Given the choice between these two only...

**USCPHILLYGUY** · 12-04-23, 03:41 PM

Hill. Guys a game changer every time he’s on the field

**stackz125** · 12-04-23, 04:09 PM

Hill.

SF would still be a good team without CMC
Miami would be an okay team without Hill

**Headsterx** · 12-04-23, 05:40 PM

CMC… the TD Machine!

**raiders72001** · 12-04-23, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by stevenash

... Who is your league's MVP?

No QB's, no defensive edge rushers, just these two players.
Who's your vote for league MVP?

Tyreek Hill or Christian McCaffrey?

Personally, I'd vote CMC.
But if you lean Hill I wouldn't debate you, Hill is on pace to shatter all sorts of receiving records.

That's tough since it depends if MVP is for the team or league. I'd go CMC because he's so much better than the rest of the RBs. Hill for his team since I think Tua is mediocre without Hill. If Hill didn't join Mia last year Tua may be in the CFL, backup NFL at most.

**franz555** · 12-04-23, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by USCPHILLYGUY

Hill. Guys a game changer every time he’s on the field

This

**lakerboy** · 12-04-23, 07:39 PM

CMC.

KC won without Hill. That's enough

**Eddy Munny** · 12-04-23, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

CMC.

KC won without Hill. That's enough

KC also won without McCaffrey.

They won without Dak, Lamar, Purdy... Let's disqualify all of them.

Make it make sense, Lakerboy.

**risKingDigits** · 12-04-23, 09:06 PM

If you’re tapping a former miss universe, you get my vote.

**Optional** · 12-05-23, 02:37 AM

McCaffrey.

Because he has won me more money.

**blankoblanco** · 12-05-23, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by stackz125

Hill.

SF would still be a good team without CMC
Miami would be an okay team without Hill

This is a pretty solid argument actually

**lakerboy** · 12-05-23, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by blankoblanco

This is a pretty solid argument actually

Sf odds to win the Superbowl without CMC would drop HUGE. The only thing going for them would be the NFC is a bit weak. IMO they would have almost no shot to win the Superbowl without him.

Mia was never winning the bowl with our without Hill. They are a regular season flash offense.

You put CMC on mia that gives them another dimension. You put Hill on sf and they can't run the ball and have one football still for all those receivers.

**JAKEPEAVY21** · 12-05-23, 07:51 AM

Hill, he is the most feared non QB in the league.

You can make an argument for either guy but Hill will probably eclipse 2k yards this year, that will put him over the top in a razor close debate.

**JAKEPEAVY21** · 12-05-23, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by lakerboy

Sf odds to win the Superbowl without CMC would drop HUGE. The only thing going for them would be the NFC is a bit weak. IMO they would have almost no shot to win the Superbowl without him.

Mia was never winning the bowl with our without Hill. They are a regular season flash offense.

You put CMC on mia that gives them another dimension. You put Hill on sf and they can't run the ball and have one football still for all those receivers.

Disagree with this point, laker.

McCaffrey is obviously better than SF's other RB options but in that system, Shanahan has always had RBs that produced(even 2nd and 3rd stringers).

**budwiser** · 12-05-23, 08:55 AM

Hill is the more valuable player and it's not close.

**Easy-Rider 66** · 12-05-23, 08:57 AM

I vote HILL. Take him off MIA and they are not nearly as good. While CMC is a great player he is more easy to replace than Hill.

**lakerboy** · 12-05-23, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Eddy Munny

KC also won without McCaffrey.

They won without Dak, Lamar, Purdy... Let's disqualify all of them.

Make it make sense, Lakerboy.

Huh? Hill wasn't a guy that they could afford to keep with the cap situation. He was on KC none of the others were. They still won without him which is a big indictment on him. You lose a player of that caliber and still win tells you that maybe he isn't that important.

We can NEVER prove it but I'm of the opinion that 90% of GM's in the NFL would pick CMC over him.

**Eddy Munny** · 12-05-23, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

Huh? Hill wasn't a guy that they could afford to keep with the cap situation. He was on KC none of the others were. They still won without him which is a big indictment on him. You lose a player of that caliber and still win tells you that maybe he isn't that important.

We can NEVER prove it but I'm of the opinion that 90% of GM's in the NFL would pick CMC over him.

I realize none of those other players were Chiefs, but it's bizarre that you would penalize a guy because his former team managed to win ballgames in his absence. My point was that those same Chiefs were successful without a lot of other great players, doesn't make them less great.

Using your logic, Tyreek could have the greatest season a WR has ever had and still not be an MVP because his old team won a Super Bowl last year. That's not how this works. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess they still would've won with Reek on the roster and might've done so with a little less stress.

Tyreek is a human cheat code. We wouldn't even be talking about the Dolphins this late in the year if he wasn't on the team. As great as CMC is, the 49ers would still be very good. In fact, they actually suffered their midseason swoon when Deebo was out of the lineup.

**johnnyvegas13** · 12-05-23, 03:08 PM

Too early nash

lets see what happens last quarter of the season here

**hawkwind** · 12-05-23, 03:53 PM

CM+

**djefferis** · 12-05-23, 05:55 PM

The V in MVP stands for valuable = makes this simple

C-Mac - simply the most valuable player to their team.

Without him - 49ers are just above .500 in my opinion- good team - but the ability to control the ball, extend drives and score TDs over FGs makes them real contenders.

QB is over rated - lots of teams won with mediocre to good qbs who didn’t turn the ball over - but of those teams none did it without a dominant D or a great running game.

**Easy-Rider 66** · 12-05-23, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by djefferis

The V in MVP stands for valuable = makes this simple

C-Mac - simply the most valuable player to their team.

Without him - 49ers are just above .500 in my opinion- good team - but the ability to control the ball, extend drives and score TDs over FGs makes them real contenders.

QB is over rated - lots of teams won with mediocre to good qbs who didn’t turn the ball over - but of those teams none did it without a dominant D or a great running game.

Have to disagree. CMC a great player But RB's do not make or Break a team in this era. SF still a dominant team with or without CMC

**DrunkHorseplayer** · 12-05-23, 08:40 PM

The MVP isn't most valuable to one's team, it means the best player in the league. Between those two, it's Hill by a mile.

**Eddy Munny** · 12-05-23, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by DrunkHorseplayer

The MVP isn't most valuable to one's team, it means the best player in the league. Between those two, it's Hill by a mile.

I think it's Hill using any either of those criteria. He's tearing up the league like it's pee-wee football, but he also single-handedly makes the Fins a formidable offense. It wasn't that long ago that people were seriously questioning whether or not Tua was even an NFL quarterback.

**JIBBBY** · 12-05-23, 09:05 PM

White power! My utility.. That white boy can ball if he doesn't get injured.

**lakerboy** · 12-05-23, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Eddy Munny

I think it's Hill using any either of those criteria. He's tearing up the league like it's pee-wee football, but he also single-handedly makes the Fins a formidable offense. It wasn't that long ago that people were seriously questioning whether or not Tua was even an NFL quarterback.

He won't get to play Washington in the playoffs.

How did he do vs

Buffalo
KC
Philly

I'm pretty sure he wasn't that great in those games.

**lakerboy** · 12-05-23, 10:53 PM

Feasting on the likes of

Washington
Carolina
Gmen
Chargers

Basically eating off teams that will not be in the playoffs.

**Eddy Munny** · 12-05-23, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by lakerboy

Feasting on the likes of

Washington
Carolina
Gmen
Chargers

Basically eating off teams that will not be in the playoffs.

It's not basketball, dude. He's a wide receiver. His touches are contingent upon a host of other things. He's had one "bad" game the entire season. If he's not an elite player at the WR position then they simply don't exist.

Christian McCaffrey has had as many 50 yard rushing games this year as he's had 100 yard rushing games. You'd better call the cops. We may have a fraudulent MVP candidate here.

**blankoblanco** · 12-06-23, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by DrunkHorseplayer

The MVP isn't most valuable to one's team, it means the best player in the league. Between those two, it's Hill by a mile.

Well, this is a long-held debate, but I semi-agree with you. I just think it's become a combination of both, and you have to balance it in your rankings

The thing is that there's also "MOP" or Most outstanding player in other sports/leagues, and the reason we settled on "MVP" as the standard is probably that it just sounded better. It's open to personal interpretation how much emphasis you place on an athlete's "value" to the team and how much you place on an exceptional performance for a season.

If I had an MVP vote, I'd lean towards the side of recognizing a player with an exceptional season, even if they aren't strictly the most valuable player in the league. Otherwise Michael Jordan should have won NBA MVP every year that he played a full season (pre-wizards). But at a certain point that's a bit boring

**2Sweeet** · 12-06-23, 12:54 AM

Hill Although I hate the guy ppl forget the Child Abuse allegations against this moron and his ex gf. It's amazing and thats why if he had 3000 yds receiving he never win it if i had a vote

**Thefix13** · 12-06-23, 01:01 AM

Hill - Offensive player of the year

MVP will go to a QB, Purdy if he wins out.

Hill has the bigger impact on his team as dominant as CMC has been. Without Hill Miami falls off a cliff, 49ers went deep before CMC arrived. The overall team is better than it was duing those two NFCC runs. Waddle, Achane/Mostert are not enough to strike fear in opponents. Zero talent at TE or Wr behind those two

**DrunkHorseplayer** · 12-06-23, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by blankoblanco

Well, this is a long-held debate, but I semi-agree with you. I just think it's become a combination of both, and you have to balance it in your rankings

The thing is that there's also "MOP" or Most outstanding player in other sports/leagues, and the reason we settled on "MVP" as the standard is probably that it just sounded better. It's open to personal interpretation how much emphasis you place on an athlete's "value" to the team and how much you place on an exceptional performance for a season.

If I had an MVP vote, I'd lean towards the side of recognizing a player with an exceptional season, even if they aren't strictly the most valuable player in the league. Otherwise Michael Jordan should have won NBA MVP every year that he played a full season (pre-wizards). But at a certain point that's a bit boring

The title is MVP, not MVPTHT.

**JIBBBY** · 12-06-23, 11:47 AM

They will never give a white guy running back the MVP in the NFL. Wrong color.

**TheFugitive** · 12-06-23, 07:53 PM

I know for the purposes of this thread it only 2 choices.....but......DEEBO SAMUEL IS A MF'N BEAST.
When I go the way of Robert "I am a douchebag liberal" DeNiro and I impregnate a girl 60 years my junior, his name will be DEEBO SAMUEL!

**TheFugitive** · 12-06-23, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by TheFugitive

I know for the purposes of this thread it only 2 choices.....but......DEEBO SAMUEL IS A MF'N BEAST.
When I go the way of Robert "I am a douchebag liberal" DeNiro and I impregnate a girl 60 years my junior, his name will be DEEBO SAMUEL!

Otherwise T.Hill. for reasons mentioned above by JIbby