What is everyone’s definition of “Most Valuable Player”? In sports, you hear the arguments all the time–that the MVP award should go to a player whose most important to his individual team, or that the award should go to the best player in the given League.
NFL history has shown us that their MVP award is some weird cross between the two ideals. For example, in 2009, Brett Favre joined the Minnesota Vikings and took a team that had lost in the first round of the playoffs the year before and, while having his best season of his career (68.8% completion, 33 touchdowns, 7 interceptions, 4202 yards, 107.2 passer rating), took the Vikings to a 12-4 record which was good enough for the second seed in the NFC. Peyton Manning, however, won the award after his Indianapolis Colts won their first 14 games, with a statline of 68.6% completion, 33 touchdowns, 16 interceptions, 4500 yards, and a 99.9 passer rating. Favre, as a matter of fact, finished fourth in voting behind Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, and Manning–three quarterbacks whose teams had better records that season.
Interesting.
So when the question sifts to Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III and whether or not they should be considered for MVP voting, the question becomes why? Why are Griffin and Luck, who, as I highlighted in the previous article, don’t quite have the credentials that other great rookies have had, up for nomination? Is it their position more than their play? How strong, really, is their case for the MVP?
The quarterback position has always been regarded as the most important position on the field, but one could argue that the position has been overhyped when it comes to winning the award.
In the history of the Associated Press’s Most Valuable Player Award, voters have preferred quarterbacks and running backs to any other position on the field. 54 of the 57 awards given have gone to a quarterback (37 times) or a running back (17 times). No other offensive position has won the award, and the remaining three awards have gone to a defensive tackle, a defensive lineman, and a placekicker.
ProFootballWeekly brings up an interesting point about MVP bias:
Most would agree that the MVP should go to the player whose contributions have the greatest impact on the success of his team. But the MVP rarely fits this description. Instead, MVP voters tend to look at two things: (1) The league’s best teams, and (2) the quarterbacks and running backs on those teams. Of course, if someone gains 2,000 yards it grabs everyone’s attention, but that in itself is a flaw of the award. Some statistics are hollow, in that they mean very little to the success of the team. For example, Calvin Johnson is not far off the pace of setting a single-season record for receiving yards this season, but no one could argue he’s an MVP candidate — nor would they, because Johnson does not play quarterback or running back. On the other hand, if Chris Johnson was approaching Eric Dickerson’s single-season rushing mark for a 4-7 Titans squad, he would, at the very least, be part of the discussion. It’s a double standard.
Rookies are ignored. Defense, as a whole, is ignored. Wide receivers and tight ends have historically been ignored. And there is a better chance of seeing a man walk on Mars in our lifetime than witnessing an offensive lineman take home the honor.
Reggie Wayne, who has been having a career year for himself and Andrew Luck, has not once been mentioned for any type of award. How much recognition has Wayne received on any level for leading the NFL in targets and placing fourth in receptions and playing the role as much more than an ample cushion for any rookie quarterback?
MVP bias towards the quarterback position has gotten so ridiculous that Peyton Manning was considered a top candidate for the award despite not playing a single down due to a neck injury that sidelined him for the entirety of the season. As a matter of fact, Peyton Manning placed relatively high on the NFL’s “Top 100 Players of 2012” list–just for not playing! As ludicrous as it is, Colts fans would even tell you that Tom Brady’s value to his franchise is overrated due to the Patriots finishing 11-5 in 2008 without him; even if that feat is more of a testament to the quality of New England’s organization than the importance of Tom Brady.
But what about the other side of the argument? How much stock do you put into both rookies’ presence on the team? Luck’s Colts squad went 2-14 last season, and now they could capture ten wins on the season and become the third team in NFL history to make the playoffs after going 2-14 or worse the season before. Griffin has rejuvenated life into a franchise that not even Donovan McNabb could kick-start into action; his Redskins could make a playoff run and see postseason action for the first time since 2007.
The current MVP candidates–Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, J.J. Watt, Adrian Peterson–although their performances this season are best described as “ethereal” and they have certainly outplayed Luck and Griffin, Tom Brady’s Patriots already have more losses than they had last season, and they also made a Super Bowl appearance last year. Peyton Manning? His Broncos, though quarterbacked by Tim Tebow, won a playoff game in 2011. J.J. Watt’s Texans did the same last season, and Adrian Peterson’s squad is at 7-6 and third in the NFC North despite him being on track for 2,000 yards rushing this season. Which holds more weight? Besides that being the argument between Luck and Griffin for the Rookie of the Year Award, it can be used for the MVP award as well. What is more important for an individual award–wins or performance? If the former is the criteria you choose to use, then both Griffin and Luck have a fighting chance. The same is not so true for the latter, however.
Maybe we should just give the MVP to Seattle’s under-appreciated rookie Russell Wilson; he has a nice mix of both wins and performance under his sleeve. He even has his oh-so-necessary MVP moment of the year.
View “A Tale of Two MVP’s, Part 1” here.
Field Notes 