Mike vick #1 overal (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

He's the ultimate stupid high risk for, at best, a very low possibility of only marginal return compared to other possible tandems. Taking Vick #1 overall is just a waste of your entry fee. Might as well light it on fire.

Look, you don't have to agree that VIck is worth a high pick, but it's ridiculous to assert that there's no possibility that he could be worth a high pick. If he performs exactly as he did in 2010 and plays 16 games, he will be worth the #1 overall pick. You might not like his chances to do that, but it's clearly plausible, and it is entirely reasonable for someone to see it differently than you do, so drop the condescending attitude.

If I split 5s in Blackjack, it's plausible that it will work out. And, this is the type of reasoning that causes folks to routinely lose money in Vegas. They don't understand how to distinguish between plausibility and probability.

Blackjack has calculable probabilities; fantasy football does not. I would say that, when healthy, Vick has a high probability of performing within 20% of what he did on a per-game basis last year. I would say he has a somewhat higher injury risk than other top QBs, but probably less than some people are assuming. You may guess at those probabilities differently, but in the end you're just guessing differently.

I like how you state that FF does not have calculable probabilities and then assert a calculable probability with your very next sentence.

I'm not asserting a calculable probability; I am giving my opinion, just like you are.

You're completely ignoring Vick's past history when you say he has somewhat higher injury risk than other top QBs, right? I mean, talk about sweeping facts under the rug. Go look up how many years Vick has begun the year as a starter. Then calculate what percentage of those seasons he lost games due to injury. Then look up the percentage of how many years the other top QBs lost time due to injury. Come on back and explain how he is not a disproportionately higher risk for injury than the others.

He's lost the same number of games to injury that Tom Brady has. Everyone's an injury risk, and I think predicting future injuries based on past history is difficult to do accurately.

 

[Sabertooth]

He's the ultimate stupid high risk for, at best, a very low possibility of only marginal return compared to other possible tandems. Taking Vick #1 overall is just a waste of your entry fee. Might as well light it on fire.

Look, you don't have to agree that VIck is worth a high pick, but it's ridiculous to assert that there's no possibility that he could be worth a high pick. If he performs exactly as he did in 2010 and plays 16 games, he will be worth the #1 overall pick. You might not like his chances to do that, but it's clearly plausible, and it is entirely reasonable for someone to see it differently than you do, so drop the condescending attitude.

Rodgers scored more last year than Vick and he could score more this year even if both play 16 games. He did his damage all last season without Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley. That's 40% of the starting lineup.

 

[CalBear]

He's the ultimate stupid high risk for, at best, a very low possibility of only marginal return compared to other possible tandems. Taking Vick #1 overall is just a waste of your entry fee. Might as well light it on fire.

Look, you don't have to agree that VIck is worth a high pick, but it's ridiculous to assert that there's no possibility that he could be worth a high pick. If he performs exactly as he did in 2010 and plays 16 games, he will be worth the #1 overall pick. You might not like his chances to do that, but it's clearly plausible, and it is entirely reasonable for someone to see it differently than you do, so drop the condescending attitude.

Rodgers scored more last year than Vick and he could score more this year even if both play 16 games. He did his damage all last season without Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley. That's 40% of the starting lineup.

I love Rodgers (for obvious reasons), but I do not think it is likely that he could match Vick's per-game performance from 2010. Let's take his 2009 season (which was better from a fantasy perspective): He threw for 4434 yards and 30 TDs, with 8.2 yards per attempt, and added 316 yards of rushing and 5 TDs. That's a very impressive stat line, and it's plausible that Rodgers could match it. It's reasonable to think that he could bump up the passing yardage a bit, and maybe throw 35 TDs. But that still would leave him well below Vick's pace from 2010. The only way Rodgers will match that kind of pace would be to have a 45+ passing TD type of season. It's possible he has one of those in him if things align properly, but I don't think anyone would predict that he will throw 40+ TDs this year.

 

[QuizGuy66]

That offensive line wasn't the best last year, but they've taken steps to improve it. That would go into Vick's favorable column.

I think the presence of Vince Young, in an odd way, makes Vick more appealing. You should be able to get him much later in the draft as a handcuff that if Kolb were still around (or even if 90-year-old Favre was signed).

-QG

 

[hotboyz]

Look. You are not going to convince me that Vick is going to rewrite history this season and I'm not going to convince you that he won't. He's a great player. He's not even the best QB, let alone the #1 overall.

NO LOGIC. EMOTION.

I project him at about 540 att. Over last 5 yrs the eagles avg 568 att per game, now when you talk about qb rush totals Vick is something fantasy football and the Nfl has never seen a qb with 4.4 speed. Andy Reid has never had a talent like this at qb, its not like vicks runs are scripted ther improvisations. So he is gonna run. People on here are not making projections using history or numbers they are projecting using there gut feelings!

So your argument is essentially - I know there is no logical basis for anything here but it's going to happen because I say it's going to happen?

Here's my prediction:

There is NO DAMNED WAY Vick throws 500+ times AND runs 99. NOT A CHANCE.

The years where Reid had 500+ passes are nearly all years where his QBs ran maybe 40 times. Something has to give. Forget injury. There's no way he gets that many plays to himself. What about McCoy? Does he just block? Where do these plays come from?

It's actually the exact opposite. The people doubting Vick are the people that are not using logic and going with gut feeling of "no way he can do it again" or "career year". Without question the worse is the insane "regress to mean", like 250 yards per game passing is some kind of historic feat. He said the Eagles have averaged 568 attempts a year over the last 5 years and Vick is no question the best running qb of all time. He only needs to average 6.25 rushes a game (something he has done in every year as a starter) to hit 100. How is that not logic? Hotboyz argument is firmly grounded in logic which he and others have repeated multiple times. Vick played 10 last year which he started and finished. In those games he averaged 279 yards per game passing, 55 yards rushing, 34.1 attempts, and 8.6 rushes a games. Those numbers prorate to 545 attempts and 137 rushes. His attempts could go down 8% and rushes down 27% and still reach 500 passes and 100 rushes.

So logically, anyone can see that 500 and 100 are well within Vick's reach even if he has LESS plays than last year. McCoy or no one else has to lose touches for Vick to hit those numbers. Dont see how anyone can dismiss it to no chance or no damb way category unless emotions are involved. It's funny all those who say Vick cant do it again refuse to do projections. The reason is any objective projections defeat their argument. FBG staffers Dodds, Wood, and Henry have done projections and they all project Vick at over 500 and 100 based on playing 16 games.

The only risk to Vick is injury. His injury risk is overstated and even including the Washington game he missed most of, he still averaged 31.6 attempts and 8.0 rushing in 11 games still on pace for over 500 and 100. On a PPG basis, there is NO DAMB WAY Vick is not the number 1 qb in fantasy football.

Whether being the #1 qb is worth taking #1 overall depends on your league setup, scoring, and your personal opinion of how much Vick outscores that rest of the qbs by.

Thank you! Guys saying I'm being illogical but I'm the only one coming with numbers. I can't for the life if me understand how folks expect a qb in Andy Reid's offense to not throw the ball a ton! In my league he was on pace to outscore the#1 QB by 170 pts!

 

[cobalt_27]

He's the ultimate stupid high risk for, at best, a very low possibility of only marginal return compared to other possible tandems. Taking Vick #1 overall is just a waste of your entry fee. Might as well light it on fire.

Look, you don't have to agree that VIck is worth a high pick, but it's ridiculous to assert that there's no possibility that he could be worth a high pick. If he performs exactly as he did in 2010 and plays 16 games, he will be worth the #1 overall pick. You might not like his chances to do that, but it's clearly plausible, and it is entirely reasonable for someone to see it differently than you do, so drop the condescending attitude.

If I split 5s in Blackjack, it's plausible that it will work out. And, this is the type of reasoning that causes folks to routinely lose money in Vegas. They don't understand how to distinguish between plausibility and probability.

Blackjack has calculable probabilities; fantasy football does not. I would say that, when healthy, Vick has a high probability of performing within 20% of what he did on a per-game basis last year. I would say he has a somewhat higher injury risk than other top QBs, but probably less than some people are assuming. You may guess at those probabilities differently, but in the end you're just guessing differently.

I like how you state that FF does not have calculable probabilities and then assert a calculable probability with your very next sentence.

I'm not asserting a calculable probability; I am giving my opinion, just like you are.

You're completely ignoring Vick's past history when you say he has somewhat higher injury risk than other top QBs, right? I mean, talk about sweeping facts under the rug. Go look up how many years Vick has begun the year as a starter. Then calculate what percentage of those seasons he lost games due to injury. Then look up the percentage of how many years the other top QBs lost time due to injury. Come on back and explain how he is not a disproportionately higher risk for injury than the others.

He's lost the same number of games to injury that Tom Brady has. Everyone's an injury risk, and I think predicting future injuries based on past history is difficult to do accurately.

So, you're saying because Brady got hit one one freak play that wiped out one season, he has equal risk of being injured as Vick whose lost games nearly every season he's been a starter? This is getting comical.

 

[hotboyz]

He's the ultimate stupid high risk for, at best, a very low possibility of only marginal return compared to other possible tandems. Taking Vick #1 overall is just a waste of your entry fee. Might as well light it on fire.

Look, you don't have to agree that VIck is worth a high pick, but it's ridiculous to assert that there's no possibility that he could be worth a high pick. If he performs exactly as he did in 2010 and plays 16 games, he will be worth the #1 overall pick. You might not like his chances to do that, but it's clearly plausible, and it is entirely reasonable for someone to see it differently than you do, so drop the condescending attitude.

Rodgers scored more last year than Vick and he could score more this year even if both play 16 games. He did his damage all last season without Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley. That's 40% of the starting lineup.

In my league aaron rogers scored 5 more points than vick and thats with vick only playing 11 games! Rogers was not the #1 qb in my league

 

[hotboyz]

He's the ultimate stupid high risk for, at best, a very low possibility of only marginal return compared to other possible tandems. Taking Vick #1 overall is just a waste of your entry fee. Might as well light it on fire.

Look, you don't have to agree that VIck is worth a high pick, but it's ridiculous to assert that there's no possibility that he could be worth a high pick. If he performs exactly as he did in 2010 and plays 16 games, he will be worth the #1 overall pick. You might not like his chances to do that, but it's clearly plausible, and it is entirely reasonable for someone to see it differently than you do, so drop the condescending attitude.

If I split 5s in Blackjack, it's plausible that it will work out. And, this is the type of reasoning that causes folks to routinely lose money in Vegas. They don't understand how to distinguish between plausibility and probability.

Blackjack has calculable probabilities; fantasy football does not. I would say that, when healthy, Vick has a high probability of performing within 20% of what he did on a per-game basis last year. I would say he has a somewhat higher injury risk than other top QBs, but probably less than some people are assuming. You may guess at those probabilities differently, but in the end you're just guessing differently.

I like how you state that FF does not have calculable probabilities and then assert a calculable probability with your very next sentence.

I'm not asserting a calculable probability; I am giving my opinion, just like you are.

You're completely ignoring Vick's past history when you say he has somewhat higher injury risk than other top QBs, right? I mean, talk about sweeping facts under the rug. Go look up how many years Vick has begun the year as a starter. Then calculate what percentage of those seasons he lost games due to injury. Then look up the percentage of how many years the other top QBs lost time due to injury. Come on back and explain how he is not a disproportionately higher risk for injury than the others.

He's lost the same number of games to injury that Tom Brady has. Everyone's an injury risk, and I think predicting future injuries based on past history is difficult to do accurately.

So, you're saying because Brady got hit one one freak play that wiped out one season, he has equal risk of being injured as Vick whose lost games nearly every season he's been a starter? This is getting comical.

Comical huh I bet you have Romo rated as high or higher than vick how many games do you predict for him to miss? Is he a bigger injury risk? Exactly how many concusions has AaronRogers had anyway is he a risk? Ok how bout Arian Foster who played on a torn meniscus didnt he have several injuries in college hows hhis risk? We could do this all day! My goal is not to offend anyone but i thnk what happens when people do the projections logicaly they cant believe the numbers that are possible for Vick in this offense.Bu6t think about it, in Vicks early days didnt everyone say just imagine what vick could do if he had a real offens and could make plays from the pocket? we've seen the qb evolve into an athletic position with qb's having more ability to run could we be in the mist of the running qb actually evolving into the true ultimate weapon? These numbers could have been put up by Mcnabb but he became obsessed with showing he could throw from the pocket so he stopped using his legs even when he did he never had the athleticism of Mike Vick! can you guys imagine if Eagles went to a spread no huddle offense the numbers Mike vivk could amass!!

 

[hotboyz]

On a lighter note it was kind of cool that our thread became a topic on the Audible the other night!

 

[griff321]

Look. You are not going to convince me that Vick is going to rewrite history this season and I'm not going to convince you that he won't. He's a great player. He's not even the best QB, let alone the #1 overall.

NO LOGIC. EMOTION.

I project him at about 540 att. Over last 5 yrs the eagles avg 568 att per game, now when you talk about qb rush totals Vick is something fantasy football and the Nfl has never seen a qb with 4.4 speed. Andy Reid has never had a talent like this at qb, its not like vicks runs are scripted ther improvisations. So he is gonna run. People on here are not making projections using history or numbers they are projecting using there gut feelings!

So your argument is essentially - I know there is no logical basis for anything here but it's going to happen because I say it's going to happen?

Here's my prediction:

There is NO DAMNED WAY Vick throws 500+ times AND runs 99. NOT A CHANCE.

The years where Reid had 500+ passes are nearly all years where his QBs ran maybe 40 times. Something has to give. Forget injury. There's no way he gets that many plays to himself. What about McCoy? Does he just block? Where do these plays come from?

It's actually the exact opposite. The people doubting Vick are the people that are not using logic and going with gut feeling of "no way he can do it again" or "career year". Without question the worse is the insane "regress to mean", like 250 yards per game passing is some kind of historic feat. He said the Eagles have averaged 568 attempts a year over the last 5 years and Vick is no question the best running qb of all time. He only needs to average 6.25 rushes a game (something he has done in every year as a starter) to hit 100. How is that not logic? Hotboyz argument is firmly grounded in logic which he and others have repeated multiple times. Vick played 10 last year which he started and finished. In those games he averaged 279 yards per game passing, 55 yards rushing, 34.1 attempts, and 8.6 rushes a games. Those numbers prorate to 545 attempts and 137 rushes. His attempts could go down 8% and rushes down 27% and still reach 500 passes and 100 rushes.

So logically, anyone can see that 500 and 100 are well within Vick's reach even if he has LESS plays than last year. McCoy or no one else has to lose touches for Vick to hit those numbers. Dont see how anyone can dismiss it to no chance or no damb way category unless emotions are involved. It's funny all those who say Vick cant do it again refuse to do projections. The reason is any objective projections defeat their argument. FBG staffers Dodds, Wood, and Henry have done projections and they all project Vick at over 500 and 100 based on playing 16 games.

The only risk to Vick is injury. His injury risk is overstated and even including the Washington game he missed most of, he still averaged 31.6 attempts and 8.0 rushing in 11 games still on pace for over 500 and 100. On a PPG basis, there is NO DAMB WAY Vick is not the number 1 qb in fantasy football.

Whether being the #1 qb is worth taking #1 overall depends on your league setup, scoring, and your personal opinion of how much Vick outscores that rest of the qbs by.

I'm in a keeper league that has 6pts for all TDs and has milestone bonus points as well(5pts for 300yds and 400yds passing and 5pts at 100yds rushing/rec and 200yds rushing/rec. Vick destroyed.

 

[We Tigers]

To the guy saying that no one's giving projections on Vick, check the thread. I've given mine, jb's given his I know, I think I saw a few more in there, and some staffers have projections out there too.

600 touches for Vick is definitely possible, albeit at the high end of what I expect from him--I don't totally agree with Mr. Garda on that one. My biggest point here has been that 600 touches including an 8.0 or better YPA isn't likely, nor is something like the 700 touches a few have suggested. Remember that we're probably working with around 1000 plays, that 30-40 snaps a year tend to go to backup QBs even without injury, and that no Andy Reid team has ever had fewer than 300 RB rushes.

 

[Andrew Garda]

To the guy saying that no one's giving projections on Vick, check the thread. I've given mine, jb's given his I know, I think I saw a few more in there, and some staffers have projections out there too.

600 touches for Vick is definitely possible, albeit at the high end of what I expect from him--I don't totally agree with Mr. Garda on that one. My biggest point here has been that 600 touches including an 8.0 or better YPA isn't likely, nor is something like the 700 touches a few have suggested. Remember that we're probably working with around 1000 plays, that 30-40 snaps a year tend to go to backup QBs even without injury, and that no Andy Reid team has ever had fewer than 300 RB rushes.

WHAT! HOW DARE YOU SIR! Other than that unbelievable statement I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I suppose yes it's the higher end of the spectrum as to what is possible. I do find it improbable though for reasons that have been enumerated in the thread already.