Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Comparing what Vick did for the Falcons to what LT did for the Chargers is not a fair example. The Falcons were in the Superbowl a couple years earlier whereas the the Chargers were in complete rebuiding mode following the Leaf disaster. I'm not taking anything away from Vick, but he stepped into a great situation. LT on the other hand carried this team on his shoulders while having almost nothing around him.
That's an interesting theory - completely unsupported by facts, but interesting.Over the last four years, the Falcons have averaged 16th in scoring offense, 19th in scoring defense. In 2000 they ranked 27th in offensive points scored, 26th in points given up.Over the last four years, the Chargers have averaged 13th in scoring offense, 23rd in scoring defense. In 2000 they ranked 26th in points scored, 29th in points given up.Sooooo, Vick and Tomlinson play offense, the Chargers experienced a greater jump in offensive production, the Chargers have been scoring more than the Falcons - how exactly has Vick had more impact in winning - I mean he hasn't helped his team score more points than Tomlinson. Does he help out in the training room? Is he secretly playing Safety also? Please tell me how Vick's seemingly lesser contribution to his offense has magically resulted in his team winning more games. I don't suppose it could have anything to do with the idea that Vick has been playing on a team with a better defense that gives up less points could it? Could it be that it takes much more than just one guy to win football games? Hmmmmm, such a puzzler.By the way Vick's been to the playoffs 2 out of 4 years in the league - injuries do count when you're talking about making a contribution to the team. I also think it's great that your so optimistic about how Vick will improve (in his best year so far he's only been the 20th best qb in the league) - maybe, just maybe this is as good as Vick gets.....
Some help from Gates? Thats all he got this year? What about Brees and the D? Heck they even had improved WR play.Oh and you gotta love the wording. Yeah won 2 more, but lost 3 less! They went from 7-9 to 9-6-1. Not to mention that yeah Atl was in the SB in 98. They since had gone 5-11 and 4-12 the next 2 years. But yeah that team was on a roll. :rotflmao:
Wow this is rather rediculous. You are gonning to take the last 4 year for Atl even though Vick only played in 2 of them. Yeah that makes sense.
In Vicks 2 seasons, the Atl O has averaged 10.5 in points and 16th in yds. So basically Atl with Vick is: 10.5 and 16 in the league in points and yds, w/o: 21.5 and 16.I am not exactly optimistic that Vick is going to ever be a great true QB. I am however VERY confident that he has far more room to improve than that of LT.
It is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to think that you're actually using the excuse that Vick missed two seasons as an argument supporting the idea that he's a better player than someone else. Really, that's crazy. Who knows what his record would have been? You don't, I don't. The only thing I do know is that for half his NFL career Vick was unavailable to his team - that's a big negative in my book when considering his value.And you continue to gloss over all those facts which stand in direct contradiction to your assertions that I've brought up while introducing no facts to base your opinion on.Ridiculous indeed.Wow this is rather rediculous. You are gonning to take the last 4 year for Atl even though Vick only played in 2 of them. Yeah that makes sense.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I assure you that if you ask 32 NFL GM's what the most important position is on a football team, 25+ will say QB. That's why almost every year you have a QB going in the top 5 of the NFL draft, and you often have two in the top 5, but it's extremely rare to see an RB go top 5.You are badly mistaken if you think that a great QB isn't extraordinarily valuable to a football team. IMO the top 5 QB's in the league are Manning, Vick, Brady, Culpepper and McNabb, and I'd probably put Roethlisberger, Bulger, Brees & Pennington up there too. Surprise surprise, who's still alive in the playoffs?Occasionally you will do well without a great QB (e.g. Dilfer or Brad Johnson), but historically that is rarely the case--and you'll note that in order to compensate for Dilfer and Johnson those teams needed a huge amount of talent on the defense.Note that I don't think that taking a rookie QB high in the NFL draft is always a good idea, simply because it is usually pretty hard to tell who will be a bust, whereas positions like RB are more bust-proof. But when you have a veteran who has proven that he is a pro-bowl caliber QB, he is extremely valuable to his team.BTW, LT is one of the very, very few cases in which you will see a RB be successful without a good OL (Sanders was another). Usually the whole offense--including RB and QB--suffers when the OL struggles.
Please tell you you don't actually think that the Falcons without Vick are a very good team.Peerless Price, Dez White, Brian Finneran, Warrick Dunn, T.J. Duckett, Crumpler are the key skill-position players. None of the WR's are in the top 30 in talent (maybe top 50), none of the RB's are top 20, and the TE is probably around #5.
Well you are trying to use the UNKNOWN as fact vs. Vick. That is indeed rediculous IMO. Here is the bottowm line:Both Vick and LT have been in the league for 4 years now. Vick was only able to compete in 2 of those 4. One due to injury, the other because rookie QBs rarley start as was his case. You for some reason seem to be chalking up his rookie year to injury though. LT has been able to play all 4. Atl has made the playoffs 2 out of those 4 years. Both just happend to be the ones in which Vick was healthy. Odd, maybe. SD on the other haand has made it only 1 time. So even if you do count in his being injured, Atl has seen greater benifit. 2 playoffs as opposed to 1 regardless of the reasons. It is also odd that the only year of the 4 in which LT was hurt, SD had their best season. With Vick hurt, Atl seems to be playing their worst. So even though Vick has only been able to compete in half as many seasons as LT, he has taken his team to the playoffs twice as many times! Who cares if he is hurt more often, this would show you are still more likely to get to the playoffs with Vick. Even if he does get hurt more often.
Hooray, another unsubstantiated idea!Let's look at the quarterbacks for the last few superbowls, shall we?Tom Brady, Jake DelhommeBrad Johnson, Rich GannonTom Brady, Kurt WarnerTrent Dilfer, Kerry CollinsHow many of these guys would you consider great? Maybe two? Yet there they were, in the super bowl.How about Jeff Hostettler, Doug Williams, Jim McMahon, Chris Chandler, Drew Bledsoe, Niel O'Donnel, Stan Humphries, so on and so forth? All played in the superbowl - are these great quarterbacks? That's a lot of exceptions isn't it?All the guys you listed as still in the playoffs, each and every one had a lot more going for them on their teams than just themselves - yes even Manning. What happened to Trent Green? Where were Jake Dellhomme, David Carr, Byron Leftwich and Aaron Brooks this year? They all have better ratings than Vick, but no playoffs - what the heck?Maybe there's more to winning than having a great quarterback? And are you sure about the way the NFL draft goes? You might want to take a look at some recent years past. For instance, in 2000 no quarterback was chosen until Brad Pennington with pick #18, while Jamal Lewis went at #5. Looking back over the drafts, the one thing I DO see is that every single year at least one offensive lineman goes top 5. Puts a hole in your little theory doesn't it?
This is great, first you berate me for "using the unknown" and then turn around and make the unknown the focal point of your argument. Fantastic. And you once again fail to address any of the quantitative facts I've brought to the table that refute your stance.Try this on for size
rior to the Falcons acquiring Vick their winning percentage the previous year was: .250, since then it has been .500 for a net gain of .250.Prior to the Chargers acquring Tomlinson their winning percentage the previous year was: .060, since then it has been .450 for a net gain of .390.So the Chargers have improved their winning percentage more so than the Falcons have since both entered the league.So if we are to base this on the (I think mistaken) contention that you can pin the majority of the respnsibility for a team's improvement on just one player, bviously this is game, set, match for our little argument, but I look forward to seeing how you try and wiggle out of more inescapable proof of your misguidedness in this issue.
I was simply countering KevT's contention that QBs who will evolve into great passers will have shown it by age 24.One thing I would suggest, however. One problem people have when assessing Vick is putting too much emphasis on QB rating. Vick's running ability is not factored at all into QB rating, yet the Atlanta offense is clearly designed to take advantage of it, and it happens to be a big part of why they are successful. So if you use QB rating as your only point of comparison, you aren't getting the whole picture.You obviously have a serious issue with Vick and those who see his potential to become a great QB. It's not worth arguing with you, as I can see you are not going to be convinced. We can agree to disagree, and we'll see how it turns out over the next several years.Just as another example, I decided to compare Vick to Charlie Batch:In Batch's first 38 games he had:545 completions in 985 attempts for a 55% completion rate, 12.15 yards per attempt37 tds vs. 27 ints6624 yards passinghe also had113 rushing attempts for 515 yards and 5 rushing touchdowns.Boy, I bet you thought Batch was never going to amount to much, huh - oh, wait a minute...See how much fun meaningless and arbitrary comparisons can be?
I have 8 names for you:Antowain Smith, Stephen DavisMichael Pittman, Charlie GarnerAntowain Smith, Marshall FaulkJamal Lewis, Ron DayneI see only two elite (top 5, possible HOF'ers) there: Lewis and Faulk. Whereas in the list of QB's I see 3 elite QB's (Brady, Brady, Warner), and another guy who was sure playing like a HOF'er (Gannon).Taking it back and taking a look at the playoff teams, as opposed to just the superbowl teams, there is a reason why Peyton's teams are always pretty good, as are Favre's and Vick's, whereas LT's teams often stink, as to Deuce's, or Kevin Jones', or Priest's, or Barry Sanders' or Faulk's (before he hooked up with Warner anyway).It is common to see a good team that flounders when their elite QB goes down (Vick, Pennington recently) whereas that rarely happens with a RB (e.g. LJ has looked pretty good when Priest went down of late, not that I'm saying they didn't miss Priest).
I'd say especially Peyton Manning (and Daunte). I don't think that Brady's surrounding cast on the offense is very good (except Dillon, but he did well before him, just not as well). Vick's goes without saying. McNabb's too, aside from TO (and they did well before he came along). You can make up all the excuses you want, but elite QB's lead to winning teams more often than not. I don't consider Trent Green elite, let alone David Carr or Aaron Brooks, I mean seriously. I think that Leftwich and Delhomme are quite good. I was surprised at how much Jacksonville struggled recently I'll admit. As for Delhomme, that team has been decimated by injury; the fact that they were as successful as they were is a testament to him I think (although you could make a similar argument with McGahee).
Yes I'm sure.Over the last 20 years 9 QB's have gone #1 overall vs. 2 RB's. Combining this with the fact that the "bust" factor of QB's is much higher than RB's, this further substantiates my point that in the opinion of NFL GM's, QB is a more important position. I find it hard to believe that you dispute the fact that this is the near-consensus opinion among GM's.
No #### sherlock. No position is indispensable. My contention is and has been that QB is the most important position on the field, and for this reason guys like Manning, Brady, Vick, Culpepper and McNabb, and probably a few others, will go before LT in a mythical NFL re-draft, even though LT ranks higher amongst history's RB's than some of them do amongst history's QB's.
That is simply not true. Consider 2002:Games 1-9 (7 games): 1095 passing yards, 4 passing TDs... ~156/0.6 per gameGames 10-17 (8 games): 1841/12... 230/1.5 per gameThat's a nice improvement. Prior to 2002, he had only 2 starts, so he showed a significant improvement in the second half of what was essentially his first season starting.He did not continue that last season, though it is hard to know if that was because he missed so much time and/or due to lingering physical or mental effects of his injury.He also didn't show it this season, but IMO that has a lot to do with (a) adjusting to a new offense and (b) the fact that the Falcons were able to win consistently with a conservative game plan. (Consider that Vick attempted 100 fewer passes this season than in 2002.)Anyway, the point is that your statement is absolutely untrue. He showed significant potential over the last 8 game stretch he was healthy before changing offenses. We all know the problems with scaling up, but just consider that those numbers scale up to 3682 passing yards and 24 passing TDs.
Sophistry and Illusion.Do you seriously think that without LT San Diego would have been 4-60 over the last 4 years?We've seen for years that LT plus not much else = a crappy record. Barry Sanders plus not much else = a crappy record. Michael Vick + not much else = solid playoff team.Try this on for size
We've seen for years that LT plus not much else = a crappy record. Barry Sanders plus not much else = a crappy record. Michael Vick + not much else = solid playoff team. -------------------Tell me how in the world you can consider Dunn, Duckett, Price, and Crumpler as "not much else"? Dunn is one of most versatile running/receiving threats in the league and Duckett averaged almost 5 YPC. The only reason Price and Crumpler are not in the top 30 is because Vick is not a reliable passer and looks to run if he doesn't see an open receiver immediately.
You didn't even begin to counter my post and qouted the most meaningless portion of it. Maybe you should reread it agian.Then again I think I agree with JWB when he says:This is great, first you berate me for "using the unknown" and then turn around and make the unknown the focal point of your argument. Fantastic. And you once again fail to address any of the quantitative facts I've brought to the table that refute your stance.Try this on for size
So maybe we should just agree to disagree as well.
This maybe true about Crumpler, but there is really no way to support this about Price. I think he has shown over the past few years that he really is just better suited and successfull as a #2 WR and not a #1. That has nothing to do with Vick, just Price's abilities.
I stated that Price is not one of the 30 most talented WR's in the league. I strongly stand by that statement; I bet if you do a list you will too. I also stated that neither Dunn nor Duckett are amongst the 20 most talented RB's in the league--again if you do a list I think you'll agree. I also stated that Crumpler is about the #5 TE in the league in terms of talent. I would certainly put Heap, Gates, Gonzo and Shockey above him. I think Crumpler is just behind them, in the McMichael/Witten level. Not to mention the fact that they have no WR2 to speak of.I really don't know what it is about the Atlanta skill position corps that you think is above average. By my reckoning they are below average (i.e. below #16) in every area but TE. Their receivers may be the worst in the league (although SF, Chi give them a run).
Point number one: I never said running back was the most important thing on a football team - you are attacking a straw man. YOU said quarterback is the most important thing. Nothing you've said so far has helped your position much.Point number two: It's only common to see a team flounder when they lose their quarterback if they don't have a good backup (a point made earlier in the thread which you Vick backers have ignored). How did the Steelers do when Maddox went down? How did the Pats do when Bledsoe went down? How did the Rams do when Green went down? How did the Giants do when Hostettler filled in for Sims? How did the 49ers do when Young stepped in for Montana? I could go on, but its obvious you haven't got a leg to stand on .Point number 3: You may not think Green, Carr, Leftwich, Brooks or Dellhomme elite, but they all performed better as qbs this year than Vick, plain and simple. Yet they aren't in the playoffs and his team is.Point number 4: Now all of the sudden you've changed your argument to how many qbs have been taken #1? Before it was just top 5 - what happened? Then you go on to talk about how many busts there have been among highly selected qbs. How does that help your argument exactly? All it proves is that these super genius GMs of yours aren't very good at evaluating qb talent, and may have been misguided in what's important.In summary you may contend that qb is the most important position on the field, but you've done nothing to prove it. What's sad is that I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I disagree with is the notion that its a good idea to take Vick over Tomlinson - and I've produced plenty of supporting evidence. All you've produced are wierd insinuations based on what you think some GMs would do.
How is it sophistry? If the goal is to find out which player helped their team to improve the most, ie. win more games than they otherwise would have without them, what other metric would you propose?I guess it's sophistry to you because it doesn't jive with your misguided opinion, but as far as I know that's not the definition of sophistry.As far as Vick + nothing else, others have pointed out the problems with this statement as far as his offensive teammates go, but you've completely ignored that Vick has had the good fortune to also play with a better defense than Tomlinson the whole time as well, to the tune of 5 average rank points higher in points given up. So it's obvious your statement Vick + nothing else is just plain wrong. Sorry to inflict more crazy sophistry on you.Sophistry and Illusion.Do you seriously think that without LT San Diego would have been 4-60 over the last 4 years?We've seen for years that LT plus not much else = a crappy record. Barry Sanders plus not much else = a crappy record. Michael Vick + not much else = solid playoff team.Try this on for size
O.K. I rearead it, and I still don't find any logical argument in it to argue against - so I didn't.But if the "agree to disagree" cop out makes you feel better in the face of irrefutable facts against your argument, go with it.To review, those facts are:Vick's team has gone to the playoffs twice, Tomlinson's team once since they arrived.Tomlinson's offense has been a higher scoring offense than Vick's since they arrived.Tomlinson's offense experienced a greater improvement in scoring than Vick's since they arrived.Tomlinson's team's winning percentage has risen to a greater extent than Vick's since they arrived.Tomlinson has outscored Vick head to head since they arrived.Tomlinson has been in the top ten or better for the most important statistics for players at his position at least 3 out of 4 years, while Vick has not been among the league leaders for the most important statistics for players at his position at any time since they've arrived.Seems clear to me who's done better.Finally, Vick certainly does have the potential to be a better quarterback than he is now. I do not dispute that. And he's very entertaining to watch often times when he plays. But he's got a long way to go before he approaches elite qb status. NFL history is riddled with guys who had potential, it only counts for so much, especially after 4 years that have not approached this potential. There are at least 19 quarterbacks who performed better than Vick this year. Tomlinson is an elite back right now, and some would say he's the best rb in the league right now. The guy works his butt off to not only stay in top shape, but also to improve his game, every year. Think about that for a minute. Chances are you could take Tomlinson and end up with a quarterback that's a better NFL qb than Vick. I doubt you'd be able to take Vick and end up with a runningback that's better than Tomlinson.So when building a team, is it really that clear that it's that much harder to get a good quarterback than a good running back?I don't think so and I'm comfortable that I've shown that, which is why its clear that LaDainain would be the guy you take over Vick (not necessarily over Manning or Culpepper, etc.).
I don't know if you even remember how this debate got started, but it began when you said that the fact that LT is on more "top 5" lists than Vick proves that most of us perceive LT to be a more valuable player. I responded that this betrays a misunderstanding of how the "top 5" lists work--they do not in fact represent the 5 most valuable players in the league; in particular they will underweight players on the more important positions (example: the top 10 most valuable list would probably include 4+ QB's, but if I were building a team from scratch I would only want 1 QB). The only issue here is whether the QB is a more important position than RB, and by how much. Whether the QB is more important than OLT or Long Snapper or Place Kicker is irrelevant.
I am too young to remember the Hostettler situation, but I find it curious that of the other 4 examples you raised, 2 and probably 3 of the "backups" in question are certain first-ballot hall of famers, and the 4th (Warner) would have been had he been younger and continued to play at that level.You do not seem to understand that this may weaken my case that Vick is a good QB, but not as much as it strengthens my case that the QB is an extremely important position. There just aren't that many people that can play QB, which is why those who can are so valuable. The drop-off from Tomlinson to most backup RB's isn't nearly as high as the drop-off from a top 5 QB to a most backup QB's (exceptions such as Volek or the HOF'ers you mentioned are rare). It's very similar to VBD theory in FF.
You apparently have a different definition of "performance" than I do (and most NFL GM's do). To each his own.
Wow. Yours is not a very subtle intellect. That's OK; the world needs employees too. The reason the "bust" factor helps my argument is that GM's draft QB's high in the NFL even though they know that there is a high probability they will be wrong (they are less likely to be way off with RB's). In other words, NFL draft rankings tends to understate the true importance of QB's in the NFL. I chose #1 rather than top 5 because I could easily find data on #1 and not top 5.
Wrong - the issue was, is and continues to be Tomlinson vs. Vick. You keep playing with your straw man argument about how you think qb is the most important thing to start building a team with. The evidence does not support you.
Actually that's exactly what I'm trying to show here - thanks for admitting it.
What metric would you like to use to measure individual performance then?Vick was 28th in completions, 26th in completion percentage among qbs who played in 10 games or more, 26th in passing yards (he'd be 15th even if you added his rushing yards to his passing yards), 24th in touchdowns (he'd be tied with two others for 17th if you add in his rushing touchdowns), 15th in interceptions, 20th in passer rating among qbs with 10 games or more.What's good about that? How is it that some other qb who performed better this year wouldn't have got the Falcons to the playoffs. No one has made that clear to me.
Yet initially you said top 5, and when the data I produced didn't meet your needs you change the metric. Very nice. Still invalid. More OL get drafted in the top 5 than any other position. Who gets taken #1 is more a measure of what the team thinks it needs at a given time - but I challenge you to find a draft where an OL was not taken top 5. There have been drafts where no qb went top 5. I think this says more about priorities than anything else.I'll ingore your ad hominem attacks and leave you with the uncomfortable position of not having backed up any of your statements with germane facts.
I think this is probably the crux of the disagreement between you and those opposing your viewpoint. I assume that you are making this statement because there are 19 QBs with better QB ratings this season. The problem is this:The full measure of QB performance does not simply equate to QB rating.
Please see my post above - I factor some of these things in and Vick still comes out looking bad.I'm not talking fantasy here - in every measurable way Vick does not approach being an elite qb. If you want to take intangibles into account, maybe 19 is too high a number, but tell me where does he rank then and why? I don't think he makes it to the top 10 at least - but since there's no measurables involved it's just my hunch against yours in that case isn't it?
Yes, these are obviously just opinions. Yours happens to be a minority opinion, but you are obviously comfortable with that.Where would he rank with intangibles depends on what you are asking exactly. If you are talking about where did he really rank this season, I would say top 10 for sure, and arguably top 5 but clearly behind Manning, Culpepper, and McNabb IMO. For justification, simply rank the QBs by wins this season, then give Vick extra credit for doing it with a poorer supporting cast than most of those around or ahead of him.If you are talking about a mythical NFL redraft, as mentioned earlier in the thread, he would have to be top 5 due to his age and the potential he has to grow into not only a great QB but a great passing QB, as he showed in 2002 (see my earlier post).
In 2002 Vick was 19th in passer rating, 23rd in completions, 26th in completion percentage for qbs with 10 or more games, 19th in passing yards, 21st in passing tds, 27th fewest ints.What's so great about that apart from the ints? He was pretty clearly right around the 19th best qb STATISTICALLY overall that season. How is this evidence of a great passing qb?And why do we constantly have to hear about a weaker supporting cast for Vick? Are Dunn and Duckett that bad? Let me check - what do you know, Warrick Dunn had the 16th most total yards from scrimmage this year, he sure does stink. The Falcons' defense - 14th least points given up this year (Indianapolis, Green Bay, Minnesotta, Seattle and St.Louis are all worse and all in the playoffs). What's lacking? Outsanding recievers right? Gee if your qb is mediocre, maybe that might have an effect on your receivers ya think? Nah it's all the receivers' fault.The more you guys talk the less I'm convinced that Vick is that great. He has the potential to be great, I freely admit it. So it's not hard for me to understand the idea that many people would gamble on that moving forward, fine. I also agree that both franchises have done well with the results of that particular deal. But right now, I just can't see how someone could say it's clear that Vick has done more than Tomlinson, or that Atlanta got the better end of the deal to date based on what we have to go on so far.
Groove, while I'm usually in 100% agreement with your analysis, you're completely discounting Vicks biggest attribute (greatest running QB of all time) when trying to assess his value.Top 20 passing stats, plus greatest rushing stats in NFL history, = top 5 QB in the NFL.Easily. And this fails to account for ways Vick changes the game that aren't measured statistically.
I guess you missed the part where he talked about intangibles? You know this part:
What you seem to be constantly missing is that YOU CAN NOT TALK ABOUT MIKE VICK AS A QB WITH OUT TALKING ABOUT THE EFFECT HIS LEGS HAVE. Nobody is trying to argue he is a top 5 or top 10 QB just on passing. Add in his effectivness running that ball though and yes I would say he is top 10. Towards the bottom of it though.You seem intent on only picking and choosing passing stats to fit your arguement. Placing no regard to his total effect as a player. This means factoring in his amazing running ability and how it opens up the rest of the O.
Incorrect, in my previous analysis I added in his rushing stats to his passing stats when comparing him to other qbs (which I didn't even do for the other qbs). He still came up well short of the top 10 in any category, much less top 5 or elite.See..
There's a lot of verbage in these posts so I don't blame you for missing that, but I did take it into account.His running certainly adds another dimension that other guys don't have. I never questioned it. I do question how much that truly benefits a quarterback. By and large great running qbs have not necessarily resulted in great NFL success. Vick may be the best ever, but the one I consider the previous best ever (Randall Cunningham) never made it to the big dance - so the jury's out as far as I'm concerned.As for intangibles, I mentioned that too. Ultimately it's just someone's opinion - there's no absolute reference for it, so it's a fruitless argument. You think he's a great leader, fine. Is he better than Trent Green in that regard? How so? Is he great at reading defenses? Does he have a better than average ability to game plan, watch film and synthesize the lessons to be learned from it? Is he good at making adjustments? I don't know, do you?
Did you include fumbles in with interceptions?How about games played since becoming a starter?
No I didn't look at those things, but I'm certain you can provide that information if it's of interest.One additional statistic of note - Atlanta finished 20th in ypg, 16th in scoring offense this year - below average. I suppose none of that has anything to do with Vick however.
True, but on a FF board where all people look at is numbers they will never understand that as an ACTUAL NFL player Vick is an opposing coaches worst nightmare. The opposition to Vick on this board can hear all the polls of actual NFL GM's who verify Vick's importance, yet they will still think they know better.On a message board more about the actual game of football and not numbers I highly doubt there would be many people who would say Vick sucks.
So are you or are you not using 2002 as evidence of Vick being a great passer - or even potentially being a great passer? Because either way I don't see how the stats support it. Then of course there's the little problem of the seeming regression he suffered this year with your theory of Vick being en route to becomming a great passer.Sorry for my perceived attention problem.
