reason. They're not coming out of 2 high when the Chiefs are running the ball (at 4.7 YPC) because Mahomes, even playing as he is, is throwing for 7.6 Yards / Attempt. Any given play, Henry can run it, for on average 4.6 yards, or Tannehill can throw it, for on average 6.8 yards. The threat of a run is just not equal to the threat of a pass.
I get it, Henry is putting up gaudy total yards compared to his peer group, so the media is excited about him. When Shaun Alexander won the MVP in 2005 with 1880 yards and 28 TDs you had Tiki Barber and Larry Johnson right behind him, at 1860 yards and 9 TDs and 1750 yards and 20 TDs respectively. Now, if everything keeps going as is through the rest of the season you'll have Derrick Henry at 2k yards and 2nd place will be like 1300. It's not a "most durable player" award though, and in my opinion he's not even the most valuable player on his team, never mind the NFL. RBs skillsets are easier to come by, it's more acceptable if they're not elite, in most cases you just need them to be good enough to allow play action passes to be effective. Henry isn't doing anything we haven't before, just something we haven't seen lately, and we haven't seen it for a reason. Just MHO of course but that's how I see it.
Big/Sky/Fly
370hssv vw6!s tu36v
Winston was above average...at making stupid desicions.
Flagg the Wanderer
Mourning Algernon
Steroids are a hell of a drug.
Ted Johnson likes this.
TyLawsPick6
Well-known member
There defense is not "putrid". Their pass D hasn't been very good. Nice try.
Flagg the Wanderer
Mourning Algernon
Any given yard running the ball - especially between the tackles - is worth more than the same yard passing. Apart from the obvious, that it comes with significantly less risk of a turnover per yard, it allows coaches to control the clock in a way that you simply can't when you don't have the ability to enforce your will in the running game. And it shortens the game, meaning that you can fit fewer 5 yard runs into the game than 5 yard passes, so it naturally trims accrual of stats.
Not only does it demoralize the defense, it lifts up your OL by letting them play aggressively downhill to dominate the DL mentally, which has the side effect of making them more effective when pass blocking. In fact, it's responsible for many of the yards passing on teams where the QB and skill players are not first class. The defense fearing the running game dictates their personnel and their alignment be that much more capable against the run. The reverse is also true, of course - the threat of a great passing game improves the ypc of a running back. Which is exactly why you can't just insert running back x and superimpose his ypc and say that's what would replace Derrick Henry.
Further, with a "big" running game, they can't rely on team speed to account for it, either, because of the toll it takes on the smaller defensive backs coming into support.
Your big, feature backs typically have lower ypc than backs who rely on quickness or surprise, and certainly lower than scrambling QBs. They're doing a different job entirely - wearing down the defense physically and mentally and forcing them to account for that threat with size and run-stopping skills, typically at the expense of speed and pass coverage, and even pass rush. Even when they don't force a change in personnel, they slow down the pass rush (not to mention wearing down flashy-quick pass rushers by running at them) and make play action much more effective. Tannehill's ypa is 33% higher out of play action than it is otherwise, and because teams are focused on Henry his QBR jumps to 104 when passing on first down.
They're also sacrificing significant ypc early in games, an investment for the benefit of wearing down a defense and enforcing their will on the opponent. And you see it in the stats:
In the first quarter, Henry is 2.8 ypc, zero TDs, and only 5 first downs on 47 carries.
In the 4th quarter? 5.6 ypc, 5 TDs, 14 first downs, on just one carry more.
Tannehill's numbers are better in the 4th quarter, too.
That is a defense saying "Mercy. No more."
And Henry is a special case. I like both Chubb and Hunt as RBs - they're both talented - but they're running behind one of the best run blocking OLs in recent memory. The Titans' OL is solid, but not spectacular. It's Henry's yards after contact that is moving the chains. You're right, to replace Henry you'd use multiple guys. You'd have to pay multiple, talented guys, taking up cap space and roster spots that could be allocated elsewhere.
It's not that it's something we've never seen before. I'm not saying he's better than OJ, Jim Brown, or Earl Campbell. He might be, but I haven't really looked at it. I'm saying that this year, in the modern NFL where defenses are built to defend the deep pass, he is a difference maker, set apart from others at his position by a much bigger gap than you find among the top players at any other position.
As such, he forces the defense to make much bigger adjustments from it's standard game plan than your top QBs do, and has a bigger impact on the game.
He makes his QB and WRs better by making himself the focus of attention
He makes his OL better by letting them play with aggression and dominate the mental game in the trenches.
He makes his defense better by shortening the game and keeping them off the field.
And he is a walking momentum shift, slowly turning the game in his teams' favor as the game goes along: despite being 5-2, in the first 3 quarters the Titans have been outscored by their opponents 134-135. But in the 4th quarter and overtime, they outscore their opponents 59-29.
So yeah, take Travis Henry off the Titans and replace him with Latavius Murray. Not only would he not match his ypc over 191 carries, they wouldn't give him the ball that much, and the performance of the passing game and the defense would all degrade as well. They'd be a much worse version of the team you see in the first 3 quarters, without anything to swing their momentum towards the 4th quarter.
Not only does it demoralize the defense, it lifts up your OL by letting them play aggressively downhill to dominate the DL mentally, which has the side effect of making them more effective when pass blocking. In fact, it's responsible for many of the yards passing on teams where the QB and skill players are not first class. The defense fearing the running game dictates their personnel and their alignment be that much more capable against the run. The reverse is also true, of course - the threat of a great passing game improves the ypc of a running back. Which is exactly why you can't just insert running back x and superimpose his ypc and say that's what would replace Derrick Henry.
Further, with a "big" running game, they can't rely on team speed to account for it, either, because of the toll it takes on the smaller defensive backs coming into support.
Your big, feature backs typically have lower ypc than backs who rely on quickness or surprise, and certainly lower than scrambling QBs. They're doing a different job entirely - wearing down the defense physically and mentally and forcing them to account for that threat with size and run-stopping skills, typically at the expense of speed and pass coverage, and even pass rush. Even when they don't force a change in personnel, they slow down the pass rush (not to mention wearing down flashy-quick pass rushers by running at them) and make play action much more effective. Tannehill's ypa is 33% higher out of play action than it is otherwise, and because teams are focused on Henry his QBR jumps to 104 when passing on first down.
They're also sacrificing significant ypc early in games, an investment for the benefit of wearing down a defense and enforcing their will on the opponent. And you see it in the stats:
In the first quarter, Henry is 2.8 ypc, zero TDs, and only 5 first downs on 47 carries.
In the 4th quarter? 5.6 ypc, 5 TDs, 14 first downs, on just one carry more.
Tannehill's numbers are better in the 4th quarter, too.
That is a defense saying "Mercy. No more."
And Henry is a special case. I like both Chubb and Hunt as RBs - they're both talented - but they're running behind one of the best run blocking OLs in recent memory. The Titans' OL is solid, but not spectacular. It's Henry's yards after contact that is moving the chains. You're right, to replace Henry you'd use multiple guys. You'd have to pay multiple, talented guys, taking up cap space and roster spots that could be allocated elsewhere.
It's not that it's something we've never seen before. I'm not saying he's better than OJ, Jim Brown, or Earl Campbell. He might be, but I haven't really looked at it. I'm saying that this year, in the modern NFL where defenses are built to defend the deep pass, he is a difference maker, set apart from others at his position by a much bigger gap than you find among the top players at any other position.
As such, he forces the defense to make much bigger adjustments from it's standard game plan than your top QBs do, and has a bigger impact on the game.
He makes his QB and WRs better by making himself the focus of attention
He makes his OL better by letting them play with aggression and dominate the mental game in the trenches.
He makes his defense better by shortening the game and keeping them off the field.
And he is a walking momentum shift, slowly turning the game in his teams' favor as the game goes along: despite being 5-2, in the first 3 quarters the Titans have been outscored by their opponents 134-135. But in the 4th quarter and overtime, they outscore their opponents 59-29.
So yeah, take Travis Henry off the Titans and replace him with Latavius Murray. Not only would he not match his ypc over 191 carries, they wouldn't give him the ball that much, and the performance of the passing game and the defense would all degrade as well. They'd be a much worse version of the team you see in the first 3 quarters, without anything to swing their momentum towards the 4th quarter.
OP
OP
Mazz22
A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies.
Pats and Tampa are both playing the late game and both are on TV in NE. Pats on CBS. Tampa is Fox game of the week. Will be interested to see which game pulls in more ratings in Boston.
It will be the Patriots by at least double. Unless it's a blowout, of course.
OP
OP
Mazz22
A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies.
Yeah. A blowout in either game will skew things.
I'll take another 45-0 please.