Sometimes you have to wonder if radio blowhards say everything they mean and mean everything they say.  Is it a ploy to hook listeners?  Or does the guy/gal really believe this nonsense?  When Erik Kasilias questioned not only the margin, but the mere fact that Adrian Peterson was named NFL Rookie of the Year, was he just trying to be a contrarian for the sake of poaching someone's time slot?  I thought I would give Erik the benefit of the doubt, and look at a few rookies on the offensive side of the ball.

In order to perform this review, we have to establish the emaning of this award.  Many dolts in the media like to ask about the MVP, "Are we talking valuable or most outstanding?"  Um, it's not spelled V-O-U-T-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G, so let's go with value.  Of course, value can be quantified, but people still inject qualifiers, so the MVP is still debated.  With ROY, the same issue exists.  Is it most valuable rookie?  If so, more valuable than whom - teammates, cohorts at the same position, or just other rookies? 

Or is it most oustanding rookie?  Who had the most visible season?  If it is this criteria, then Peterson definitely should get the nod.  In fact, I would guess that as soon as AD attained yard 296, that the award was mailed to his home (fun fact: Marcus Robinson committed a goal line hold on what would have been Jamal Lewis' third TD against the Browns, and would have also given Lewis 305 yards that day, thus leaving Peterson 9 yards shy of the record).

Anyway, is it fair to neglect the other rookie campaigns based upon this outstanding performance (at this point I'm operating under this assumption which could later be proven wrong)?  Did other rookies provide value beyond what Peterson contributed to the Vikings?  Let's examine Kasilias' cas in point - Joe Thomas of the Cleveland Browns.  Offensive line is hard to quantify because as individuals, they don't get the ball.  It's usually a "whole greater than the sum of its parts" kind of a situation.  But we'll factor in what a Thomasless O-Line did for the Browns' run game in 2006 versus a Thomas led 2007, as well as look at sacks in that same time frame.

Browns 2006 Yds/YPR/3rd&4th Down%: 1335/3.6/34%

Browns 2007 Yds/YPR/3rd&4th Down%: 1895/4.3/42%

Percent increase in production: 29.5/16.2/19

Sacks/Att/% 2006: 54/512/10.5

Sacks/Att/% 2007: 19/545/3.5

Percent increase in production: 61.9%

Perhaps it's chicken and the egg.  Is Thomas one-fifth responsible for this productivity?  Is he responsible to the extent that he was better than the guy before him?  Or is he the driving factor in this production?  How about Jamal Lewis?  Is he better than Ruben Droughns, or did Thomas perform a miracle?  No matter how you slice it, Thomas shares at least some responsibility in the double digit increases in production.  Now let's look at Adrian Peterson relative to the Vikings of 2006.

2006 Vikings yards/YPR: 1820/4.1

2007 Vikings yards/YPR: 2634/5.3

Precent increase in production: 30.9/22.6

Clearly the Vikings also saw major increases in production.  One drawback is Peterson's ability to lose yards, which puts the team in 3rd and long, which puts the team in the hands of shaky Tarvaris Jackson.  Also, to what degree do we need to debit Peterson and credit Chester Taylor who put up similar numbers in games 10-16 that Peterson had put up in games 1-9?

All in all, I can live with AD as the ROY just as long as PETA and the SPCA don't make him look like an SOB and give him KP (A bit from "Good Morning Vietnam").  I do have a problem with the margin of this vote.  Perhaps there needs to be a point system in place for 1-2-3, like they have for MVP.  I am in agreement with Kasilias to the extent that Joe Thomas's season shouldn't be such an afterthought.

What if someone could have pulled a Charger-esque draft maneuver and get both these guys on one team?  Championship!