In three of the past four years, the AP has awarded its NFL MVP and Offensive Player of the Year awards to different players. I don't understand how someone who plays on offense can be the league's most valuable player, yet not be its top offensive player. That has never made sense to me, and it seems as if the AP splits the vote and gives the Offensive Player of the Year award as a consolation prize to those who don't win the MVP.
Rodgers completed 343-of-502 passes (68.3 percent) for 4,643 yards, with 45 touchdowns and just six interceptions. He led the league in yards per attempt (9.25), and his quarterback rating of 122.5 broke the NFL's single-season record. He did all of that in just 15 games, as he sat out Green Bay's season finale against the Detroit Lions.
Brees had a remarkable season as well. The 33-year-old completed 468-of-657 passes for an NFL-record 5,476 yards, with 46 touchdowns and 14 interceptions. He led the league in completion percentage (71.2) and was second in passer rating (110.6).
Let's face it: The MVP award goes to the league's best player during a given season. The whole "who is more valuable" argument is nonsensical since there are so many different ways to measure that. Over the years, the AP's voters have given the MVP to the league's best offensive player, and the winner is typically on one of the league's top teams.
Using that criterion, should Rodgers have won both the MVP and Offensive Player of the Year awards? If he was the NFL's best player, wouldn't that mean he was also the league's best offensive player as well?
Again, Brees had an amazing season and no one should feel bad for Rodgers, who won the MVP the season after he took home a Super Bowl title and Super Bowl MVP award. I just think it's ridiculous that the two awards always seem to be split between the league's two top players.