 |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
The great MVP debate Posted: Friday December 28, 2001 4:12 PM
Well, here we are in the MVP debate. Two weeks from the end of the season, and there's no clear-cut winner. Yet. But Ken Darton from Oconomowoc, Wis., upbraids me for favoring Kurt Warner over Brett Favre. His right. Says Darton: "How can you say Warner is more deserving of the MVP than Favre? Favre has done just as well as Warner with less talent around him. Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce vs. Bill Schroeder and Antonio Freeman at wide receiver. Favre and Warner both have 30 TD passes. Also, Marshall Faulk is a slightly better running back than Ahman Green. If you take Warner away from the Rams, they still could win the division with their talent. You take Favre away, the Pack is lucky to win six games and finish ahead of Detroit. Favre is definitely the most valuable player in the NFL." You know what I hate about the MVP race? When you pick one guy, you're denigrating someone else. In 1997, I voted Carnell Lake, who'd played at a Pro Bowl level at cornerback and safety that season, over Favre for MVP. Favre tied Barry Sanders for the award, Favre's third in a row (with an asterisk). I wasn't down on Favre; I was up on Lake. It's the same thing here. If I had to vote with two games left in the season, I'd vote for Warner, the leader in completion percentage (.673), yards (4,191) and rating (99.2), and the co-leader, along with Favre, in touchdown passes (30). He's five points ahead of Favre in rating, five percentage points (67-62) ahead of Favre in completions, and 754 passing yards better. Your point about the talent that surrounds Warner is a valid one; Warner's receiver group is without peer. The only point you make that's silly is the one about the Rams winning the division without him. If you think the Rams are 11-3 or 12-2 right now with Jamie Martin quarterbacking, either you're nuts or my name is Cosmo Kramer. On we go ... Now that the 'Skins are out of playoff contention, I'm thinking about next year. Do you think they should pursue Mark Brunell or Drew Bledsoe, assuming either is available? Would you agree that they're a half-decent QB away from being a very good team?
I think the Redskins should jettison Tony Banks; sign a more reliable short-term solution at quarterback, like Gus Frerotte; hang onto Kent Graham as a backup; and take the second- or third-best quarterback in the draft, like Joey Harrington or Kurt Kittner, and season him for a year before giving him the job, hopefully, on opening day 2003. I think it would be a good idea if NFL officials had to stop the clock on first downs in the last two minutes of the half to reset the chains, as they do in the NCAA. It would give the offensive team a little more time to get set, which should make the games more exciting. It also would give the upstairs officials a few more seconds to look at a replay, if necessary. What do you think?
I don't like it. It would give a good passing team like St. Louis a good chance to come back from 21 down with eight minutes left, because you wouldn't have to worry about timeouts. It would adversely affect time strategy down the stretch. Please tell me why you are a Matt Hasselbeck guy. What has he ever done to deserve his position, and what has he ever done in a game (critical play/drive, etc.) to show you he's an NFL QB?
Aditya, after two years in the NFL, Favre had thrown 37 touchdown passes and 39 interceptions. Two-thirds of the Green Bay staff was pushing Mike Holmgren to yank him from the lineup. Is Hasselbeck another Favre? I sincerely doubt it. But how would you know without giving the kid the shot he's earned from sitting and digesting so much while watching Favre? Holmgren is playing this the right way, though I admit it's frustrating watching the growing pains of a guy who looks like he has no chance. Hasselbeck is smart, a good leader, and has a strong enough arm to make it. His accuracy concerns me. But quarterbacks need time. Peter, I noticed that a number of key players from the Steelers are up for free agency after this season, the most important being Earl Homes, Joey Porter, Jason Gildon and Amos Zereoue. Knowing the Steelers history of being unable to keep their free agents, what are their chances of re-signing those four?
I think Holmes is a goner, because the Steelers won't pay an inside linebacker the $4 million he can make elsewhere. Gildon turns 30 next summer, and I think it's more likely Pittsburgh will try to keep Porter in restricted free agency. Porter is a heck of a force rushing the passer, and he's got six or eight great years left. I don't know if some team will give Zereoue starter's money, which the Steelers definitely wouldn't match. My guess is they'll try to keep Porter above all. After watching the Packers wide receivers all year, I think the group has to be upgraded in the offseason. After passing on Chris Chambers in last year's draft, could you see a trade for someone like Eric Moulds of Buffalo or Muhsin Muhammad of Carolina? Those teams need draft picks.
I don't see the Packers making a major trade for a receiver. I see them instead trying to re-sign Schroeder, a free agent, and make Freeman's $4.9 million cap figure more manageable in 2002. Muhammad is signed through 2004 and Moulds through 2006; their cap values would preclude them being traded because all of their prorated signing bonus would accelerate into the 2002 cap year, which would cripple Carolina or Buffalo. Sports Illustrated senior writer Peter King covers the NFL for the magazine
and appears each Sunday on CNN's NFL Preview. To send a question to his mailbag,
which will next appear on Jan. 10, click here.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
