1. Visit this thread for your chance to win a selection of Lionsgate action films on UV!
    Dismiss Notice

Kurt Warner named NFL MVP

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jason P, Jan 9, 2002.

  1. Jason P

    Jason P Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was somewhat surprised by him being picked. Personally, I would have chosen Kordell, Favre, Faulk, and probably the best choice, Tom Brady, before Kurt. You can't really argue with Warner's numbers though.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,426
    Likes Received:
    630
    I'm okay with this choice. The Rams proved they can survive without Faulk. Brady brought the Pats back to life, but I wouldn't take him over KW on a team I was building. Kordell had a great year as well, so did Favre, but I have no problem with the selection of Warner over them.
     
  3. McPaul

    McPaul Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 1999
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Real Name:
    Paul M
    You can't really argue that he's a good, even great player, however MVP is supposed to be reserved for the person that makes the biggest positive impact on his team, got them where they are, etc. I would say Tom Brady, although I don't know much about the Pats this year.
     
  4. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,426
    Likes Received:
    630
    Well, there's the question about how the MVP should be awarded: Most Valuable Player can mean: most valuable to their team, or most valuable in the league (as in, who would you pick first out of all the football players if you could choose just one).

    Luckily the Rams never had to find out what life would be like without Warner this year, but I think he really makes that team go. He reads and distributes so quickly, most people miss it. He is phenomenal, and to me I still would pick him over any QB out there today.
     
  5. Jason P

    Jason P Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even over Favre?
     
  6. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,426
    Likes Received:
    630
    Yeah, Jason, I would. I don't know, I mean Favre was a better scrambler (unless he's giving it up to golfin' buddies) in his younger days, probably still maintains an edge over Warner in that category. But I've never seen a better, more accurate pure passer than Warner, and he's also got decent mobility, and a good head to know when to throw the ball away. His leadership ability is also at least equal to Favre's.
     
  7. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't have that big a problem with Warner winning the MVP award. He put huge numbers, even though he did throw a fair share of interceptions. Warner and Favre are the two best QBs in the NFL by far. In addition, he's a great QB in time where the NFL is bereft of great QBs.

    My choice would have been Marshall Faulk. If I'm starting an NFL team and I could choose any player in the NFL, Marshall is my man. He strengthens two positions--running back and wide receiver. He is the best all-around player in the NFL and by that standard, Faulk could have won MVP.
     
  8. Jason P

    Jason P Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I see what you're saying. Outdoors, I'd take Favre. Indoors, I'd take Warner.
     
  9. McPaul

    McPaul Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 1999
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Real Name:
    Paul M
    If it's most valuable in the NFL, I'd take Faulk.

    Put Garcia, Manning, Favre, Brady, or even Trent Green in Warner's spot, and they'll do just as good. You saw Trent Green last year when the Rams were winning, you see Trent Green this year when the chiefs are losing. It's not because Green suddenly stank it up, it's cause of the staff around him. I would pick Faulk in this regard.

    I also like Favre, he means a helluvalot to his team, but his team wasn't as dominant this year.

    This is why I picked Brady, he's by far the most valuable on his team.
     
  10. Samuel Des

    Samuel Des Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2001
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with this choice. Although Faulk is a brilliant player with an impressive body of work, he did not win anything... until Warner became his QB. Brady and the emergent Stewart would also have been good choices, depending upon your definition of MVP. At any rate, Warner is an impressive player. You guys in St Louis are lucky! [​IMG]
     
  11. Frank_W

    Frank_W Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow - Warner was definitely not my pick.

    I had Faulk (I think the Rams would be better with him

    than Warner). Then Brady, lord the Patiots turned around

    real quick. Then Favre and Stewart.

    In my opinion, Warner would not be my pick for MVP.
     
  12. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,426
    Likes Received:
    630
    Guys are forgetting...

    The Rams DID WIN without Faulk this year. Several games. Trung Canidate did well spelling him, and I was never impressed with Canidate when I watched him in college (playing UCLA, my alma mater)...

    What did they do before Warner stepped into the QB spot?
     
  13. Daryl Furkalo

    Daryl Furkalo Second Unit

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2000
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Favre should have won. He brought the Pack back to the play-offs, and almost first place. Not the Warner had a bad season at all, I mean, Greatest Show on Earth, and all.
     
  14. Steve Kramzer

    Steve Kramzer Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2001
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't say that I agree with Warner getting the MVP, as previous posters have noted when the rams were find last year when trent green took over. Warner is a good qb, but he is in such a good system, he is seen as a great qb. Faulk is probably the best rushing/receiving rb in teh league, but again he has a great system, and we saw trung candidate ran well in his absense. Personally, I would give the MVP to Farve. He means so much to this team. The packers have SO much less supporting cast than the rams. Besides Ahman Green, there are really no other great offense threats to help farve. Comparison: Warner is throwing to Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt, each of which would be #1 wrs on any team, he also has Hakim, who is a solid #2 wr anywhere in the league, and Faulk is as good of wr as many #1 wrs in the league. Farve is throwing to Bill Schroeder and Antonio Freeman, I mean come on...put Warner in Greenbay and I guarantee they are 9-7 team at best, but Farve in St.Louis would yield similar record to their current one. Also I think Tom Brady is getting more credit than he deserves. He is playing a Trent Dilfer-ese game (not alot of mistakes, ball control, etc), but he is getting more credit than Dilfer ever got. Look at his his stats for his last 5-6 games, most of the them his avg was somewhere around 170yds passing, 1 td, and 1 pick....not terribly impressive numbers. But people overlook these stats and just say the Patriots won, which I would give more credit to Antwain Smith and the Pats D than Brady.
     
  15. MikeM

    MikeM Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't believe I'm saying this, but as a Raider fan who WILL be at the playoff game on Saturday, I think the MVP should be Kordell.
    I've kept waiting to see the real Kordell to show up this year, but he didn't. Or I should say that maybe this new Kordell is the real deal.
    The bottom line is that the Rams have so many weapons to win, that if Warner went down, I'm sure they'd still win. On ther other hand, without an effective Kordell Stewart, the Steelers wouldn't do a thing, let alone get home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
    This year anyway, I'd give my vote to "Slash".....but still GO RAIDERS. [​IMG]
     
  16. Tom-G

    Tom-G Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2000
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    2
    And when Jerome Bettis went down with the groin injury, Kordell stepped up his game and made up for the deficiency in the running game. Jerome Bettis would have been considered for MVP had he stayed healthy the entire season and he certainly was the Steelers' MVP until Kordell virtually carred the team in Bettis' absence.
     
  17. Patrick_S

    Patrick_S Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    3,271
    Likes Received:
    101
    I think Warner was a good choice. The fact that the Rams won without Faulk hurt his chances in the long run.

    The biggest surprise was Kordell receiving so many votes. I guess when the expectations are so low even an average year looks really good.
     
  18. Ken Wagner

    Ken Wagner Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 1999
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was mildly surprised by the pick. I thought Faulk would take it although Warner certainly deserves maybe a co-MVP slot. Since I'm close to St. Louis I follow them as much as I can. When you watch this team you can't help but be impressed by the depth of talent. Sure Warner has more talent to pick from than most, heck, more than two teams worth of talent to choose from. But if you watch his passing he hits his mark almost every time usually on the run.

    Faulk is a pleasure to watch play. He definitely is one of the greats of all time. Having followed the football Cardinals for years and usually being disappointed, it is really a pleasure to have a winning football team. Records will continue to fall as long as this duo keeps playing together. Sorry for being so one sided but I'm excited about this team. :b
     
  19. Scott Merryfield

    Scott Merryfield Executive Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 1998
    Messages:
    11,873
    Likes Received:
    849
    Location:
    Michigan
    I do not have a problem with Warner as MVP. I think there were several viable candidates this year -- Warner, Faulk, Favre, Brady and Kordell. The arguments for each:

    Warner -- Headed up the top offense in the NFL. The team did not miss a beat when Faulk was hurt -- Canidate stepped right in. Also, although he got a Pro Bowl bid, Isaac Bruce did not have a very good season. The Pro Bowl was based on reputation and as a snub of Randy Moss.

    Faulk -- When he played, he was the best player in the league. The guy puts up huge offensive numbers in a system that is perfectly matched to his talents.

    Favre -- Had a great season with a lot less supporting cast than Warner. He has good, but not great, receivers. With two minutes to go in the game, there is no better QB to have running an offense.

    Brady -- The Patriots were expected to go nowhere, and Brady also had a very average supporting cast. Antowain Smith had a good year, but he will never be mistaken for a top running back. Troy Brown is a solid receiver, but not one of the league's best. The Pats best WR talent, Terry Glenn, missed virtually the entire year.

    Kordell Stewart -- He should get Most Improved Player award (if there still is such an award). With Bettis hurt late in the season, Stewart carried the offense. The biggest argument against Kordell is that the Steeler defense is the biggest reason this team was tops in the AFC.
     

Share This Page