MVP as we head out of November

[Basileus777]

Originally Posted by Halsey

I don't see what injury history has to do with being MVP. The MVP should go to the MVP. Past injuries are irrelevant to the discussion.

MVP awards are given partially based on storylines, Peterson's injury is a part of that.

[AntoinCD]

Originally Posted by P-L

You are so spoiled by how good of a season Adrian Peterson had. 80+ yards in a game is still a very good performance for a running back. Only five other running backs AVERAGED 80+ yards per game. Adrian Peterson averaged 80.5 yards per game in his six WORST games. Yeah, that's right. You could completely ignore Adrian Peterson's TEN BEST games, and he'd still be 6th in yards per game.

It's still a good performance. At that stage of the season he would have ranked approximately 7th or 8th in the league in yards and his yards per carry were 4.38. Once again that's nice production but not exactly elite, and he wasn't the sole reason the Vikings won those games. Any game after about week 6 or 7, yeah Peterson is why they won, but not those first few games and that is the point that so many are bringing up. Scroll through some of the pages in this thread and you will see comments such as the Vikings would rival the Chiefs without AD, Vikings would be one of the worst teams, Adrian Peterson carried the Vikings to all their wins etc etc

I'm not denying how good Peterson was this year and now the Vikings are in the playoffs I'm not stating he shouldn't be MVP, however some of the things being said in this thread are false

[Forenci]

Wait, so what your saying is that a player can't win a game by himself?

Interesting.

[J-Mike88]

Originally Posted by Halsey

I don't see what injury history has to do with being MVP. The MVP should go to the MVP. Past injuries are irrelevant to the discussion.

You're right. They should be. This is MVP, not "comeback player" of the year.

[J-Mike88]

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

It's still a good performance. At that stage of the season he would have ranked approximately 7th or 8th in the league in yards and his yards per carry were 4.38. Once again that's nice production but not exactly elite, and he wasn't the sole reason the Vikings won those games. Any game after about week 6 or 7, yeah Peterson is why they won, but not those first few games and that is the point that so many are bringing up. Scroll through some of the pages in this thread and you will see comments such as the Vikings would rival the Chiefs without AD, Vikings would be one of the worst teams, Adrian Peterson carried the Vikings to all their wins etc etc

Here's the thing you seem to be overlooking here. Let me try and illustrate it in a way you can easily understand.

About those first 5 games for the Vikings, when he wasn't racking up big #s but they still won 4 of them.

Opposing defenses were focused on stopping #28, as they always have been. He wasn't quite the same yet, but he still played. He was a great "decay" as we saw it open things up for Harvin. It worked.

You cannot blame him for such a small % of his record-setting 2,097 yards not coming in weeks 1-5. It was a miracle he was even out there that soon. He should have been on a "pitch count" early. Was he, Viking fans?

[LonghornsLegend]

Maybe it's just me, but people bringing up AD's first month or so of the season and using those stats as if they somehow make him any less deserving is pretty funny. Considering at that point he was just 8 months away from a severe ACL & MCL tear, I'd say his first 6 weeks of the season were just as impressive as the last half.

[J-Mike88]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

Maybe it's just me, but people bringing up AD's first month or so of the season and using those stats as if they somehow make him any less deserving is pretty funny..

No it's not just you.
And it is quite funny actually. Because they want to give the award to someone else, they convince themself that it's a legitimate point to dismiss the 2,097 total rushing yards because it wasn't exactly 140 yards every game Sept-Oct-Nov-Dec. They'd prefer it was more balanced.

[AntoinCD]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

Maybe it's just me, but people bringing up AD's first month or so of the season and using those stats as if they somehow make him any less deserving is pretty funny. Considering at that point he was just 8 months away from a severe ACL & MCL tear, I'd say his first 6 weeks of the season were just as impressive as the last half.

Originally Posted by J-Mike88

No it's not just you.
And it is quite funny actually. Because they want to give the award to someone else, they convince themself that it's a legitimate point to dismiss the 2,097 total rushing yards because it wasn't exactly 140 yards every game Sept-Oct-Nov-Dec. They'd prefer it was more balanced.

First of all JMike that's a ******** point and not even close to the one I was making. Seriously, look over the last few pages of this thread and I have categorically stated I don't see why AD shouldn't get MVP now the Vikings are in the playoffs. Who cares if his numbers were better later in the season because it is irrelevant to the point I was making.

LonghornsLegend, I wasn't trying to take away from Peterson's achievement and I do agree that the fact he achieved what he did after a relatively slow start (by his own standards) is phenomenal. However I don't see how it can be taken into account for MVP. If Peterson does win it then it's because he deserves it, not because he was great and just off an injury.

Here's my point, if people wish to say that Peterson is the most valuable player in the league then that's all I need to hear. But it's the guys who say that the Vikings were horrible and would be the worst team in the league without Peterson tearing **** up. I was simply disagreeing with those types of statement.

[Denver Bronco56]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

Maybe it's just me, but people bringing up AD's first month or so of the season and using those stats as if they somehow make him any less deserving is pretty funny. Considering at that point he was just 8 months away from a severe ACL & MCL tear, I'd say his first 6 weeks of the season were just as impressive as the last half.

The only reason i mentioned his first month was in response to Mannings couple bad games happened to come in the 1st five weeks.. both coming back from severe injuries... but no one pointed out AD also had a rough start to the season as did Manning

[Cigaro]

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

Here's my point, if people wish to say that Peterson is the most valuable player in the league then that's all I need to hear. But it's the guys who say that the Vikings were horrible and would be the worst team in the league without Peterson tearing **** up. I was simply disagreeing with those types of statement.

The award is for most valuable player, not most outstanding player. It seems to me that arguing that Peterson's is so valuable to the Vikings they'd be trash without him is a fair argument for the award.

[J-Mike88]

Take away any of them, Peterson, Manning, Rodgers, Brady, I don't think any team wins more than 5 games.

Of course, who knew Cassel could win 11 back a few years ago.

That's why you can't guess and why the award should totally be what they actually did, not what we might think their team would have done without them.

[49erNation85]

Originally Posted by J-Mike88

Take away any of them, Peterson, Manning, Rodgers, Brady, I don't think any team wins more than 5 games.

Of course, who knew Cassel could win 11 back a few years ago.

That's why you can't guess and why the award should totally be what they actually did, not what we might think their team would have done without them.

They could still make the play offs now. They got Ryan Mallet at back up . He was a steel of a draft pick for the pats. He should be starting some place else. but people were scared of his off the field issues.

[AntoinCD]

Originally Posted by Cigaro

The award is for most valuable player, not most outstanding player. It seems to me that arguing that Peterson's is so valuable to the Vikings they'd be trash without him is a fair argument for the award.

But it's not. They had decent production out of him to start the year and won 4 out of their first 5.

This is all completely speculative at this point. Are people saying that if you swap out Peterson for a decent RB they would be terrible? Because I disagree with that premises because they got decent production from him and won 4 games out of 5. However if they are saying that if you swap out Peterson with a terrible RB then they would be terrible then I agree. However if you swap out Aaron Rodgers with Brady Quinn the Packers are an absolutely terrible team. No running game, bad defense and now with Quinn a bad passing offense.

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

They could still make the play offs now. They got Ryan Mallet at back up . He was a steel of a draft pick for the pats. He should be starting some place else. but people were scared of his off the field issues.

It amazes me that people think Mallett is good just because he was drafted by the Pats. I think his ceiling is Chad Henne, but he hasn't done anything to prove he should be a starter or a good one at that.

[Bob Sanders Dreadlock]

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

But it's not. They had decent production out of him to start the year and won 4 out of their first 5.

This is all completely speculative at this point. Are people saying that if you swap out Peterson for a decent RB they would be terrible? Because I disagree with that premises because they got decent production from him and won 4 games out of 5. However if they are saying that if you swap out Peterson with a terrible RB then they would be terrible then I agree. However if you swap out Aaron Rodgers with Brady Quinn the Packers are an absolutely terrible team. No running game, bad defense and now with Quinn a bad passing offense.

Remember in the beginning of the year some people were starting the Percy Harvin for MVP bangwagon

[49ers1984]

Peterson should win it and if everyone else wins it is a mistake.