Tom Brady: NFL Offensive Folly Of The Year? The AP Needs To Forget Its Bias
The Associated Press NFL award voting committee needs to get its act together. In fact, somebody should probably walk into the next meeting and inform them that Tom Brady is not going to actually take any of them out to dinner when he wins awards.
Before I go further, please let me be clear: Tom Brady was absolutely 100 percent deserving of the 2010 MVP award. Hands down, he was the most valuable player in the league.
Having said that, Tom Brady was not the Offensive Player of the Year.
Unlike the MVP award, the Offensive Player of the Year is, or at least should be, stat-based.
Tom Brady had a superb year as always, but apart from his turnover ratio and passer rating, his season was not so eye-popping that he deserved to win the award by such a landslide.
For the AP to elect him by the margin it did when the other contenders were all very deserving says a lot. Keep in mind that Tom got 21 of the 50 votes, but the second-place guy only received 11.
Let's look at the players who had votes yanked out from under them because the AP likes Brady just a little too much.
Brady's 2010 stats: 3,900 yards, 36 TD/4 INT, 111.1 rating, 65.9% completion
3. Philip Rivers: 5 Votes
Justin Edmonds/Getty Images
2010 Stats: 4,710 yards, 30 TD/13INT, 101.8 rating, 66% completion
Now why would the AP ever pick this guy? The quarterback of the league's No.1 offense by yardage, when they had the 15th-ranked rushing attack? That sure would be dumb.
The league record for passing yards in a season is 5,084; so when the guy with 4,710 is one good game away from breaking it, why would anyone acknowledge it?
People will shout about Brady's 111.1 passer rating; sorry Philip, a passer rating of 101.8 for second-best in the league doesn't even qualify you to get a quarter of the votes that Brady guy got.
In all seriousness though, while Rivers threw 11 more picks than Brady, he was sacked 13 more times and had no running game to speak of. Something should be said about the lines QBs plays behind.
Rivers' completion percentage was marginally better than Brady's, despite throwing 50 more times. He also threw for 810 yards more than Brady.
Was he a better quarterback? No, not necessarily. Did he deserve to lose to Tom Brady by 16 votes? Absolutely not.
2. Arian Foster: 7 Votes
Bob Levey/Getty Images
2010 Stats: 327 carries 1,616 rush yards, 16TD, 66 rec 604 receiving yards, 2TD, 3 fumbles
Part of me really believes that this guy should have been the winner of the 2010 OPOY award. At worst, I think it should have been a split. I'm sorry though, I forgot that passer rating and turnover ratio are obviously the most important stats.
Oh wait, turnover ratio? Three total fumbles on 393 touches? Whoops...looks like the AP kind of dropped the ball on this one.
Arian Foster had an excellent year for a running back with his 1,616 yards and 16 TD, which, mind you is 101 yards and a touchdown every game on average.
On top of that, Foster had a pretty decent year for a No. 2 or No. 3 wide receiver catching 66 balls for over 600 yards. He was the second best receiver on the No. 4 passing team...as a running back.
I'd say he had a pretty good season..definitely deserving of more than seven of 50 votes (one-third of Tom Brady's total).
I mean, if the award is for the best offensive player, how does a guy who was a good running back AND a good wideout so badly snubbed??
1. Michael Vick: 11 Votes
Chris Trotman/Getty Images
2010 Stats: 3,018 yards, 21 TD/6 INT, 62.6% completion, 100.2 rating, 676 rushing yards, 9 TD
That's a pretty nice stat-line don't you think? This is another guy who had a good year at two positions. His 100.2 rating was good for fourth best in the league, not too shabby for a guy who also ran for almost 700 yards right?
He had a combined 30 touchdowns from passing and running, not to mention only nine turnovers total from fumbles and picks. Did I mention he did all of this in 12 games, including the one he left in the first-quarter?
Let me be clear: I don't like Vick. Having said that, I firmly believe he was the OPOY.
With 4.75 fewer games played than Brady, Rivers or Foster, he still put up incredible numbers, and managed to be the Eagles' offense by himself at times.
Who was more explosive this year on offense than Vick? The award should be for the best OFFENSIVE player, which really was him. Imagine if Vick had started 16 full games? He'd probably have been the unanimous winner.
If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Brady was essentially selected based on his passer rating and turnover ratio alone. Since that obviously should not make a player the OPOY automatically, there must have been a degree of favoritism going on at the AP ballot.
Maybe one day its members will wake up. One can only hope.