Romo may be playing well but playing well for one year is no reason to make the guy the MVP.
It's not the "MVP for this year and past performance" award.
Romo has a few running backs to help him out (you guys are NINTH in the league). I don't have a clue if the Pats have decent running backs, because they just DON'T flippin' run. From what I've seen though, Laurence Jabroni doesn't SEEM to be capable of lighting it up if they need him to.
Shed is right too, Crayton isn't a "nobody" with the numbers he's got. There's also a few receivers Romo has that just have the wrong job title if you want to claim he's got no "receivers". Barber has half the receptions of Witten, and the same as Crayton. Add in Jones' receptions, and you start to see that while Romo is pretty damn good, he's not on an island there and has some demonstrable weapons around him.
I guess I just see "MVP" as something not necessarily to be given out like it currently seems to be - who're the top teams and choose from a player on those teams. I see it more as "would this team be fighting the Dolphins for the worst record if _________ wasn't on that team?). That's why I don't see it as Brady, Favre, Romo. To be honest, I see Derek Anderson as a damn fine candidate. You see what happened when he wasn't in there, and you see what's happened with them this year.
I also see LT as a candidate, but far less so than in past years, and in that same vein, if the Vikings didn't have Peterson, I have no doubt they WOULDN'T be fighting the Dolphins to see who would be winless by the end of the year. I brought up Schaub because it's a stark contrast last year vs. this year. Green went down but even when he was in there, wasn't as effective as they expected, meaning it's fallen on him. Same thing too when Schaub was out. NOT the same team as they are with him.
Again, to me, it's "valuable", not "valued", and there's a difference.