Packers QB Aaron Rodgers calls award voter 'a bum' following comments that he would not vote for Rodgers

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think it essentially is an award for being the best player on one of one of the top teams. I personally think it should be the player that is most valuable to his team - and part of that would have to revolve around winning. However, any way that we try to define it, it always revolves around play on the field, and that has been my primary point. 

 

I mean, one could argue that Allen is a more valuable player to the Bills because more of the offense runs through his hands and legs?

 

Then there’s the point about the Pack being 0-1 without Rodgers because Rodgers made a medical decision which resulted in being unavailable, by rule

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I mean, one could argue that Allen is a more valuable player to the Bills because more of the offense runs through his hands and legs?

 

Then there’s the point about the Pack being 0-1 without Rodgers because Rodgers made a medical decision which resulted in being unavailable, by rule

 

I absolutely agree that Allen should be in the discussion. He accounts for more of his team's offensive yards and points and than any other player. IMO, he should legitimately be in the discussion.

 

As to your second point, I believe that Rodger's actions that led to his unavailability is something that is relevant as it can be argued it directly affected on field results. I think that is intellectually consistent with what my stance has been.

[TheFunPolice]

You can see how much it has affected the Packers...

 

12-3, best record in the NFL, #1 seed locked up last week. 

 

4 INT all season, with 2 in the first game. 

 

Rodgers is totally crushing his team. 

[Kaep]

51 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don’t disagree with the first sentence.

 

But the rest of it makes it seem as though you feel MVP is an award for being a prominent player on the team with the most wins.

 

 

 

For what?  He broke the protocols and got fined for it - maybe not as much as the various violations should have justified, but the punishment at that point was fines, not suspension.  He lied to or misled reporters about his vaccination status, but both the NFL and the team say he was honest with them and followed the protocols (with exceptions).

He was fined less than what CeeDee was fined for an untucked jersey…. For putting others at risk.  You think if someone who wasn’t as skilled as Rodgers would have received the same “punishment” for being a pompous ass?

[Punching Bag]

56 minutes ago, Kaep said:

If Goodell had a set, Rodgers would have been suspended like AB and statistically would not be in the MVP discussion.  

 

He has a set and they are very soft like Br*dy likes.

[Rockinon]

The voting should be strictly based on performance. Everything woke goes to s**t.

[aristocrat]

Reporter just trying to get his name in the news. Report the story don't become the story. 

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

The minute Rodgers mouthed the words "woke mob" he lost votes. 

Well good for him that he spoketh the truth. Even if it cost him MVP votes from some of its members. 

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

HOF voters kept TO out initially.  They lose their votes too?

 

Pete Rose still isn't in for his play on the field.  MLB voters need to go as well.

You’re comparing HoF voting with MVP voting.

 

You just compared Aaron Rodgers being a jerk with Pete Rose betting on baseball.   One for MVP…..the other for the HoF.  As if they even close to the same thing? 

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

The MVP Award is about the most valuable player, as in who is the best player in the NFL and most valuable to his team. It is a subjective process, but last I looked, the critria are pretty much confined to the play on the field. His numbers, as well as the fact that the team is 13 -1 this year with him on the field and 0-1 without him, put him right at the top of that list. Until they change the nature of the award and intent, that is all that matters.

 

Aaron Rodgers might be a complete douche. It is irrelevant. IMHO, OJ Simpson is a murdering piece of s*** and should be in prison for the rest of his life. However, If you are going to ask me to vote on the best running back of all time, then he is in that discussion.

 

The NFL has awards that exemplify sportsmanship, community involvement, and other things that center around character and behavior. The MVP Award is not one of them. If the want it to be, then they should change the criteria.

Amen

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

You’re comparing HoF voting with MVP voting.

 

You just compared Aaron Rodgers being a jerk with Pete Rose betting on baseball.   One for MVP…..the other for the HoF.  As if they even close to the same thing? 

 

I didn't do any of that.  Your criticism of these voters for sporting  honors is that they were considering anything but on field performance. 

 

So you are saying that for HOF, voters are allowed to consider off field considerations.  got it.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

It might be worth noting that a reporter could object to Rodgers misleading or lying to reporters about his vaccination status on moral grounds, which would not appear to be “political”.  This behavior has been considered unethical since the time of Moses, maybe before.
 

Rodgers also made  a medical choice that impacted his football availability.  A reporter could consider that un-MVP like behavior: “the best ability is availability.”

 

Then there’s the issue of a celebrity using his platform to promote medical advice instead of encouraging people to choose a qualified physician and follow their physician’s advice.  Some consider that immoral or unethical.

 

Only the second of these would be strictly football relevant.  But the others don’t appear political.  Not relevant to play on the field, but not political.

Some people make everything political  though. 

Indeed. 

[NewEra]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

I didn't do any of that.  Your criticism of these voters for sporting  honors is that they were considering anything but on field performance. 

 

So you are saying that for HOF, voters are allowed to consider off field considerations.  got it.

Voting for the HoF and voting for MVP are two completely different criteria.  
 

One award is “most valuable player”-  which means what? “The Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award is presented annually by the Associated Press (AP) to a player in the National Football League(NFL) deemed to have been the "most valuable" in that year's regular season.”   50 voters vote for who they think is the best player (or most valuable, w/e).  What does that have to do with being a jerk?  It has nothing to do with it.  
 

HoF has zero criteria to it.  It’s the Hall of Fame.  Voters vote for players that they feel are worthy of being included with the best. Voters vote yearly….often on the same players over and over.  One particular voter may vote no for a player one year and then vote yes the following.  Meanwhile that player, who has accomplished nothing more in over the course of that year, is now deemed worthy. This has always been the case in HoF voting.  Being a 1st ballot HoF is an accomplishment .  Voters use think about whether or not a player is worthy of being “1st ballot”.  When was the last time we heard about a 1st ballot MVP?  Right.  Different voting criteria.  Different award.  Different thing all together.  But compare them all you like. 

[Mr. WEO]

50 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Voting for the HoF and voting for MVP are two completely different criteria.  
 

One award is “most valuable player”-  which means what? “The Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award is presented annually by the Associated Press (AP) to a player in the National Football League(NFL) deemed to have been the "most valuable" in that year's regular season.”   50 voters vote for who they think is the best player (or most valuable, w/e).  What does that have to do with being a jerk?  It has nothing to do with it.  
 

HoF has zero criteria to it.  It’s the Hall of Fame.  Voters vote for players that they feel are worthy of being included with the best. Voters vote yearly….often on the same players over and over.  One particular voter may vote no for a player one year and then vote yes the following.  Meanwhile that player, who has accomplished nothing more in over the course of that year, is now deemed worthy. This has always been the case in HoF voting.  Being a 1st ballot HoF is an accomplishment .  Voters use think about whether or not a player is worthy of being “1st ballot”.  When was the last time we heard about a 1st ballot MVP?  Right.  Different voting criteria.  Different award.  Different thing all together.  But compare them all you like. 

 

So when voting for a player "they think is the best", they cannot consider any off-field issues, but when voting for a player to being included "with the best" they certainly can (should?) consider off-field issues when voting them as the best performers in their sport? 

 

Why should "being a jerk" keep a player out of the HOF (on the 1st or any ballot)?

[Process]

I think Rodgers is a clown, but his response here is definitely reasonable.

[thenorthremembers]

I think both men are entitled to their opinion, and I dont think what Hub said was wrong.   Further than just the sound bite Hub said a player cant be an MVP if they dont continually put their team in the best position to win, that said Rodgers is 139-65 as a starter for the Packers so it's really hard to argue that despite his attitude he doesnt put his team in the best position to win games.    Not to mention the team has the best record in football this year, the year Hub is voting on.   As such, I think Hub's assertion that he cant vote for Rodgers because of his attitude doesnt hold a lot of water.

 

On Rodgers, he is someone I've liked more and more.  No matter where he stands on the issue at hand, I dont think someone should be held publicly as some sort of bad person just because he doesnt agree with the crowd, and make no mistake, thats the issue right now.    We are in a very bad place as a society when we let our emotions get in the way of rationale thinking.

[RoyBatty is alive]

4 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

Well it's obvious that Josh Allen is MVP so this is all irrelevant... but Man Bun is correct, that voter should lose voting rights.

Falcon game was the end of Josh Allen 2021 MVP chatter.

[NewEra]

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

So when voting for a player "they think is the best", they cannot consider any off-field issues, but when voting for a player to being included "with the best" they certainly can (should?) consider off-field issues when voting them as the best performers in their sport? 

 

Why should "being a jerk" keep a player out of the HOF (on the 1st or any ballot)?

The mvp voting and HoF voting are completely different and comparing the two to prove a point is a failed attempt to prove a point.  One is a lifetime award with literally no guidelines for entrance for entry.  Fame.  The other is a yearly award with a clear definition by name.
 
I don’t have the time nor desire to talk about this with you anymore.  I have my opinion and I disagree with yours.  No reason to go back and forth.  Waste of time

[Son of a K-Gun]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

So when voting for a player "they think is the best", they cannot consider any off-field issues, but when voting for a player to being included "with the best" they certainly can (should?) consider off-field issues when voting them as the best performers in their sport? 

 

Why should "being a jerk" keep a player out of the HOF (on the 1st or any ballot)?

In HOF voting for baseball there actually is a character clause...that's what is keeping out a lot of the 90's steroid-era guys (yet somehow Ty Cobb is in there).  Not sure if the Pro Football HOF has the same clause because frankly I do not understand their voting at all.  A HOF that has no place for Steve Tasker makes no sense to me.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, NewEra said:

The mvp voting and HoF voting are completely different and comparing the two to prove a point is a failed attempt to prove a point.  One is a lifetime award with literally no guidelines for entrance for entry.  Fame.  The other is a yearly award with a clear definition by name.
 
I don’t have the time nor desire to talk about this with you anymore.  I have my opinion and I disagree with yours.  No reason to go back and forth.  Waste of time

 

I was just trying to discern the logic of your argument.  I failed to.

 

Carry on!

Just now, Son of a K-Gun said:

In HOF voting for baseball there actually is a character clause...that's what is keeping out a lot of the 90's steroid-era guys (yet somehow Ty Cobb is in there).  Not sure if the Pro Football HOF has the same clause because frankly I do not understand their voting at all.  A HOF that has no place for Steve Tasker makes no sense to me.

 

 

didn't know that.