[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Defensive MVP goes to the guy who makes the most plays and gets the most hype... Derrick Brooks, Ed Reed, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
while i hate espn about more than anyone, if you are suggesting that someone other than ed reed was the best defensive player in football in 2004 youre crazy. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that? By watching lots of highlights? A defensive player might be in on close to a thousand snaps in a season; a handful of highlight-reel caliber plays are a very small part of the story.

Maybe the guy making lots of spectacular plays is gambling to get in position for such heroics, and misses his assignment more than he should. Maybe there's a defensive end who faces constant double teams and doesn't put up double-digit sacks, but does lead the league in "hurries" and "forced INTs," for which only his coaches will give him full credit. Perhaps there's an OLB who's so dominant that teams almost never run or pass in his direction, giving him pedestrian numbers and fewer opportunities to make big plays. Players like these put their teammates, on both sides of the ball, in position to make the highlight reel.

[ QUOTE ]
i usually classify defensive mvp as the player i felt made the most big plays at big times, and it was their skill alone who put them there, i.e ed reed in 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously I think this is a bad system, but as long as the award is voted on by fans and journalists, it's the only way to go. That's why I'd rather take them out of the loop completely. How about this: each team picks the two or three people on their staff who watch the most tape, and they each get a vote (can't vote for your own team, naturally). People who actually have a hand in preparing a team to play, and who actually watch every (or nearly every) game are much better qualified to judge dominance than the writers from the AP.