I don't like the term "valuable" being used in the NFL. I believe it is extremely misleading.
Obviously there is a difference between being the most productive and being the most valuable. I've always interpreted "valuable" as having the most influence in the outcome of a game or success to a team.
As for quarterbacks, I would frame the question as, which quarterbacks are the most vital to the success of their team?
However, if I expand on that, I would have to ask questions like, which teams has the worse backup quarterbacks? Wouldn't a quarterback be more valuable to their team if the backup was a 2nd year free agent? If a team's GM is gambling that the durability of their starter can offset some cap issues that required certain positions to be filled by warm bodies, then that would certainly make the starter more valuable.
Suppose they had a really lousy running game, that would certainly make them depend more on the QB's passing ability, wouldn't it?
And what about the potential of a team? If the team is 0-5 and the starter goes down, does it really matter at that point? That injured quarterback could have a record passer rating, prolific numbers but if the defense is giving away 40 points a game, so what? A quarterback is only valuable if his productivity has value to the team in terms of winning games.
So, it's all these circumstances that may have nothing to do with a quarterbacks abilities that dictates whether his efforts are "valuable".
NFL MVP and Super Bowl MVP should be changed to MIP (most impressive player), that is, the player who exceeded the normal productivity of their position the most on a team that made the playoffs. Isn't that what it usually is?
Should every Super Bowl even have an MVP?
Instead of the traditional default method of awarding it to the winning QB when you can't really figure it out, wouldn't it be more honest just to admit that this was going to be a blowout regardless of who might have been hurt on the first play of the game? Take Super Bowl 27 for instance. Troy Aikman, MVP. Really? In a game where the Cowboy defense scored three points less than the Bill's offense? Troy was vital in getting those 4 points the Cowboys actually needed? There's no way Steve Beuerlein could have managed that?
So getting back to the original topic, suppose every NFL starting QB was injured on the first play of game #1 in the regular season. Which team would be negatively effected the most? Certainly not the Cowboys, Dalton may not be what he used to be but if you look at the rest of the backups in the NFL this season, the Cowboys are probably among the group with the least to worry about. The opposite is true if we were talking about 2018.
Which team would suffer the largest negative swing? You would eliminate teams that were projected to win 6 or less games because there isn't much room for a swing to be created. The more games you were projected to win, the greater the potential swing. Wouldn't that be a way of determining actual value to the success of a team?
The key to this is looking at the backups of the stronger contenders while taking into consideration the quality of their coaching in terms of gameplanning and preparation. You would have to think a team like the Texans with the backup A.J. McCarron and a team like the 49ers left with C.J. Beathard would have to be concerned. If an NFL quarterback's first name is a set of initials, doesn't that imply it's not even worth the effort to remember their first names? Wouldn't that make Watson or Garoppolo the favorites for MVP?
Actually, I think the league MVP is the player most valuable for creating additional excitement among fans and increasing TV ratings.
I think you understand what I mean. Individual awards with the word "valuable" in it's title can be ambiguous, misleading. It's very difficult to comprehend the value of something until you no longer have it.
