Originally Posted by Diable

I would be willing to bet that having one of the worst offenses in the league hurts your raw numbers on defense. I wonder if we can find the rankings for number of plays run, time of possession or how many times the offense has turned the ball over. From just watching the game I'd have to assume that having a completely atrocious offense would hurt your defense.

Originally Posted by croco

Yards per game without context is a completely irrelevant statistic. Do you realize how laughably bad the Cardinals offense is? I struggle to consider them a professional offense right now. They aren't doing anything to support the team. You can't look at volume numbers and statistics in a vacuum, this is always going to be misleading. If your offense puts you in bad spots as frequently, you are inevitably going to give up more points. Even worse than losing the field position battle, opponents have scored 8 touchdowns against them when the Cardinals defense wasn't on the field (5 INT returns for TDs, 3 fumble returns for TDs).

The Cardinals are 1st in defensive passer rating, 3rd in third down defense, 4th in takeaways and 5th in defense DVOA. They have a championship caliber defense and a 0-16 type of offense.

Originally Posted by croco

I don't hand out bonus points if your quarterback happens to be bad and your entire offense struggles even with a back like Peterson. If running the ball was so important, his impact should yield better results for the entire offense. This isn't a new phenomenon, this has been the case throughout the history of the NFL. A lot of great backs have been on poor teams and/or below average offenses because as great as they were individually, their impact just isn't as significant. What has changed is that teams throw the ball more than ever, but it still comes down to efficiency in the passing game. Whether your pass/run ratio is 90/10 or 20/80, you better be efficient when you do decide to throw the ball.

When Minnesota has won this season, they have typically played well on defense. The only time the Vikings were truly an above average team since they drafted Peterson was when Favre had the great year in 2009.

In a league where wins are almost always based on efficiency in the passing game (teams with the higher passer rating are 196-43 this season), no player on the field has a bigger impact on the outcome than the quarterback. Thus, the MVP should be about who has the most impact, not which player had the most outstanding individual season combined with gaudy individual numbers.

Originally Posted by hobojoe

As captivating as Peterson's run at the record was, to me he's not even the runner up for reasons croco articulated earlier. Quarterbacks have a far greater impact on the game than running backs, even a runner as great as Peterson. That's just how it is. I would have Manning as the MVP with Rodgers and Brady after him. Even if you look at the Vikings, Ponder's play was more closely tied with their wins/losses than Peterson's. He was good and efficient at the beginning of the year when they got off to a 4-1 start (and Peterson was still working his way back), struggled in the middle of the year when they lost 5 of 7 and played well the last 3 weeks to help get them into the playoffs (0 INT in those games). Peyton Manning is the MVP.