The inconsistencies of Peter King's MVP voting

Peter King stole my lunch hour, and I’ll never have it back. Because while I should have been leisurely surfing the web for a sandwich break from my otherwise hectic work day, I felt compelled to write for the first time in months.

A significant portion of King's Monday Morning Quarterback column today is dedicated to his thoughts on the NFL MVP voting. King has decided to cast his vote for Peyton Manning, with Matt Ryan, Chad Pennington, DeAngelo Williams, and James Harrison rounding out his ballot.

Manning is a solid choice, and might in fact have been the player most valuable to his team. As a Panthers’ fan, I’d strenuously offer biased arguments on behalf of Williams (and will do so below), who led the NFL in rushing touchdowns, total touchdowns, and yards per carry (minimum 200 carries). He was the dominant cog in Carolina’s offense which went 12-4 and earned a division title and #2 playoff seed. But, I can’t objectively argue too much with the overall job Manning did in leading the patchwork Colts to a playoff berth.

In explaining his top-five, King says that Williams “made a late charge for Carolina, scoring 11 touchdowns in four late-season games, but check out the pedestrian first half of his season: The Panthers went 6-2, and Williams rushed for 468 yards and three touchdowns in the six wins.” Part of this statement is actually incorrect; SI.com shows Williams with 522 rushing yards through the first eight games as opposed to the 468 noted by King. Not to nitpick facts, Peter, but they’re called facts for a reason. And, to nitpick further, if you wanted to really present a fair argument you would mention Williams' two receiving touchdowns or the fact that he helped the Panthers' offense gain stability and credibility and develop confidence while Steve Smith sat out the first two games of the season...but why let facts get in the way of a Peyton Manning slurp job disguised as an MVP article?

If the season were eight games long, I’d agree that DeAngelo Williams would not have been the most valuable player in the league. However, it's what Williams did in the second half of the season - as he grew into the best running back in the league - that made him an MVP candidate. Obviously, being the best running back, or even the best offensive player in the league (if you wanted to make such an argument for Williams) doesn’t equate to being the most valuable player. And there are many, many reasons to argue another player as being more “valuable”; that’s the beauty of sports and the fandom that comes alongside it.

So if you wanted to say that Williams isn’t deserving of the MVP award because he had a relatively average first-half of the season, despite his monster second half, I might be content to leave it alone…even though it flies in the face of so many sports clichés about “finishing strong” or “playing hard when it matters”…so long as you’re consistent in applying your argument about having an average first-half to other players you are considering to be most valuable. Because apparently, if you’re coming back from injury and have a “pedestrian” first-half of the season, then all is forgiven in the eyes of Peter King, whether the facts support that argument or not.

“Now onto the MVP issue,” writes King. “My take is Manning was the keystone to this team starting 3-4 instead of being out of it at 1-6. In the final nine games, Manning's 9-0 record led all NFL quarterbacks, Manning's 72-percent accuracy led all NFL quarterbacks, and Manning's 17-to-3 touchdown-to-interception (plus-14) differential led all NFL quarterbacks.”

Huh?

How do you ignore Williams’ stats over the last eight games (nine, really, since he did also carve up Atlanta in a very meaningful game in week 8) and deride his “pedestrian” first half of the season while ignoring Manning’s stats over that same time frame? Especially when Manning’s numbers were as bad as they were? Is it fair to exclude the fact that Manning threw 10 TD’s against 9 interceptions in those first seven games just because he was injured? Is it fair to exclude discussion of Manning handing Green Bay a victory with a zero TD, two INT day, or the two INT’s that Manning tossed while the Colts choked on a 14-6 lead and lost to Tennessee? Is it revisionist history to laud Manning as the “keystone” to that 3-4 record and, by default, a 2-game swing from King’s aforementioned visions of a 1-6 record without really emphasizing that the Houston game was won by Gary Brackett’s fumble recovery for a touchdown?

While Manning may have gone undefeated in his last nine games, Williams emerged as the most dominant running back in football despite splitting carries with (and losing touchdowns to) rookie Jonathan Stewart. I’d love to see some statistical comparisons of Williams’ last eight games with the second halves of other memorable seasons for running backs, but I think it might be hard to top Williams’ line: 153 carries, 993 yards, 15 TD’s, and a scintillating 6.5 yards per carry. He scored a touchdown in every game of this stretch but one – the season-ender at New Orleans, where he racked up 178 yards (and more than 7 yards per carry). He scored touchdowns when it mattered, including four on the road in Green Bay in a knuckle-biting 35-31 victory and four more in the 34-28 overtime loss to the Giants that would have given the Panthers the first seed in the NFC.

Unfortunately, it is Stewart himself that will probably cost Williams the MVP. In this day and age, despite the fact that many successful teams are gaining their wins by splitting carries between running backs, it seems hard for writers to to vote for one-half of a tandem for MVP – even if one of the members was the best back in the league over the course of the entire season. Because, with apologies to Adrian Peterson (9 fumbles? Really?) and Michael Turner (overall beast but inconsistent from week to week with no-shows in the Falcons’ five losses – 3.6 YPC or less and 81 yards or less in each loss), Williams was indeed the best running back of 2008, whether part of a tandem or not. Or, said differently, Williams shouldn't be penalized for Stewart's 800-plus yards and 10 touchdowns because Williams was clearly more valuable to the team based on how and (usually) when they each were used, and Williams numbers alone stand out as significant regardless of what his backfield teammate accomplished alongside him.

(As an aside, I also wonder how many MVP votes Jon Kasay’s missed field goal at the end of regulation in the Meadowlands cost Williams. If Kasay nailed that kick, then the lead story on Sportscenter would have been the Panthers as the #1 seed and Williams four TD’s in a monster prime-time game, instead of the Giants comeback victory. But I digress, as I often do on my lunch hour...)

In closing the argument for Williams, I’d offer every Carolina fan’s favorite statistic from DeAngelo’s memorable season: zero. As in, the number of times that Williams put the ball on the ground this year. 253 carries, 22 receptions, zero fumbles. Not even zero lost fumbles, mind you – as in, “Williams fumbles but the Panthers get the ball back.” No; Williams didn’t even put the ball on the ground once for the Panthers to lose.

So that’s my case for Williams as MVP. Hey, if you think Manning’s a better choice and was more valuable to his team, I can’t argue with that overall sentiment. I can’t argue much with Matt Ryan either, when you consider the overriding principle of value to one's team.

I’m not arguing that Manning wasn’t the MVP. If we wins, he’s certainly deserving. But at least be consistent in your argument, Peter. You can’t trumpet Manning’s second-half charge – injury-related or not – while dismissing Williams “pedestrian” first half. It’s almost 2009; you have to be better than that.