In 1987, The Hawk won the MVP while on the last place cubbies. He was valuable but no matter how much the hawk did, the cubs sucked. Many agree that Dawson deserved it. Often times, the MVP is a popular player on a good team. That is precisely what happened in the NFL this year. Manning ran away with the MVP because he "carried" the team to the playoffs even though he was the fifth best QB in the league statistically. Yet warner's cards were 9-7 with the 2nd or third best an statistically.
Everyone knows what happened to the colts in the first round. The colts including manning played like an 8-8 team. The cards were a 9-7 team that are playing like a 13-3 team. Their defense and running game have come out of nowhere to make it to the NFC title game. I said that they needed to play 10% better to win. The cards played almost 100% better. The running game was insain and their defense was stupid good.
I am not surprised the cards blew out the panthers but I didn't expect them to win. My point is that you can have the MVP but it doesn't mean you win. I still think warner was more valuable to the cards during the season than manning, but neither could win in the playoffs without the rest of the team. If the defense and running game would have played better during the regular season giving the cards a better record at the same time yielding warner less valuable to the cards, would he have won the MVP?