There are a number of reasons why the argument in your link is both flawed and tangent to what I'm arguing. In no particular order:
The post is primarily comparing Rose to Lebron, who I don't think deserved the MVP that year. I already stated that I believe Howard deserved it.
He makes a factual error in stating Rose led the Bulls to a top-10 and top 5 offense. The Bulls were not a top 10 offense in 10-11, and while they were top 5 in 11-12, Rose missed about 50% of the games that year. The fact that their offense significantly improved when he missed half the season certainly isn't a point in his favor.
"Ronnie Brewer and Keith Bogans split minutes as the key swingmen on that team. Taj Gibson, Jo and Asik were not yet what they were going to be as NBA players"
This one is particularly poor logic. Yes, none of those players were good offensively, but they were all known as good defenders. Asik in particular was raved about as one of the best backup centers in the league and as someone who was due for a big payday (mostly because of how well he played that season). Bogans always gets trashed on in these arguments, but he was a good shooter and a very good perimeter defender, so it always exasperates me when Bulls fans pull the "We had Keith 'shouldn't even be an NBA player' Bogans" routine when he was a very serviceable role player on both sides of the ball. Also, all these players contributed to the side of the ball where the Bulls were actually elite, meaning they were meaningful contributors to the Bulls' biggest strength (defense). Howard, on the other hand, led the Magic to a top 3 defensive efficiency with zero defensive (or even averaged defensively) teammates. The Magic's biggest strength (defense) was elite because of Howard, whereas the Bull's biggest strength (also defense) was elite because they had a very good defensive roster and coach.
He makes reference to a game on January 20th, 2011 where Rose joined a small group of players (only the last decade was considered) who won a game without any teammates scoring in double figures. What he left out is that in that game, the Bulls held the Mavericks (8th in offensive efficiency, averaged 100 ppg) to 77 points, and only won by 5. Seems pretty obvious to me that it was superb defense that won that game. Rose may have pushed them "over the hump" (on 9-28 shooting and only 6 free throws btw) but if the Mavs score just 83% of their average ppg, they win. Rose's statline (26-9-7) was very very good, but it's not like it's an all time great one and the Bulls still only put up 82 points, which would not have been enough to win without outstanding defense.
The section with the counting stats is impressive, but it's convenient that there are no good stats that quantify the effect Howard had on the Magic defense. The Magic had zero plus defenders (or even average defenders) outside of Howard, and he lead them to a top 3 defensive efficiency. Rose was the sole offensive threat on a team that was 12th in offensive efficiency, and Howard was the sole defensive threat on a team that ranked 3rd in defensive efficiency. Seems obvious to me which one is more impressive.
Finally, the quotes by fellow players. Didn't we just have a thread where everyone trashed Durant for suggesting that players should vote on MVP? Remember when Wilt won the MVP after (by far) the most dominant offensive season in history? Or when Oscar won after averaging a tripe double? Oh wait, neither of them won because other players disliked them (if that isn't biased voting I don't know what is) and instead voted for Russell despite the fact that he only played one side of the ball on one of the most stacked teams in history. There's a reason why players no longer decide who the MVP is, so all those quotes aren't objectively useful in determining who the MVP should have been.
Man, I really wish I had been there for this comment, because it seems like everyone is doling out praise without any critical examination and ignoring the obvious flaws in the argument. I mean, he repeatedly states that the Bulls were a top 10 offense in 2011 when they factually were not. They might have been close, but close is only good enough in horseshoes and hand grenades and it seems like nobody took the time to do a even a little basic fact checking.