I've thought that football should have both a Best Player and a Most Valuable Player award. Peyton is obviously more valuable to his team than most QBs, but you could make the argument that Revis or Chris Johnson is a better player. In this case Peyton could be MVP (I mean, who the hell is Pierre Garcon?!?) and Revis/Johnson/whoeveryourlittleheartdesires could be Best Player. I think it would clear up of the subtle but real vagueness that exists with the award right now.
Sure. I'd be upset that Revis didn't get it, and I'd argue that his performance was reasonably good enough to warrant consideration, but he didn't get his team over the hump. And again, given that the voting would have happened after the entire postseason under my scenario, Sharper would probably be the odds-on favorite at this point, pending further play. I think you could legitimately make that argument in any sport, and I actually like it. That vagueness exists in every sport because there is definitely a difference in opinion between "most valuable" (overwhelmingly Manning this year) and "best player" Chris Johnson on offense and IMO Revis on defense. BTW: Chris Johnson did receive the OPoY award from the AP today. Well deserved, even if his team didn't appear in the postseason. I don't think anyone, even if Warner keeps throwing TDs with his eyes closed, can top Johnson's performance this year.
^Alio, we are looking at ONE player, not an entire team. I get your point, but it can be considered to some extent and not enough to take away a players performance. You can not pin a loss on a player who played outstanding through out the game and the season.
I'm not sure where you seemingly disagree. I said I'd still argue that Revis would deserve consideration (given that he had arguably the most dominant season his position had ever seen) but that if the Jets weren't in the playoffs, and Woodson performed as he did Sunday in Arizona, Sharper would deservedly be leading the pack now, pending his own performance this January. I just don't understand why the postseason doesn't count for these awards. Great players shine in the spotlight. At no point in the season are the lights as bright as in the postseason.
Hockey does it the best. Regular season MVP and playoff MVP over the course of the entire postseason, not just in the Finals (SB). Plus, they aren't scared to give it to a guy on the losing team(Fitz over Holmes last year). Waiting to vote until after the postseason simply gives the players who are still playing an unfair advantage. It'd be what, 6 weeks since CJ last played when they'd cast their votes?
CJ didn't receive a single vote as it was. Every player that did receive MVP votes was on a 1 or 2-seeded playoff team. Hopefully Revis makes the Woodson voters look dumb. I don't mean regular dumb, I mean "I support a new stadium in New Jersey because it won't have PSLs" dumb.
Honestly, I forgot all about the offensive award at first. Anyway, as I said, CJ would be incredibly hard to beat by any offensive player, even counting playoffs. Warner would have to play every game remaining the same way he played the Packers, and do it against either the Jets or Ravens in the Super Bowl, to come close to what Johnson did this year.
