Was AP the most deserving?

[oochymp 2,393]

Ryan's rookie year with the falcons was after a 4-12 season too.

so it was, somehow I missed him

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The same could be said about A.P though. A.P made plays that ended games as well and made plenty of plays to put his team in positions to win. The only difference is the Vikings defense and A.P is that there was nothing average about A.P's seasons all year. If went from a great year averaging about 97 yards a game in the 1st half of the season to having a historic year in the 2nd half of the season averaging 165 yards a game accumulating 1322 yards in 8 games. The Vikings defense didn't play well all year like A.P did.

 

When offensively you dominate your opponent in almost every category outside of rushing yards, and the TO battle like the Bears did to the Vikings the second time they met, a game with playoff indication, but still win? That's because your defense carried you.

 

When the Vikings played us week 4, and we were actually healthy, and get outplayed in every offensive category outside of rushing like we did to them, and end up losing to them 20-13? That's their defense carrying their offense.

 

When you get outplayed on offense in terms of yards by the Arizona Cardinals, and you still manage to pull off the dub? That's the defense carrying your team.

 

When you hold the 8th best scoring offense in Houston to 6 points, all but eliminate their rushing attack and win a game many people had you losing? That's the defense putting in work, especially when you consider the fact that AP was held pretty much under control the whole game.

 

The only games where the offense pulled most of the work, without much help from the defense was against us the second time we played, Tennessee, Green Bay the second time, St, Louis.

 

Fact of the matter is that simply put, regardless of how much work AP did with that offense, the offense wasn't the reason why they were a playoff contender this year, they would of lost a healthy 3-4 more games if that defense was anywhere as bad as they were 2 years ago.

 

Now you tell me, regardless of how great your defense is, regardless of whether they are ranked 1st, or last, how many games will you lose if within the stretch of 16 games, you put up less then 30 point 5 times, and less then 20 once?

 

And mind you, this was with the same offense that would struggle to even put up 20 points last year. Check out the games they lost this season, every game Denver lost, they lost because they didn't score a lot of points, and the defense couldn't step up.

Edited February 21, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Ok so I think you are forgetting something Mike, Senor Shanahan has found and CREATED 1000 yard rushers anywhere he has ever been. He took Tim Hightower and made him a 1000 yard type of back. He took an obscure late round pick in TD and made him one of the greatest runners ever, and seriously looking through his career he has done it everywhere. So to say Morris would not have had success is nuts, Shanahans history says he would have been a 1K yard rusher. Oh and that ZBS is helping RG3 as much as Morris.

 

Flacco did what RG3 did, and before you say oh it was the defense. That was a defense under Mike Mattison, arguably the worst D coordinator in our history. He took a amped up pass rush and made them the bottom 5, blitzed half the time and still managed ot only get 37 sacks on the season....by everybody. IT was a putrid defense. And you cant say Ray Rice either.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

You make a great point, but you can ask the same question right back, how many games would the Vikings have lost without AP playing the way he was? I bet that number is a lot greater than if the defense was closer to the back of the league.

 

Christian Ponders stats were inflated because of teams stacking the box constantly. That's something that can be said with surety.

[OSUViking 505]

Why do some of you people think we would win 6 games without AP. That's completely lulzy.

 

Also, it's hard to say that AP's season wasn't the greatest... in terms of impact. Statistically? Probably not. I'll concede the statistics argument, but AP's season is seriously why we got into the playoffs. You can bring up the defense all you want (and the "other" weapons), but at the end of the day if AP isn't running the ball we aren't even in a position to fight for the WC.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

You make a great point, but you can ask the same question right back, how many games would the Vikings have lost without AP playing the way he was? I bet that number is a lot greater than if the defense was closer to the back of the league.

 

Christian Ponders stats were inflated because of teams stacking the box constantly. That's something that can be said with surety.

 

Nobody is denying that AP was the MVP of the Vikings. But he was the MVP of arguably the worst offense in the playoffs, and while he was the most successful individual of the team, the team's biggest reason for making the playoffs was because of the improvements on defense, not the offense, or anything AP did.

 

Regardless of how good the Broncos' defense was down the stretch, the offense was the biggest difference and without the way Manning led that offense the Broncos probably would be in the same situation they were last year, and arguably don't make the playoffs. Let alone finish out the year 13-3.

 

Why do some of you people think we would win 6 games without AP. That's completely lulzy.

 

Also, it's hard to say that AP's season wasn't the greatest... in terms of impact. Statistically? Probably not. I'll concede the statistics argument, but AP's season is seriously why we got into the playoffs. You can bring up the defense all you want (and the "other" weapons), but at the end of the day if AP isn't running the ball we aren't even in a position to fight for the WC.

 

Is that so?

 

So let's say that, this past season's offense was combined with two season's ago defense. The one that gave up more points then the offense scored. Would they still make the playoffs?

 

Would they still be a 10 win team with AP's 2000 yards rushing, 200 yards receiving and 13 TDs on a average offense and an awful defense?

[OSUViking 505]

Is that so?

 

So let's say that, this past season's offense was combined with two season's ago defense. The one that gave up more points then the offense scored. Would they still make the playoffs?

 

Would they still be a 10 win team with AP's 2000 yards rushing, 200 yards receiving and 13 TDs on a average offense and an awful defense?

 

... Touche. Hold that thought while I try to think of a counter argument.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Why is the quality of the Vikings D bringing into question Peterson's impact or eligibility of the MVP award?

 

ESPECIALLY knowing that the Broncos fielded arguably the best defense in 2012.

 

4 teams forced more turnovers. 3 teams allowed fewer points. 2 teams had more defensive scoring plays. 1 team allowed fewer yards. No team accumulated more sacks. No team allowed fewer yards per play. No team had a better stop rate on 3rd down.

 

I don't and won't discredit any offensive player for the play of their D alone... But once again, Dmac's own logic proves why Peyton doesn't and shouldn't get the award.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Why is the quality of the Vikings D bringing into question Peterson's impact or eligibility of the MVP award?

 

ESPECIALLY knowing that the Broncos fielded arguably the best defense in 2012.

 

4 teams forced more turnovers. 3 teams allowed fewer points. 2 teams had more defensive scoring plays. 1 team allowed fewer yards. No team accumulated more sacks. No team allowed fewer yards per play. No team had a better stop rate on 3rd down.

 

I don't and won't discredit any offensive player for the play of their D alone... But once again, Dmac's own logic proves why Peyton doesn't and shouldn't get the award.

 

 

Especially since the Broncos D was 20th in 2011 and 24th in points scored.

 

That defense improved a lot.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Why is the quality of the Vikings D bringing into question Peterson's impact or eligibility of the MVP award?

 

ESPECIALLY knowing that the Broncos fielded arguably the best defense in 2012.

 

4 teams forced more turnovers. 3 teams allowed fewer points. 2 teams had more defensive scoring plays. 1 team allowed fewer yards. No team accumulated more sacks. No team allowed fewer yards per play. No team had a better stop rate on 3rd down.

 

I don't and won't discredit any offensive player for the play of their D alone... But once again, Dmac's own logic proves why Peyton doesn't and shouldn't get the award.

 

Not really. I already touched on this very same subject.

 

AP's impact in making that offense better doesn't make the playoffs unless if the defense plays a key role because they were a average offense in terms of production. And once again, the offense wasn't the biggest reason the Vikings were a playoff team, the defense was. Hence the reason its being bought up.

 

But unlike with AP and how he carried his offense to be average, Manning carried his to be prolific. Regardless of whether the Broncos have a #1 defense or the #32 ranked defense, your are going to win way more games then you are going to lose when you can put up 30+ points every game. An argument can be made that the offense was the biggest reason for the Broncos success. That same argument cannot be made for the Vikings.

 

Also, Vikingsfan we need to play each other in the madden league!! >_>

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

So, let me get this straight.

 

Ap who has one of the best seasons for any Rb ever has to give a lot of credit to his defense for carrying him... Yet Peyton Manning who has a much better defense, puts together a less impressive season than AP but gets all the credit for himself.

 

[housemd 338]

The only real "problem" against AP I see here is that he thought he deserved to win the MVP.

 

Other than that,silly arguments.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Not really. I already touched on this very same subject.

 

AP's impact in making that offense better doesn't make the playoffs unless if the defense plays a key role because they were a average offense in terms of production. And once again, the offense wasn't the biggest reason the Vikings were a playoff team, the defense was. Hence the reason its being bought up.

 

But unlike with AP and how he carried his offense to be average, Manning carried his to be prolific. Regardless of whether the Broncos have a #1 defense or the #32 ranked defense, your are going to win way more games then you are going to lose when you can put up 30+ points every game. An argument can be made that the offense was the biggest reason for the Broncos success. That same argument cannot be made for the Vikings.

 

Also, Vikingsfan we need to play each other in the madden league!! >_>

 

How can that be an argument base though? That's dumb. If you are rushing the ball, then you are obviously playing the "clock" game. If the other offense doesn't have the ball, then it doesn't matter if your offense only scores 14 - 21 points. It has NOTHING to do with Petersons MVP season. Peterson can't control what the defense does on the field when he's sitting on the side line. Just as Peyton can't control it in the same aspect. A ridiculous running game isn't prolific, but a great passing game is? I think some guys on here are looking at it in the wrong light. Just because an offense doesn't seem "explosive" or "exciting" to watch on TV doesn't mean it isn't prolific. Let's also consider how much different the two positions are.

 

I think it was much more amazing what Peterson did, as opposed to what Rodgers and Manning accomplished on their respective teams at their positions. We see a quarterback (or two) do what those two guys did this year, every year. How often do we get to see running backs accomplish what Adrian Peterson did?

 

I'm also trying to figure out why you guys all think that if Adrian Peterson wasn't on the Vikings, they win more than 5 or 6 games. Do you guys really think that the defense was going to win that many games for them? If that's the case, I think this is just a matter of people trying to devalue offenses on here. Much more so, you are completely lacking any respect for a strong running game in the NFL.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

Let's all....take a look at something here shall we?

 

Peyton Manning's numbers are good...but not as...prolific...as some are attempting to say.

 

I know Peyton didn't play at all last season, but I think it's worth noting his numbers in 2010, his final year with the Colts.

 

GP CMP ATT CMP% Yards AVG TD LNG INT FUM RATING 2010

16 450 679 66.3 4,700 6.92 33 73 17 2 91.9

 

16 400 583 68.6 4,659 7.99 37 71 11 2 105.8 2012

 

16 336 497 67.6 4,557 9.17 49 80 10 4 121.1 2004

 

Peyton's best year in Indy (and career) above as well for reference.^

 

To me, there's not a huge difference...outside of rating...which tends to be overrated anyway. Peyton threw less times because he actually had a running game in Denver, unlike Indy. Nor, would I jump out and say that this is a 'prolific' year for Manning, pretty normal Peyton Manning year, not even the best of his career...which was in 20004 easily. This was a typical Manning year. Nothing really all that special about it.

 

Mind you, this Broncos team went to the playoffs last year with Tim Tebow at the helm...while Peyton Manning was still under the Colts payroll and watched his former team go to an astounding 2-14 record without him.

 

What I'm getting at is...Peyton is good, we all understand that, but he was NOT MVP material last year, let alone the QB that meant the most to his team. That title belongs to Aaron Rodgers...who I would've considered an MVP candidate over Peyton. Yet...I don't understand how you crown a slightly above average Peyton year where he has the COMPLETE team around him defensively, better receivers than he had in Indy in 2010, AND he had a running game with Willis McGahee, Knowshon Moreno and whoever else showed up in the backfield...and he produces about at the same level as he did with Reggie Wayne, young Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, no run game...and poor TE game...with a much worse offensive line.

 

This does not make sense in any way shape or form, not the MVP at his position, and certainly not the better choice over AP, who literally had the best year of his life..almost surpassing a HOF'ers single season effort...who's been on the same Vikings squad that has slightly improved since he first got there, but not by much...hasn't reached the playoffs since Brett Favre came to town. Yet....Christian Ponder's play is suddenly, elevated because of AP? What? If 40 yr old, injury riddled to who knows what extent Brett Favre can get the Vikes to the NFC Championship, why the fuck can't Christian Ponder do the same? AP elevated Christian Ponder's play from shit to slightly below average. Not saying much there.

 

AP means more to his team than Peyton. Period. Hence, why he is the MVP.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Julio4Ever

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

So, let me get this straight.

 

Ap who has one of the best seasons for any Rb ever has to give a lot of credit to his defense for carrying him... Yet Peyton Manning who has a much better defense, puts together a less impressive season than AP but gets all the credit for himself.

 

 

The defense didn't carry AP, not really sure how anyone can pull that out of what I've said so far. Nor have I said that Manning deserves all the credit to himself.

 

And less impressive in terms of what? In terms of individual numbers? Or overall team impact impact? You tell me, one guy leads his previously average offense to being average, the other leads his bad offense to being great. Wonder who made more impact.

 

As great of numbers as AP put up, that offense -as a unit- was not all that good in most games. Because without the defense performing better, and ultimately leading to more wins, AP's would have no case for MVP regardless of how good his individual numbers were. It'd be no different then what CJ pulled off 3 years ago.

 

The same can't be said for Manning and the Broncos, rather, it's the opposite. Regardless of how well the defense played, the Broncos would still be a playoff contender because they were scoring a ton of points every game, and just like AP carried his offense, Manning carried his, except Manning carried his better. I'd even wager that if anything, the defense and the amount of sacks they got this year and the 3 and outs they got was because teams were playing catch up. A massive amount of the Broncos sacks came in the 4th, as did INTs, PD, etc.

 

How can that be an argument base though? That's dumb. If you are rushing the ball, then you are obviously playing the "clock" game. If the other offense doesn't have the ball, then it doesn't matter if your offense only scores 14 - 21 points. It has NOTHING to do with Petersons MVP season. Peterson can't control what the defense does on the field when he's sitting on the side line. Just as Peyton can't control it in the same aspect. A ridiculous running game isn't prolific, but a great passing game is? I think some guys on here are looking at it in the wrong light. Just because an offense doesn't seem "explosive" or "exciting" to watch on TV doesn't mean it isn't prolific. Let's also consider how much different the two positions are.

 

Except, they weren't playing the clock game last year. There isn't a single statistic that you could pull up outside of rushing yards, and the T/O differential which is as much as defensive stat as it is an offensive one that could help you make the case they were playing to control the clock. And if they were, they were failing. The fact of the matter is that the Vikings offense as a unit were just not all that good.

 

I think it was much more amazing what Peterson did, as opposed to what Rodgers and Manning accomplished on their respective teams at their positions. We see a quarterback (or two) do what those two guys did this year, every year. How often do we get to see running backs accomplish what Adrian Peterson did?

 

I'm also trying to figure out why you guys all think that if Adrian Peterson wasn't on the Vikings, they win more than 5 or 6 games. Do you guys really think that the defense was going to win that many games for them? If that's the case, I think this is just a matter of people trying to devalue offenses on here. Much more so, you are completely lacking any respect for a strong running game in the NFL.

 

All you keep doing is the same thing that everyone else keeps doing on this thread. Making a case for why AP won the OPOTY not why he was the most deserving the MVP award.

 

How well players have put up numbers individually in the past that play Manning's position including Manning himself is extremely irrelevant and I don't see why people keep trying to bring this up as a reason why Manning shouldn't win MVP. All that matters was last season, and how much impact Manning, AP, and anyone else in this topic played in their team's overall performance.

 

Did AP's impact as a rusher make the Vikings a more competitive team then Manning's impact as a passer did the Broncos?

[RazorStar 4,025]

Peyton's stats were quite a bit better this year than his 2010 season, the main reason for that is his YPA which was a full yard higher, his turnovers decreased by a good amount, and his touchdowns increased by a good amount as well (6.3% of throws compared to 4.9% in 2010). Was he the MVP? Nah, I don't think so, but his regular season game was much better here than in Indy the past few years. His postseason was the same though. In any case, JJ Watt or Adrian Peterson he is not, his season was not historic like those guys and we would be in the playoffs without him because our division is that weak. However the difference between 10 wins and 13 is what Peyton gave us.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Let's all....take a look at something here shall we?

 

Peyton Manning's numbers are good...but not as...prolific...as some are attempting to say.

 

I know Peyton didn't play at all last season, but I think it's worth noting his numbers in 2010, his final year with the Colts.

 

GP CMP ATT CMP% Yards AVG TD LNG INT FUM RATING 2010

16 450 679 66.3 4,700 6.92 33 73 17 2 91.9

 

16 400 583 68.6 4,659 7.99 37 71 11 2 105.8 2012

 

16 336 497 67.6 4,557 9.17 49 80 10 4 121.1 2004

 

Peyton's best year in Indy (and career) above as well for reference.^

 

To me, there's not a huge difference...outside of rating...which tends to be overrated anyway. Peyton threw less times because he actually had a running game in Denver, unlike Indy. Nor, would I jump out and say that this is a 'prolific' year for Manning, pretty normal Peyton Manning year, not even the best of his career...which was in 20004 easily. This was a typical Manning year. Nothing really all that special about it.

 

Mind you, this Broncos team went to the playoffs last year with Tim Tebow at the helm...while Peyton Manning was still under the Colts payroll and watched his former team go to an astounding 2-14 record without him.

 

What I'm getting at is...Peyton is good, we all understand that, but he was NOT MVP material last year, let alone the QB that meant the most to his team. That title belongs to Aaron Rodgers...who I would've considered an MVP candidate over Peyton. Yet...I don't understand how you crown a slightly above average Peyton year where he has the COMPLETE team around him defensively, better receivers than he had in Indy in 2010, AND he had a running game with Willis McGahee, Knowshon Moreno and whoever else showed up in the backfield...and he produces about at the same level as he did with Reggie Wayne, young Pierre Garcon, Austin Collie, no run game...and poor TE game...with a much worse offensive line.

 

This does not make sense in any way shape or form, not the MVP at his position, and certainly not the better choice over AP, who literally had the best year of his life..almost surpassing a HOF'ers single season effort...who's been on the same Vikings squad that has slightly improved since he first got there, but not by much...hasn't reached the playoffs since Brett Favre came to town. Yet....Christian Ponder's play is suddenly, elevated because of AP? What? If 40 yr old, injury riddled to who knows what extent Brett Favre can get the Vikes to the NFC Championship, why the fuck can't Christian Ponder do the same? AP elevated Christian Ponder's play from shit to slightly below average. Not saying much there.

 

AP means more to his team than Peyton. Period. Hence, why he is the MVP.

 

Gee, IDK, because, a "slightly above average" Manning year turned around one of the worst offenses in the NFL into a powerhouse and arguably the biggest reason the Broncos was 13-3. Whereas the "great" AP season turned his offense into an average one and wasn't the biggest reason the Vikings went 10-6?

[SteelersNation36 128]

Gee, IDK, because, a "slightly above average" Manning year turned around one of the worst offenses in the NFL into a powerhouse and arguably the biggest reason the Broncos was 13-3. Whereas the "great" AP season turned his offense into an average one and wasn't the biggest reason the Vikings went 10-6?

 

The Broncos also got to play the Raiders, Chiefs and Chargers twice. That division is terrible. So you're saying if AP isn't playing the vikings still go 10-6? They don't even go 8-8 without AP.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The Broncos also got to play the Raiders, Chiefs and Chargers twice. That division is terrible. So you're saying if AP isn't playing the vikings still go 10-6? They don't even go 8-8 without AP.

 

Yea. They'd probably also go 8-8, if not worse if their defense gives up more points then their offense a game regardless of how great AP's individual numbers were. As they did two years ago.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Well, according to your argument here - then there are a LOT of MVP awards you shouldn't agree with at all.

 

2007 Tom Brady

2006 LaDainian Tomlinson

2001, 2000, 1999 Kurt Warner/Marshall Faulk (As the team was already great as a whole)

Steve Young? Joe Montana? Etc. So, so many names have won MVP with an already great team around them. Are you saying that you don't agree with any of them?

 

In 2007 Tom Brady had a solid defense AND Randy Moss. Wouldn't that make him immediately disqualified for the MVP under your suggestion that the individual numbers don't mean as much as their worth to the team in general? You can make an argument that 07, 06, 01, 2000, 99 teams were ALL playoff teams without those guys. Perhaps less for the Tom Brady 2007, but I could attempt at that one. I just don't see your argument here making too much sense with the way you are going about it.

 

MVP has GOT to take majority account of individual stats. The team doesn't win the award, a single player does. If a guy is mediocre, but the team is so terrible that they would have been 0-16 without him, but finished with 4 wins because they had him have a few good games, wouldn't that mean he is more worthy to that team as opposed to an all-pro quarterback that has a GREAT backup sitting on the bench to come in and replace him? What type of argument are you waging here? Is it the fact that Peyton Manning performed better at his position than AP, or is it that AP didn't mean much to his team?

 

Even with your argument, there's no sense being made. The Broncos won a playoff game last year with Tim Tebow, who had a great defense. That defense was even better this year, and Peyton Manning couldn't do ANY better. So how is he worth more? I agree Peyton made that offense better, but we knew that going in. He didn't help that team achieve MORE. Peterson DID.

 

I love that no one wants to give Peterson credit for the Vikings success this year, but without them they probably wouldn't even have a 1,000 yard rusher on the field. Sorry, but without Peterson, the defense doesn't get you into the playoffs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply naive. You need some sort of offensive plays being made. Adrian Peterson rushed for 2000+ yards, and you think that he didn't make that offense substantially better than they would have been without him? Please.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Rain Man

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

This just might be the worst thread that Dmac has ever created...

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

Dmac is also entirely ignoring one HUGE fact.

 

The Vikings run-game gave the defense all sorts of breathing time. The Vikings offense wasn't prolific in the sense of scoring a ton of points, but with AP grinding the clock, the defense got a lot more breaks than they have had previously. That definitely affects how they play down the stretch of the game and of the season.

 

So the defense also has to give credit to AP.

 

Your argument also fails because of the following:

 

Just because a terrible defense became a mediocre one, does NOT mean that they are somehow responsible for the team's turnaround. In a sense, I guess you can say that, but it's a dumb argument. All the defense did was finally, finally, pull their weight. They were *average*. The greatest run-game in the history of all run-games won't do much with a terribad defense.

 

Hell, the greatest pass game in the history of pass games will probably still lose a lot with a terribad defense. Just because the defense is finally *average* doesn't mean they get the credit for the Vikes playoff run.

 

The Broncos fan on here even disagrees with you.

 

If we went by Dmac's logic, you can definitely name that trophy the MVQ award, because no other position is ever getting it.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Omerta+ 1,206]

To tag onto what Thanatos said. I was thinking about this as well. Yaaayyy manning an sore 38 points in one game. Lets build him a trophy and polish his asshole.

 

The problem is that in a running game you dont have to score 38 points. You can run the ball, score 21 and win most games because you keep the opposition on the Bench. We try it every year when we play Brady. Run the ball and keep him off the field as much as possible.

 

The vikings were able to win so many games because they would get 21 points or so and then they would be able to sit on the lead and run it out. All the while giving guys like A rod about 5 minutes to beat them.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Well, according to your argument here - then there are a LOT of MVP awards you shouldn't agree with at all.

 

2007 Tom Brady

2006 LaDainian Tomlinson

2001, 2000, 1999 Kurt Warner/Marshall Faulk (As the team was already great as a whole)

Steve Young? Joe Montana? Etc. So, so many names have won MVP with an already great team around them. Are you saying that you don't agree with any of them?

 

In 2007 Tom Brady had a solid defense AND Randy Moss. Wouldn't that make him immediately disqualified for the MVP under your suggestion that the individual numbers don't mean as much as their worth to the team in general? You can make an argument that 07, 06, 01, 2000, 99 teams were ALL playoff teams without those guys. Perhaps less for the Tom Brady 2007, but I could attempt at that one. I just don't see your argument here making too much sense with the way you are going about it.

 

 

MVP has GOT to take majority account of individual stats. The team doesn't win the award, a single player does. If a guy is mediocre, but the team is so terrible that they would have been 0-16 without him, but finished with 4 wins because they had him have a few good games, wouldn't that mean he is more worthy to that team as opposed to an all-pro quarterback that has a GREAT backup sitting on the bench to come in and replace him? What type of argument are you waging here? Is it the fact that Peyton Manning performed better at his position than AP, or is it that AP didn't mean much to his team?

 

Even with your argument, there's no sense being made. The Broncos won a playoff game last year with Tim Tebow, who had a great defense. That defense was even better this year, and Peyton Manning couldn't do ANY better. So how is he worth more? I agree Peyton made that offense better, but we knew that going in. He didn't help that team achieve MORE. Peterson DID.

 

I love that no one wants to give Peterson credit for the Vikings success this year, but without them they probably wouldn't even have a 1,000 yard rusher on the field. Sorry, but without Peterson, the defense doesn't get you into the playoffs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply naive. You need some sort of offensive plays being made. Adrian Peterson rushed for 2000+ yards, and you think that he didn't make that offense substantially better than they would have been without him? Please.

 

You are really using the 2007 season by Brady? Really? They had one of the greatest offenses of all time that season and it was led by Brady. They were scoring nearly 37 points per games, the second closest offense to them scored almost 10 less points a game. Can you give me a bigger reason for that offense's success, and ultimately that whole team's success that (outside of BB) as to why they were so great besides Brady?

 

Anyway, I'm making a case for Manning, not for any of these guys winning or not winning it.

 

It has nothing to do the supporting cast but has everything to do with the simple fact that in winning the NFL's MVP award, it alludes to you being the biggest reason for your team's success. And while both of these guys were big reasons for their team's success, the Manning led Broncos won so many games because they were putting up great numbers regardless of the defense's performance. Once again, that statement does not hold up for the Vikings because despite AP's great numbers, the defense played a role equally as important, and in some case more important then anything AP or that offense did. So because the former can be said about one individual and later is said about the other, the former makes a better MVP candidate.

 

Dmac is also entirely ignoring one HUGE fact.

 

The Vikings run-game gave the defense all sorts of breathing time. The Vikings offense wasn't prolific in the sense of scoring a ton of points, but with AP grinding the clock, the defense got a lot more breaks than they have had previously. That definitely affects how they play down the stretch of the game and of the season.

 

So the defense also has to give credit to AP.

 

This will pretty much cover what Ngata alluded to so I'll just answer both of those at the same time.

 

It doesn't hold up with the Vikings. As I told Rain Man, the Vikings offense did not grind the clock out, nor did they successfully run that type of offense.

 

The defense was on the field on a per game basis longer then the offense was, almost a whole 4 minutes more. The defense ran more plays a game then the offense. Additionally, the Vikings were below average on 3rd down conversion percentage as well as total 3rd downs made per games on offense.

 

The whole grind out the clock thing by having a great run game works in theory but it holds no water in this conversation as the Vikings didn't do so successfully.

 

 

Your argument also fails because of the following:

 

Just because a terrible defense became a mediocre one, does NOT mean that they are somehow responsible for the team's turnaround. In a sense, I guess you can say that, but it's a dumb argument. All the defense did was finally, finally, pull their weight. They were *average*. The greatest run-game in the history of all run-games won't do much with a terribad defense.

 

Hell, the greatest pass game in the history of pass games will probably still lose a lot with a terribad defense. Just because the defense is finally *average* doesn't mean they get the credit for the Vikes playoff run.

 

The Broncos fan on here even disagrees with you.

 

If we went by Dmac's logic, you can definitely name that trophy the MVQ award, because no other position is ever getting it.

 

This point I can agree with. There are a lot of things that go into one team improving from one year to the next.

 

But like I said, this offense this season barely saw a jump in any offensive category. If the defense was the same way, barely improving, the Vikings wouldn't be where they were at the end of the season.

 

The defense saw a major jump in production whereas the offense didn't. And the defense playing as well as it was was the alpha reason for at least 3 of the Vikings wins.

 

How often can you say that about the Broncos last year? Once? Twice maybe?

 

And yea, just because of the position played most seasons the QB will win the MVP, but when you look at a season like the Chargers in 2006 where LT was the biggest reason for their offensive success, how does that stack up to AP's? If AP put up those kind of numbers, and was effective in more then just running the football, there'd be no argument coming from me as the offense probably would of been better.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

This just might be the worst thread that Dmac has ever created...

 

 

Right, and while you are at it, lemme know how many football related threads on TGP this offseason has garnered the activity this thread has.