Well, since you made this post yesterday, would it change your desire to neg rep me if you knew that I agree with you as of today? I called it how I saw it mid-season. Admittedly, I did not respond very well in the debate that we had at the time. We traded neg rep. If you think you owe me + one more neg rep, then go ahead and take care of it when you've finally spread it around enough. I can admit that I was unresponsive/unfair to you in at least one of my posts. Believe it or not, I actually thought I was making an objective case for Peyton Manning that I believed at the time. Now I see things differently, but I'm still calling it how I see it---and I'm probably still "wrong."
At the time I wrote my previous posts, Manning had a couple of games where he threw a couple of picks. I figured the two-picks in a game thing would be an aberration and wash out over time, but the 16 picks in 14.75 games thing is too many for my tastes. Aaron Rogers even has better numbers, and his team finished the regular season a lot stronger than Mannings'.
To address one meta-MVP question that was alluded to a couple months ago on this thread, team success does matter. I think the question is how much it matters. Clearly, the dominate paradigm the voters use is that team success is very important and not going to the playoffs can make a player ineligible for the award. I don't take that hardline stance, but it matters in addition to statistical achievements.
Steven Jackson had a great year, but the Rams could have lost 15 games without him in the lineup too, so I don't think there's anyone who has him even in the top 10 for MVP. It does hurt Chris Johnson in my mind that his team missed the playoffs. Or let me put it this way: it has to have some affect on the vote if all other things are equal. But of course, all other things AREN'T equal. 2000 yards is a big accomplishment, and that alone warrants an MVP by my account.
When someone does something as special as run for 2000 yards, that is very valuable TO THE LEAGUE. I argue that a further distinction needs to be made. There needs to be a difference between most valuable player to a team and most valuable player to the league. Shawn Marion once said, "Steve Nash is the MVP of the league, but I am the MVP of the team." I think there's some insight in that comment. Leading your team to glory is something that I think is "valuable" to the league, but I don't think the League MVP award should be reduced to simply the player who contributed most to his team whose team was the best in the league. I think that it should take into consideration some transcendent accomplishments like 2000 yards. It turns out that accomplishing these things usually lead to team success too, but I don't think team success should be looked at as something that makes or breaks a player's candidacy---just another factor among many.
This is how it should have gone:
1. Chris Johnson winning MVP for the 2000 yard season. I think that 2000 yards is a decision rule unless a QB did something as impressive.
After that, I don't really see a lot of difference in VALUE of the top QBs to their teams. You could make the case for Drew Brees then replace the name with Phillip Rivers and I think the stories are very familiar, unless you want to quibble over certain statistics. If anything, I think this is a very good reason to give the award to Chris Johnson.
2. Drew Brees had the best QB rating + most touchdowns on the NFC #1 seed.
3. Rivers had best yards per average + high QB rating on team that finished as perhaps strongest team in NFL.
I'm not really sure I care beyond that point enough to argue for anyone.