I am sure it is discussed earlier in the thread. Is there an agreed up definition of "most valuable".
In other sports outside of the USA, the term "player of the year" is more common than "most valuable".
It seems like Bills fans (me included) want to deduct points from Jackson, for having a better supporting cast than Allen. But I am not sure that is reasonable.
It seems to me that the currency in the NFL for success is "wins". And that the "most valuable" player is the player whose season would have contributed the most wins to any NFL whose roster they were added too. Its a complicated task to assess all 32 teams. For example, would either Allen or Jackson, have made the lions better than 14-3, or the Eagles better than 14-3. How many more wins would the Broncos have with either of them added? Would the Bengals have won more games with either of them rather than Burrows? Same question for Chiefs/Mahomes. I think if you go through the league, you find that adding either Allen or Jackson would have similar impact on any team they were added too.
I think in the end, MVP voters are probably looking at tiebreakers between Allen and Jackson, similar to team tiebreakers. Head to Head, and strength of schedule beeing two of them. Jackson won the head to head. Ravens had the 8th hardest SOS. The Bills had the 27th hardest schedule. Both of those pretty strongly favor Jackson as "player of the year"
But if the phrase means tell me the player i want to build my franchise around, its still Allen or 15-1 Mahomes, both far ahead of Jackson.