Originally posted by 49erRider:
Originally posted by YouGotGored:
Oh, and CJ2K should have won MVP.
You have to either be kidding or clueless.
MVP means MOST VALUABLE PLAYER for a reason. The Titans were led to an 8-8 record. The real league MVP led his team to a 14-2 record and went to the Super Bowl. In other words, if CJ was truly the league's most valuable player, he would have led his team to a better record. Obviously Peyton Manning was more valuable, so was Drew Brees and Brett Favre. CJ isn't even top 3 in the MVP category.
I realize that under the current system the MVP goes to the best player on the most successful team (or something close to that). However, my statement above does not necessarily imply that Chris Johnson should be the sole league MVP under the current system. What I am suggesting is the the league MVP should go to the most dominant player in the league that year. If a player comes close to breaking one of the most coveted records in professional sports, he should have won the MVP (or co-MVP). Additionally, Johnson had one of the most statistically impressive seasons in NFL history (regardless of position). His teammate's poor performance, or his position for that matter (everybody knows QBs get more attention) should be irrelevant. Suffice it to say that a co-MVP should have been given to Johnson.
By the way, if I recall correctly, during Barry Sanders' MVP season (when he rushed for over 2000 yards) the Detroit Lions didn't make the playoffs. So even under this system, the MVP has been given to an individual who is just dominant. Even if his team was not.
**I want to add that I am not even a fan of Johnson. I just think he deserved at least a co-MVP. Kind of like how Patrick Willis deserved defensive player of the year his rookie season over Bob Sanders.