Should a defensive player win the MVP? (NFL)

[indeedproceed]

Defense wins championships. People are always saying defense wins championships. Well darn it, if defenses win championships, why aren't defensive players ever MVP's?

I have no problem with a defensive player winning MVP - if they're worthy.  The thing is, great defense is truly a team effort, moreso than offense.  The only defensive player I've seen in my life (following football from the 80's on) that was so dominant in a game that they had an impact just being on the field was Lawrence Taylor in his prime.  There have been lots of great defenders in the past 30+ years, but Taylor was on a different level and the only defender IMHO that's been worthy of being league MVP.

someone older than I may be able to offer some insight into whether the great defenders of the 60's and 70's had that same impact.

I've always thought offense was a team effort as well. Linemen, receivers, running backs, ends, and the quarterback, they're all pretty much necessary, no?

[Moranis]

I think the problem defensive players have is, is the perception that if you took one guy out, even a dominant one, you wouldn't affect the overall defense that much nor the win/loss record.  I mean if Kuechly wasn't playing, would Carolina be a 4 win team or would they be a 9/10 win team.  I think most people would peg them as a 9/10 win team without Kuechly, while on the flip slide if you took Cam Newton out I think most people would believe Carolina would be significantly worse than 11 wins and no where near the playoffs.  That is why defensive players won't win the MVP except in extremely rare circumstances.

I also think for a defensive player to win he is going to have to be a field position and possession changing player i.e. a guy with a lot of sacks, tackles for loss, forced fumbles, and interceptions.  A guy that gets a lot of tackles is nice, but he isn't the game changer that a guy that gets sacks and forces fumbles is.

I disagree with this, especially in football, and I'd argue that it is extremely dependent on the quality of the backup.

Sometimes the guy you have behind the franchise QB is Matt Barkley, but sometimes its Nick Foles.

And likewise, if the guy they have behind Keuchly is more Barkley than Foles, and suddenly their middle linebacker spot is played by a less than competent player..well that could highlight just how important he is.

Ray Lewis and Ed Reed aren't in Baltimore anymore and their defense is a lot better than it was last year by virtually every statistical measure.  Defensive players, even great ones, are fairly easily replaced.  They just aren't that important to a team.  A real special defensive player that forces a bunch of turnovers, scores TD's, etc. has value and can actually create wins from losses, but a guy like Kuechly is no where near that player.  Without him Carolina still wins 9/10 games no matter who the backup is.

Because Ray Lewis and Ed Reed of last year were high caliber players? Really strange choice for your example.

But look at the media before the season about how big a loss those two guys in particular were going to be.  About how the team couldn't sustain all of those losses to their defense and still be a great defensive team.  Now sure Baltimore isn't as good on the whole, but their problems are all on offense not on defense.

[Fafnir]

All the talk in the media was about the "leadership" change, the bigger defensive player losses where Ellerbee and Kruger were better players and the ones I heard talked about the most.

Reed/Lewis were the weakness of that defense last year. Like I said a weird example that doesn't support your point.

[Moranis]

Defense wins championships. People are always saying defense wins championships. Well darn it, if defenses win championships, why aren't defensive players ever MVP's?

I have no problem with a defensive player winning MVP - if they're worthy.  The thing is, great defense is truly a team effort, moreso than offense.  The only defensive player I've seen in my life (following football from the 80's on) that was so dominant in a game that they had an impact just being on the field was Lawrence Taylor in his prime.  There have been lots of great defenders in the past 30+ years, but Taylor was on a different level and the only defender IMHO that's been worthy of being league MVP.

someone older than I may be able to offer some insight into whether the great defenders of the 60's and 70's had that same impact.

I've always thought offense was a team effort as well. Linemen, receivers, running backs, ends, and the quarterback, they're all pretty much necessary, no?

Not so much.  Quarterback really is the most important position.  You can have great skill players and not win because your QB position is subpar and you can have a great QB and rarely do you get a bad team (you might not always make the playoffs, but you are never terrible).  I mean look at Brady, P. Manning, Brees, and Rodgers.  Aside from the Saints last year, which was a special circumstance, when was the last time one of their teams were even a bad team (none-the-less awful). 

Yet look at the teams with the great RB's like Peterson, the Vikings have been rarely good with Peterson.  The Browns statistically have the best WR in football yet are awful because their QB play has been atrocious.  Put Tom Brady on the Browns and they are at least an 10 win team.  QB's win the MVP because QB's are by far the most important position to a football team.  It takes a special year from a RB and a down year at QB for a RB to even win the award (like Peterson last year) and frankly that is they way it should be.  For a defensive player to win it takes an all time year and no other great options, which is why it has happened once.

[BigAlTheFuture]

I agree with Moranis. Take Aaron Rodgers for example, before he went down with a collarbone injury, the Packers were 5-2 and looked like they were Super Bowl contenders. They went winless the next 5 games without him. The Brady's, Mannings, Rodgers, could keep your team relevant and contending every year, no matter how bad the rest of your team is. Don't think you can say the same about a defensive player.

[nickagneta]

In a lot of ways, in the NFL anyway, current defenses are more reactive than proactive. Rules that increased defensive holding calls, decreased contact with receivers, decreased an ability to hit a QB or WR have made playing defense a much more reactive game than it was 25 years ago. Back then  blitzing defenses with tight man coverage that included a lot of contact with receivers at the line, could proactively shut down offenses no matter the style of offense played. Now, almost exclusively, the defense has to react to everything being done offensively. Zone blitzs were created as a reactionary result of some of these rule changes.

This makes for a lot of the great QBs, and even many not so great ones, dictating how the game will be played since so much power for the outcome of games have been put into their hands. Offense dictates the flow and style of a game now, not the defense. defenses no longer shut down offenses but contain them. The rules have been manipulated in such a manner as to ensure higher scoring games and offensive players being protected from injury so that they can be healthier for a longer season to guarantee higher scoring games all year and get higher television ratings.

Playing great proactive defense has been de-emphasized in the name of weekly ratings and so, the MVPs of the NFL are now and for the foreseeable future,going to be offensive players and probably QBs

Keuchly is an outstanding linebacker but all he is doing is racking up tackles. For every play that a score does not happen, a tackle will be made by someone. Racking up tackles isn't nearly as impressive a thing as what LT was doing on the field in the 80's. He was sacking QBs at an alarming rate back when QBs rarely dropped back to pass 30 times a game. The shotgun was not an everyday style of play back then. 300 yd passing games were not an every week occurrence and yet Taylor was sacking 15-20 QBs every year for a period of time then.

Stats such as forced fumbles, tackles, and tackles for loss were not kept in LT's days but if they were I am sure you would see a measurable difference between a true defensive MVP year and Keuchly's year this year. LT was a game and rule changer. Like players in the NFL and other sports(Chamberlain, Orr, Gretzky, Ruth, Koufax, Unitas), Taylor changed the way the game was played. He changed the rules of the game. That's what an NFL MVP who is on defense is. That person is a game changer.

That's not Luke Keuchly, as much as I love him as a player. Heck, I don't think there exists a game changing defensive player in the NFL right now. And for that reason, I wouldn't expect an NFL MVP being from the defensive side of the ball anytime soon.

[slamtheking]

In a lot of ways, in the NFL anyway, current defenses are more reactive than proactive. Rules that increased defensive holding calls, decreased contact with receivers, decreased an ability to hit a QB or WR have made playing defense a much more reactive game than it was 25 years ago. Back then  blitzing defenses with tight man coverage that included a lot of contact with receivers at the line, could proactively shut down offenses no matter the style of offense played. Now, almost exclusively, the defense has to react to everything being done offensively. Zone blitzs were created as a reactionary result of some of these rule changes.

This makes for a lot of the great QBs, and even many not so great ones, dictating how the game will be played since so much power for the outcome of games have been put into their hands. Offense dictates the flow and style of a game now, not the defense. defenses no longer shut down offenses but contain them. The rules have been manipulated in such a manner as to ensure higher scoring games and offensive players being protected from injury so that they can be healthier for a longer season to guarantee higher scoring games all year and get higher television ratings.

Playing great proactive defense has been de-emphasized in the name of weekly ratings and so, the MVPs of the NFL are now and for the foreseeable future,going to be offensive players and probably QBs

Keuchly is an outstanding linebacker but all he is doing is racking up tackles. For every play that a score does not happen, a tackle will be made by someone. Racking up tackles isn't nearly as impressive a thing as what LT was doing on the field in the 80's. He was sacking QBs at an alarming rate back when QBs rarely dropped back to pass 30 times a game. The shotgun was not an everyday style of play back then. 300 yd passing games were not an every week occurrence and yet Taylor was sacking 15-20 QBs every year for a period of time then.

Stats such as forced fumbles, tackles, and tackles for loss were not kept in LT's days but if they were I am sure you would see a measurable difference between a true defensive MVP year and Keuchly's year this year. LT was a game and rule changer. Like players in the NFL and other sports(Chamberlain, Orr, Gretzky, Ruth, Koufax, Unitas), Taylor changed the way the game was played. He changed the rules of the game. That's what an NFL MVP who is on defense is. That person is a game changer.

That's not Luke Keuchly, as much as I love him as a player. Heck, I don't think there exists a game changing defensive player in the NFL right now. And for that reason, I wouldn't expect an NFL MVP being from the defensive side of the ball anytime soon.

couldn't have made my point better Nick, TP for picking up the ball and running with it 

[Quetzalcoatl]

In a lot of ways, in the NFL anyway, current defenses are more reactive than proactive. Rules that increased defensive holding calls, decreased contact with receivers, decreased an ability to hit a QB or WR have made playing defense a much more reactive game than it was 25 years ago. Back then  blitzing defenses with tight man coverage that included a lot of contact with receivers at the line, could proactively shut down offenses no matter the style of offense played. Now, almost exclusively, the defense has to react to everything being done offensively. Zone blitzs were created as a reactionary result of some of these rule changes.

This makes for a lot of the great QBs, and even many not so great ones, dictating how the game will be played since so much power for the outcome of games have been put into their hands. Offense dictates the flow and style of a game now, not the defense. defenses no longer shut down offenses but contain them. The rules have been manipulated in such a manner as to ensure higher scoring games and offensive players being protected from injury so that they can be healthier for a longer season to guarantee higher scoring games all year and get higher television ratings.

Playing great proactive defense has been de-emphasized in the name of weekly ratings and so, the MVPs of the NFL are now and for the foreseeable future,going to be offensive players and probably QBs

Keuchly is an outstanding linebacker but all he is doing is racking up tackles. For every play that a score does not happen, a tackle will be made by someone. Racking up tackles isn't nearly as impressive a thing as what LT was doing on the field in the 80's. He was sacking QBs at an alarming rate back when QBs rarely dropped back to pass 30 times a game. The shotgun was not an everyday style of play back then. 300 yd passing games were not an every week occurrence and yet Taylor was sacking 15-20 QBs every year for a period of time then.

Stats such as forced fumbles, tackles, and tackles for loss were not kept in LT's days but if they were I am sure you would see a measurable difference between a true defensive MVP year and Keuchly's year this year. LT was a game and rule changer. Like players in the NFL and other sports(Chamberlain, Orr, Gretzky, Ruth, Koufax, Unitas), Taylor changed the way the game was played. He changed the rules of the game. That's what an NFL MVP who is on defense is. That person is a game changer.

That's not Luke Keuchly, as much as I love him as a player. Heck, I don't think there exists a game changing defensive player in the NFL right now. And for that reason, I wouldn't expect an NFL MVP being from the defensive side of the ball anytime soon.

I think if your team shows a measurable drop in points allowed due to your play while "QBing" a defense and you break a significant statistical record then you should be considered.  I get all that you said, but 20 tackles + an interception in one game is crazy.  That said, LK didn't break the single season tackles record so I think he would come in like 3rd overall for me after Manning and Brady.

[indeedproceed]

Keuchly is an outstanding linebacker but all he is doing is racking up tackles. For every play that a score does not happen, a tackle will be made by someone. Racking up tackles isn't nearly as impressive a thing as what LT was doing on the field in the 80's. He was sacking QBs at an alarming rate back when QBs rarely dropped back to pass 30 times a game. The shotgun was not an everyday style of play back then. 300 yd passing games were not an every week occurrence and yet Taylor was sacking 15-20 QBs every year for a period of time then.

POI, but dropping into the shotgun was to avoid being sacked. Shotgun sets shouldn't really increase sack totals, if all things are equal (IE, if you have the same % overall of pass plays) and there were more shotgun plays, there would be less sacks.

If that's unclear, apologies.

[nickagneta]

Keuchly is an outstanding linebacker but all he is doing is racking up tackles. For every play that a score does not happen, a tackle will be made by someone. Racking up tackles isn't nearly as impressive a thing as what LT was doing on the field in the 80's. He was sacking QBs at an alarming rate back when QBs rarely dropped back to pass 30 times a game. The shotgun was not an everyday style of play back then. 300 yd passing games were not an every week occurrence and yet Taylor was sacking 15-20 QBs every year for a period of time then.

POI, but dropping into the shotgun was to avoid being sacked. Shotgun sets shouldn't really increase sack totals, if all things are equal (IE, if you have the same % overall of pass plays) and there were more shotgun plays, there would be less sacks.

If that's unclear, apologies.

I think its me that didn't explain myself well enough. The inclusion of the shotgun in my explanation was to say that teams didn't use the shotgun as much because  offenses concentrated more on running the ball than passing. So the opportunity to get sacks was a lot harder because teams weren't regularly dropping back to pass one every down or 40 times a game.

Actually the increase in the use of the shotgun type offense can probably be indirectly linked to LT and the outside LB/edge speed pass rusher that LT and Andre Tippett and some others at that time started to show was so successful against passers that used the standard 7 step dropback in passing situations.

[Moranis]

All the talk in the media was about the "leadership" change, the bigger defensive player losses where Ellerbee and Kruger were better players and the ones I heard talked about the most.

Reed/Lewis were the weakness of that defense last year. Like I said a weird example that doesn't support your point.

Ray Lewis in his 6 games last year had 44 solo tackles and 13 assisted tackles for 9.5 total tackles a game (7.333 of them solo).  Luke Kuechly has 88 solo tackles and 58 assisted tackles for 9.733 tackles a game (just 5.8666 of them solo).  Lewis had a forced fumble and fumble recovery in those 6 games, Kuechly has 0 through 15 games, though on the flipside LK has 4 INTS and Lewis had 0.  Lewis had 1 sack, Kuechly a lower rate with just 2.  Kuechly does have 7 pass deflections while Lewis had just 1.

I guess what I'm getting at is Ray Lewis was pretty much the player Luke Kuechly is, and yet you guys are all saying that Lewis was awful, washed up, and not a loss at all for Baltimore.  The numbers don't lie though.

Kuechly isn't even leading the league in any categories.  In fact Paul Posluszny has been a vastly superior statistical LB, though because he plays for Jacksonville no one is talking about him.  More solo tackles (by a lot), more total tackles, more sacks, a TD, a FF, a FR, more PD's.  The only thing Kuechly has on Posluszny is 2 extra INT's, though as I said Posluszny returned one of his two for a TD and a few more assisted tackles and on top of all of that Posluszny has only played in 14 games so one less game.

[indeedproceed]

Keuchly is an outstanding linebacker but all he is doing is racking up tackles. For every play that a score does not happen, a tackle will be made by someone. Racking up tackles isn't nearly as impressive a thing as what LT was doing on the field in the 80's. He was sacking QBs at an alarming rate back when QBs rarely dropped back to pass 30 times a game. The shotgun was not an everyday style of play back then. 300 yd passing games were not an every week occurrence and yet Taylor was sacking 15-20 QBs every year for a period of time then.

POI, but dropping into the shotgun was to avoid being sacked. Shotgun sets shouldn't really increase sack totals, if all things are equal (IE, if you have the same % overall of pass plays) and there were more shotgun plays, there would be less sacks.

If that's unclear, apologies.

I think its me that didn't explain myself well enough. The inclusion of the shotgun in my explanation was to say that teams didn't use the shotgun as much because  offenses concentrated more on running the ball than passing. So the opportunity to get sacks was a lot harder because teams weren't regularly dropping back to pass one every down or 40 times a game.

Actually the increase in the use of the shotgun type offense can probably be indirectly linked to LT and the outside LB/edge speed pass rusher that LT and Andre Tippett and some others at that time started to show was so successful against passers that used the standard 7 step dropback in passing situations.

Absolutely, I was about to make the point you made in your second paragraph after reading the first, but I'd also argue that LT had a bit of an advantage over other guys that came later, in much the same way that Bird had advantages over guys who came later (IE, before every team was trying to find long athletic defenders as well as offensive threats).

This piece I'm sure you've seen before, while a bit simplistic, pleads the case well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m21SyRj7B_8

[indeedproceed]

But I guess that also illustrates why LT was a legit MVP beyond reproach.

[Smokeeye123]

I believe they should have a Defensive MVP or at least a Defensive player of the year kind of thing...Heck, if I could I'd make QB, Defense, and Offensive player categories all separate because a QB just wins every year no matter what.

[Moranis]

I believe they should have a Defensive MVP or at least a Defensive player of the year kind of thing...Heck, if I could I'd make QB, Defense, and Offensive player categories all separate because a QB just wins every year no matter what.

They have defensive player of the year.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/award_apdpoy.htm