So this thought occurred to me last Sunday watching the Ravens beat up on Miami. I'm not saying this is how I feel about the matter, but just a topic of discussion that I thought would be interesting.
As I recall, Matt Ryan was voted the Rookie of the Year for the 2008 season. Now although what he did for that team is very worthy of such credentials, it makes me ponder on a few other rookies.
Kyle Orton's rookie season- although his numbers were far from what Ryan's were, he also held the highest winning percentage for any rookie QB ever in the NFL. Although it's pretty evident that that was due to the success of the defense, you can't over look that it was him that earned that success in the position he was in. He was the 3rd string that year and never expected to play a down. This reminds me of all the hype that Ben Rothlisburger got his rookie season and wining so many games in a row. Anyway, just a thought.
Joe Flacco - Alright so maybe this guy wasn't AS good as what Ryan was this year, but you can't argue that he wasn't close. He took over the starting role and ran with it to lead the team to the playoffs. And to add on to it, he lead his team to a playoff victory. I understand awards are given based off regular season performances, but I would like to argue that I think the Rookie of the Year is a guy who adds the best value to a teams performance over the coarse of a whole season, playoffs included. For a rookie to lead a team to the playoffs and to pull out a victory is a pretty big deal - especially in a role so important as QB. I know it's only one victory, but what happens if he gets another, and another? Why wouldn't this guy actually deserve the rookie of the year honors?
I will say, based off regular season performance, it's hard to argue against the honor that Ryan deserved. But maybe it was a bit premature. When I look at past winners of MVP and R.O.T.Y awards, I tend to think of the whole season - playoffs and superbowl included, Matt Ryan is no longer in that picture.
As I recall, Matt Ryan was voted the Rookie of the Year for the 2008 season. Now although what he did for that team is very worthy of such credentials, it makes me ponder on a few other rookies.
Kyle Orton's rookie season- although his numbers were far from what Ryan's were, he also held the highest winning percentage for any rookie QB ever in the NFL. Although it's pretty evident that that was due to the success of the defense, you can't over look that it was him that earned that success in the position he was in. He was the 3rd string that year and never expected to play a down. This reminds me of all the hype that Ben Rothlisburger got his rookie season and wining so many games in a row. Anyway, just a thought.
Joe Flacco - Alright so maybe this guy wasn't AS good as what Ryan was this year, but you can't argue that he wasn't close. He took over the starting role and ran with it to lead the team to the playoffs. And to add on to it, he lead his team to a playoff victory. I understand awards are given based off regular season performances, but I would like to argue that I think the Rookie of the Year is a guy who adds the best value to a teams performance over the coarse of a whole season, playoffs included. For a rookie to lead a team to the playoffs and to pull out a victory is a pretty big deal - especially in a role so important as QB. I know it's only one victory, but what happens if he gets another, and another? Why wouldn't this guy actually deserve the rookie of the year honors?
I will say, based off regular season performance, it's hard to argue against the honor that Ryan deserved. But maybe it was a bit premature. When I look at past winners of MVP and R.O.T.Y awards, I tend to think of the whole season - playoffs and superbowl included, Matt Ryan is no longer in that picture.
