What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

To all those who think Vick is overrated... (1 Viewer)

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Please answer this for me...IMHO the greatest measurement of a QB is how much more the team wins with him than without him. A QB does so many little things that we, as fans, never see such as leadership, audibles, motivation, not turning the ball over, looking off safeties, and so on and so on, that I think its foolish to just look at passing stats. This is one of the reasons I believe Culpepper and McNabb to be overrated(the Vikings do just as well when Culpepper is in, and the Eagles did just as well, actually make that 'better', when Feely and Detmer were in.So how on earth do you explain the Falcons making the 2nd round of the playoffs and beating GB at GB for the first time ever two years ago with a healthy Vick, then being terrible without him last year even though they added Price, and then being 3-0 this year now that hes back?It simply doesn't make any sense to me how you can justify calling that overrated! The man wins football games. His supporting cast is not very good at all, as you could cleary see last year. Yet he alone makes them a playoff contender. Without him, they're 2-10. And then last year he came back and took that 2-10 team to a 3-1 record! Yes, that same terrible 2-10 team went 3-1 with him...and get this: Those 4 games in which he played were the Falcons hardest stretch of games last year! To me, hes a top 5-7 QB in the league and will be top 3 in the league before long.And just for anyone who asks, heres my list:1.Brady2.Manning3.McNabb(yeah, I know I said he was overrated, but I still think pretty highly of him)4.McNair5.Vick6.Favre

 
Last edited by a moderator:

GregR_2

Footballguy
While I don't think I qualify as someone who thinks Vick is overrated, you make a very poor argument for him. I wouldn't even try to base any of your argument on the Falcons being 3-0 when 2 of those wins were against the worst 2 teams in the NFL. Vick looked entirely mediocre in both of those games and the Falcons barely won them (by 2 and by 3).

 

Modog814

Footballguy
I believe he's overrated, but not that overrated. His team has done better with him than without him, but I'm holding my judgement out until after this year, or maybe after a couple more weeks. They're 3-0 this year, but they won a close one against SF, they beat a St. Louis team that I believe is also overrated, and then they can only put up 6 pts against Arizona. Don't make get me wrong, he's just not as good as everyone thinks he is.I agree that Brady and Manning mean the most to their teams, but I'd have Manning ahead of Brady just because of the things Manning can do at the line of scrimmage, calling audibles and whatnot. McNair and Favre are both up there (Farve more of a name, just knowing that he's lining up behind center again gives the team hope.) McNabb is overrated, he's been good this year so far, but I'd like to see him keep it up for an entire season before I put him up in the top 5. He beat a weak Giant team and "beat" Minnesota although there were definitely some home field advantage calls in that one. It'd be interesting to see how he does against a quaility defense.

 

Hinezer

Footballguy
The Falcons running game is better this year than last year, that's pretty much the only difference. The passing game isn't better. Vick was supposed to be a great passer as soon as he got a WR like Price. Well now they also got him Michael Jenkins and Dez White.Vick will be overrated until he stops showing up in the top 15 lists for QBs or he significantly improves his passing.McNabb isn't overrated. He got the weapon he wanted and is playing amazingly.If the Falcons want a QB, Matt Schaub is their best bet. Vick is a RB.

 

Sinrman

Footballguy
Please answer this for me...

IMHO the greatest measurement of a QB is how much more the team wins with him than without him. A QB does so many little things that we, as fans, never see such as leadership, audibles, motivation, not turning the ball over, looking off safeties, and so on and so on, that I think its foolish to just look at passing stats. This is one of the reasons I believe Culpepper and McNabb to be overrated(the Vikings do just as well when Culpepper is in, and the Eagles did just as well, actually make that 'better', when Feely and Detmer were in.

So how on earth do you explain the Falcons making the 2nd round of the playoffs and beating GB at GB for the first time ever two years ago with a healthy Vick, then being terrible without him last year even though they added Price, and then being 3-0 this year now that hes back?

It simply doesn't make any sense to me how you can justify calling that overrated! The man wins football games. His supporting cast is not very good at all, as you could cleary see last year. Yet he alone makes them a playoff contender. Without him, they're 5-11. To me, hes a top 5-7 QB in the league and will be top 3 in the league before long.

And just for anyone who asks, heres my list:

1.Brady

2.Manning

3.McNabb(yeah, I know I said he was overrated, but I still think pretty highly of him)

4.McNair

5.Vick

6.Favre
I don't think I even need to go into the numbers, really...Is Vick exciting to watch? More times than not, yes. I thought it was fun to watch him run around on TV, and then I went and watched his comeback game last year against the NFC Champion Carolina Panthers, and MAN did I have a whole new appreciation for him. If you've never seen him live, GO! It's sickening! :shock:

Did he help bring the Falcons back into the playoffs two years ago? Yes. Did he win that huge game in GB? Yes. That was a tremendous win. It showed us what he is capable of doing...

And that herein lies the problem. 'What he is capable of doing.' He has more talent than most QBs COMBINED. This guy could be all-world-universe-whatever. But to many, like myself, we feel he has yet to live up to his potential. I think by a long shot.

He has tremendous games where he takes the games into his own hands, and puts up incredible #'s. But I'll bet that if I DID look at the #'s throughout his career, he'd have quite a few "bad" games too (like 2 out of the 3 games this season already). Sure, every QB has their share of "bad" games, but Vick so far, is having more than he should. Perhaps it's the personnel around him, perhaps it's bad play calling, perhaps it's him, or perhaps it's some combination or all of the above? Who really knows?

All I know is that the Falcons team is TOO dependent on Vick. Last year is the perfect example. They were absolutely atrocious without Vick, and when he comes back, they win 3 out of their last 5 games (3 out of 4 games he started). This brings about a whole 'nother variable into the equation -- his health. He's now been in the NFL 3 years. Only ONE has he played a full season (actually 2002 he played 15 of 16 games). "Good" teams can win without their star player. Take the Eagles for example. When McNabb broke his leg, Koy Detmer and AJ Feely stepped in and won games with the same players. The Falcons could not muster ANY sort of attack on either side of the ball without Vick there.

Is it really a good thing to be so dependent on one player? Sure, the Falcons win more games then lose with Vick at the helm. But his reckless style of play is going to put him in the hospital, and the rest of the Falcons' season will be in the toilet.

 

satch

Footballguy
The Vick debate has to be qualified as either reality or fantasy. If we're talking reality, then he's a winner. If we're talking fantasy, then so far, he's not that good.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
While I don't think I qualify as someone who thinks Vick is overrated, you make a very poor argument for him. I wouldn't even try to base any of your argument on the Falcons being 3-0 when 2 of those wins were against the worst 2 teams in the NFL. Vick looked entirely mediocre in both of those games and the Falcons barely won them (by 2 and by 3).
I don't agree. A win is a win. His team is 3-0. There really are no poor teams in the NFL. On any given Sunday, a team like San Diego or New York Giants(who are 2-1 just as a great example of my point) can rise up and compete with good teams. I think seeing a QB's team with him and then without him is the absolute best indicator of his worth.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
The Falcons running game is better this year than last year, that's pretty much the only difference. The passing game isn't better. Vick was supposed to be a great passer as soon as he got a WR like Price. Well now they also got him Michael Jenkins and Dez White.Vick will be overrated until he stops showing up in the top 15 lists for QBs or he significantly improves his passing.McNabb isn't overrated. He got the weapon he wanted and is playing amazingly.If the Falcons want a QB, Matt Schaub is their best bet. Vick is a RB.
Who have they added in the running game that they didn't have last year? And why were they so good 2 years ago...was their runnning game great back then as well? You're still dodging the question....how were they so good 2 years ago, then bad when Vick gets hurt, and now great again...explain.
 

Spartans Rule

Footballguy
the greatest measurement of a QB is how much more the team wins with him than without him.
This only measures how much better a QB is than HIS backup
A very good point.Doug Johnson and Kurt Kittner are not competent NFL QBs by any stretch of the imagination.It would be interesting to see how Atlanta would fare with a proven mediocre QB like Gus Frerotte or Trent Dilfer.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
The Falcons running game is better this year than last year, that's pretty much the only difference. The passing game isn't better. Vick was supposed to be a great passer as soon as he got a WR like Price. Well now they also got him Michael Jenkins and Dez White.Vick will be overrated until he stops showing up in the top 15 lists for QBs or he significantly improves his passing.McNabb isn't overrated. He got the weapon he wanted and is playing amazingly.If the Falcons want a QB, Matt Schaub is their best bet. Vick is a RB.
As for McNabb....you are totally missing my point. I think you are one of those totally caught up in fantasy stats, as evidenced by you thinking that Vick isn't playing well now(as if a QB's goal is to put up stats; not to win games and be 3-0)The Eagles went 9-1 a few years back with Feely and Detmer at the helm. They had a worse winning percentage with McNabb at the helm...explain that to me. Stats don't matter...wins do.
 

crush304

Footballguy
If I recall correctly the broncos were 9-2 last year when Jake Plummer was starting and 1-4 when he wasn't. So if Jake's not a top 5 qb he must be at least top 10 right?

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
And that herein lies the problem. 'What he is capable of doing.' He has more talent than most QBs COMBINED. This guy could be all-world-universe-whatever. But to many, like myself, we feel he has yet to live up to his potential. I think by a long shot.
You give a long, thought out post, so I'm not trying to pick on you. But here are Vick's resume:Rookie year, he did decent...lets just give him a mulliagn here as he was a rookie. He only started 2 games, so its hard to really judge him much at all. When he did play he showed flashed of brilliance, but lacked experience...nothing wrong with that. Obviously 2 games started isn't enough to judge.

In just his 2nd year in the league, he led his team with mediocre(at best) supporting cast to the 2nd round of the playoffs.

He was hurt his 3rd year, and his team was terrible, showing how poor his supporting cast was.

In his 4th year, his team is currently 3-0.

What exactly is he not living up to? What 'potential' did you expect? First full season played: 2nd year in playoffs. Second full season played(currently): Undefeated so far...are you kidding me? What can possibly be bad about that. Throw in the fact that he was injured one season in between and we saw what a terrible supporting cast he has, and IMO he has totally lived up to his potential.

Seriously...what do you all expect from this guy? A Super Bowl before his 2nd full year? Because hes delievered everything but that so far!

 

Demian

Footballguy
Again, 9-6-1 is not so good. The Falcons got lucky to make it in the playoffs with a record like that.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
the greatest measurement of a QB is how much more the team wins with him than without him.
This only measures how much better a QB is than HIS backup
OK thats a very good point. But when we know that his backup is nothing special(as we've seen with Feely in Miami or Frerotte in Washington) and they step in and perform great, then we know its more of the system than the QB. And when we see a team totally absolutely go from super bowl contender(I'd say any 2nd round playoff team is a contender) to one of the worst teams in the league without their starter, I think its fair to say that hes a great player.Solid point though.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
While I don't think I qualify as someone who thinks Vick is overrated, you make a very poor argument for him. I wouldn't even try to base any of your argument on the Falcons being 3-0 when 2 of those wins were against the worst 2 teams in the NFL. Vick looked entirely mediocre in both of those games and the Falcons barely won them (by 2 and by 3).
I don't agree. A win is a win. His team is 3-0. There really are no poor teams in the NFL. On any given Sunday, a team like San Diego or New York Giants(who are 2-1 just as a great example of my point) can rise up and compete with good teams. I think seeing a QB's team with him and then without him is the absolute best indicator of his worth.
A win is a win? So Vick's performance this week was equal to Peyton's because they both won? And Leftwich has been a better QB than Peyton this season because he's 3-0 and Peyton is 2-1? Obviously a win is not just a win. The quality of the opponent matters, and the QB's performance in the game matters. When you struggle to beat the worst teams in the league, it isn't a very ringing endorsement of the QB.I think Vick has incredible talent and will continue to improve, but this angle does not make a very good argument.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
The Eagles went 9-1 a few years back with Feely and Detmer at the helm.
How exactly did the Eagles go 9-1 without McNabb that season when he played in 10 games?
From Pro football reference:2002McNabb: 10 games playedFeely: 6 games playedDetmer: 9 games playedObviously, they split time in a lot of games. I believe the stat I was referencing was that the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which McNabb did not take more snaps than their other QBs.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
If I recall correctly the broncos were 9-2 last year when Jake Plummer was starting and 1-4 when he wasn't. So if Jake's not a top 5 qb he must be at least top 10 right?
Jake Plummer is indeed a fairly underrated QB. I'd say hes top 15 or so in the league. That sample size is too small imo. The one I'm using with Vick deals with 37 games(2 full seasons, 2 playoff games, 3 games this year). Its hard to be a fluke over 37 games, especially when the winning percentages are that incredibly one sided.
 

packersfan

Footballguy
The Eagles went 9-1 a few years back with Feely and Detmer at the helm.
How exactly did the Eagles go 9-1 without McNabb that season when he played in 10 games?
From Pro football reference:2002McNabb: 10 games playedFeely: 6 games playedDetmer: 9 games playedObviously, they split time in a lot of games. I believe the stat I was referencing was that the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which McNabb did not take more snaps than their other QBs.
McNabb started every game he played in 2002. He missed 6 games, not 10. The Eagles did not go 9-1 without him.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Again, 9-6-1 is not so good. The Falcons got lucky to make it in the playoffs with a record like that.
Compare that to the record the next year.......and make sure to add in the 3-0 from this year, so that becomes 12-6-1 compared to last year. But then remember also that they went 3-1 last year when he came back and started. So lets make that 15-7-1.15-7-1 vs whatever they were last year without him....is that a little more convincing for you?

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
While I don't think I qualify as someone who thinks Vick is overrated, you make a very poor argument for him.    I wouldn't even try to base any of your argument on the Falcons being 3-0 when 2 of those wins were against the worst 2 teams in the NFL.  Vick looked entirely mediocre in both of those games and the Falcons barely won them (by 2 and by 3).
I don't agree. A win is a win. His team is 3-0. There really are no poor teams in the NFL. On any given Sunday, a team like San Diego or New York Giants(who are 2-1 just as a great example of my point) can rise up and compete with good teams. I think seeing a QB's team with him and then without him is the absolute best indicator of his worth.
A win is a win? So Vick's performance this week was equal to Peyton's because they both won? And Leftwich has been a better QB than Peyton this season because he's 3-0 and Peyton is 2-1? Obviously a win is not just a win. The quality of the opponent matters, and the QB's performance in the game matters. When you struggle to beat the worst teams in the league, it isn't a very ringing endorsement of the QB.I think Vick has incredible talent and will continue to improve, but this angle does not make a very good argument.
No, but over time if you win consistently, and your team loses consistently without you, then I don't know what other conclusion you can come to except that you are a star player.Yes, I'm sure that Vick has played poorly in some wins. And I'm also sure that he played great in some of their losses. Overall though, their team is a super bowl contender with him and one of the bottom 5 teams without him...what else do you need?
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
I'm about to go to bed, so I'll continue this debate tomorrow, but let me close on this:There are a select few 'difference makers' in this league. The Ravens were always top 5 in defense and made the playoffs every year recently except for the one year where Ray Lewis got hurt and they were #16 overall on defense and missed they playoffs. Ray Lewis is a difference maker. The Pats were coming off a 5-11 season and were 0-2 when they inserted Tom Brady into the lineup. That 'brilliant' coach and 'great' defense didn't really look too great until Brady came into the lineup...they went on to become a semi-dynasty. Tom Brady is a difference maker.Same thing with Vick. One poster, mentioned that the reason the Falcons are winning this year is because of their improved running game. Let me ask you this: Do you really think Warrick Dunn just suddenly improved his game by leaps and bounds or do you think maybe, just maybe, its that defense now respect Michael Vick's ability to go play action that then bootleg and run, that its giving Dunn extra time to run? Thats the thing...'difference makers' change the way teams approach them and make things way easier on everyone else because so much everyone else on their team. What many of you aren't understanding is that even when Vick has a bad statistical day, its because teams are game planning for him so much and his teamates are totally benefitting from it.

 

Shlon

Footballguy
Falcons winning % with Vick as starter: over 70%Falcons winning % without Vick as starter: under 30%Falcons win over 40% more games when Vick starts, difference-maker.

 

Hinezer

Footballguy
The Falcons running game is better this year than last year, that's pretty much the only difference. The passing game isn't better. Vick was supposed to be a great passer as soon as he got a WR like Price. Well now they also got him Michael Jenkins and Dez White.Vick will be overrated until he stops showing up in the top 15 lists for QBs or he significantly improves his passing.McNabb isn't overrated. He got the weapon he wanted and is playing amazingly.If the Falcons want a QB, Matt Schaub is their best bet. Vick is a RB.
As for McNabb....you are totally missing my point. I think you are one of those totally caught up in fantasy stats, as evidenced by you thinking that Vick isn't playing well now(as if a QB's goal is to put up stats; not to win games and be 3-0)The Eagles went 9-1 a few years back with Feely and Detmer at the helm. They had a worse winning percentage with McNabb at the helm...explain that to me. Stats don't matter...wins do.
I'm not caught up in fantasy stats at all. I'm caught up in reality. McNabb has been playing lights out, Vick is putting up passing stats that would get many QBs benched, like he did in his 2002 season. Like I've said all along, when teams stop Vick from running, it's over with. Vick can't pass and that's one of the requirements of being a QB. When he does pass it, it is a dumpoff to the RB or TE.His WRs caught 3 passes for 36 yards today. For the season they have 14 catches for 165 yards.As for winning is all that matters. He just barely beat the Cardinals, only getting 6 points. They slipped by a pretty bad 49ers team week 1. They beat up on the Rams, but they too are a team sinking fast.Vick is not a good QB, he's a good runner. Anything more than that is a stretch.
 

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
Vinny Testaverde in 1998 with Jets: 12-1Jets first seven games without Vinny Testaverde in 1999: 1-6Clearly, Testaverde shoulda been MVP in 1998.Anyway, most people have seen by now that I've been on the Vick bandwagon for awhile. Nothing's changed since then. When healthy, he's the best player in the league.

 

Biabreakable

Footballguy
I didn't watch Vick against Arizona today so I cannot really comment on what happened with him in this game.However I did see him play the 1st 2 games and he was throwing extremly accurate laser fast passes. I was impressed with his passing ability. I had not seen accuracy like that from him before.I do think he is overated in the sense of people considering him to be a elite Qb like Peyton Manning. He has a lot to prove before I was consider him as such. But the comparisons people make of Vick to Kordell Stewart are not really true either, well maybe he looked like Kordell against Arizona today I don't know. But he sure played a lot better than I have ever seen Kordell play in terms of passing the ball in the 1st 2 games.As far as being a elite fantasy player his production still is too dependent on him running the ball at this point imo. At least until he starts throwing for 200 + yards and 2 TDs with some consistency he isn't performing at an average level as a passer. I am guessing against Arizona they maybe did not need that. Atlanta's defense has been playing very well from what I saw of the 1st 2 games. Vick appears to be a player that can manage a game for the win as long as the defense is doing it's job. But what about when he plays against high powered offensive teams? Can he match up without running for 100 yards? So far I would have to say the answer is no. I have seen enough passing proficiency out of him in the 1st 2 games (I am not talking about stats) that does cause me to think there is some hope for him to improve on this though.He needs more experience still and for Jenkins to emerge or else a new WR to go to. I don't think Price is good enough to be a number one WR.

 

Village Idiot

Pokerguy
I believe the Falcons will win 10 games or more if Vick stays healthy. Their schedule is that easy.Then get destroyed in the playoffs when they play a real team with a defense unlike bad defenses like Arizona, San Francisco, and St. Louis.There is a reason those teams have 1 win total.Vick is a bad passing QB, that will not get his team to a Super Bowl until he improves his accuracy considerably. I'd rather haveCulpepperManningMcNabbHasselbeckPenningtonBradyGreenBulgerMcNairBrooksDelhommeFavreall as real life QB's rather than the current Michael Vick.Any of those QB's dropped into ATL would put up better real life QB numbers than Vick for the entire year.I'd also include Testaverde as borderline better. He has a strong accurate arm.

 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
2002McNabb: 10 games playedFeely: 6 games playedDetmer: 9 games playedObviously, they split time in a lot of games. I believe the stat I was referencing was that the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which McNabb did not take more snaps than their other QBs.
McNabb took pretty much every snap in the first ten games. I think Detmer got one series in week three, and that's it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Vick is not overrated. He's nearly impossible to game plan against. He makes the whole offense better because of the adjustments the defense has to make against him.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
The Falcons running game is better this year than last year, that's pretty much the only difference.  The passing game isn't better.  Vick was supposed to be a great passer as soon as he got a WR like Price.  Well now they also got him Michael Jenkins and Dez White.Vick will be overrated until he stops showing up in the top 15 lists for QBs or he significantly improves his passing.McNabb isn't overrated.  He got the weapon he wanted and is playing amazingly.If the Falcons want a QB, Matt Schaub is their best bet.  Vick is a RB.
As for McNabb....you are totally missing my point. I think you are one of those totally caught up in fantasy stats, as evidenced by you thinking that Vick isn't playing well now(as if a QB's goal is to put up stats; not to win games and be 3-0)The Eagles went 9-1 a few years back with Feely and Detmer at the helm. They had a worse winning percentage with McNabb at the helm...explain that to me. Stats don't matter...wins do.
I'm not caught up in fantasy stats at all. I'm caught up in reality. McNabb has been playing lights out, Vick is putting up passing stats that would get many QBs benched, like he did in his 2002 season. Like I've said all along, when teams stop Vick from running, it's over with. Vick can't pass and that's one of the requirements of being a QB. When he does pass it, it is a dumpoff to the RB or TE.His WRs caught 3 passes for 36 yards today. For the season they have 14 catches for 165 yards.As for winning is all that matters. He just barely beat the Cardinals, only getting 6 points. They slipped by a pretty bad 49ers team week 1. They beat up on the Rams, but they too are a team sinking fast.Vick is not a good QB, he's a good runner. Anything more than that is a stretch.
You say you're not caught up in stats...and then you talk about stats some more! Every team gameplans to take away Vick, which greatly helps everyone else on the team. This is my key argument! Vick's lack of stats just mean that everyone else has more room. The fact that they only win by 3 is because everyone else isn't able to produce, not due to Vick. ITS LIKE WHEN THE LAKERS WOULD STRUGGLE BECAUSE SHAQ WAS DOUBLE TEAMED AND NOBODY ELSE COULD HIT A JUMPER...WAS THAT SHAQ'S FAULT?It doesn't matter if they 'barely' beat teams or not. Last year without him, they were losing miserably. With him their 3-0 this year, 3-1 last year, and 9-6-1 the year before! The fact that they have improved so much is enough imo.'Vick is not a good QB, he's a good runner. Anything more than that is a stretch.'Let me edit that for you:'Vick has a cannon for an arm, but has average accuracy. He is the greatest running QB ever by a long shot. His team responds well to him, and it improves everyone elses game when he plays. Anything less than that is a stretch.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Vinny Testaverde in 1998 with Jets: 12-1Jets first seven games without Vinny Testaverde in 1999: 1-6Clearly, Testaverde shoulda been MVP in 1998.Anyway, most people have seen by now that I've been on the Vick bandwagon for awhile. Nothing's changed since then. When healthy, he's the best player in the league.
Vinny was indeed out of this world that year. I know that you jest when you say all that, but Vinny isn't a bad QB at all....and in the ideal system that year, he was indeed a potential MVP candidate.
 

reg

Mod in training
Why no mention of Jay Fiedler? If you are saying winning = good QB then Jay should be in your top 5. ;)

RECORD AS A STARTER: Fiedler is one of the winningest active quarterbacks in the league ... His record as a starting quarterback is 36-17, including a 35-17 record with the Dolphins and a 1-0 mark with Jacksonville (1999) ... Of current NFL quarterbacks with at least 25 starts to their credit, Fiedler’s winning percentage of .679 is the third-best in the league ... In addition, his 36-17 record after 53 games as a starter is the best record after 53 career games started among active quarterbacks ... When Fiedler reached 35 wins in his 52nd career start, a Miami 20-3 victory over the Buffalo Bills on December 21 at Ralph Wilson Stadium, he tied for the seventh fastest quarterback (along with Stan Humphries and Jay Schroeder) to reach 35 wins ...
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
Vick is not overrated. He's nearly impossible to game plan against. He makes the whole offense better because of the adjustments the defense has to make against him.
I agree that this is Vick's greatest strength at this point in time. He seldom beats you with the pass. Only one game over 300 yards, only 6 games over 200 yards. But he changes how defenses have to play against him to stop his running ability, and that helps open up the rest of the offense. The problem for Atlanta is that it's easier for a defense to adjust to Vick not being there than it is for Atlanta to adjust. Defenses have to play with a mostly unique defense (Vick rules?) against him, and Atlanta counts on that. As a result, it's a harder change for Atlanta to go to a Vickless scheme that they don't practice, than it is for the defense to switch back to the normal defensive schemes they play the other 14-15 games each season.So I guess you could say, Atlanta gets a big gain when he's in there, but the unique nature of that gain also makes the Falcons even worse off by his loss than another team would be when they lose their QB. Culpepper or McNabb are good (and I'll argue better than Vick overall), but if you lose them, it doesn't force your team to completely change their style of play like losing Vick does.
 

mad sweeney

Footballguy
You have to separate FF from NFL when talking about being over-rated. AS far as the Falcons go, he cannot be overrated at all. When he's in, they win. In order to be an elite QB he needs to improve on many areas of his game, especially his accuracy which he seems to be doing well with this year so far. Staying healthy is more of a concern than his accuracy.But as for an FF QB1 taken in anywhere from the 2-4 round, he is still CLEARLY overrated. His QB points: 457 pass/187 rush, 2 TDs, 2 fumbles and 2 picks. Nowhere NEAR even 4th round QB numbers. My 9th round pick has 50% more points than Vick despite being on a bye this week. I love watching Vick play, except apparently when he plays the defensive juggernauts called the Cardinals, but I would HATE to be a Falcons fan and depend on the guy for my season. I continue to laugh at people that took Vick before the 5th round, and so far the numbers back that up. We'll see how Vick does when he faces a REAL defense like Seattle, Carolina, Tampa and Denver. Squeaking out victories against the sorry ### 9ers and Cards (and beating the Rams) is just not enough to convince me that he deserves his hype. Although I love the Saints and the Falcons right now for smashing the NFCW goons for us.

 

Sinrman

Footballguy
jwvdcw, you're seeing things in black in white when you say "a win is a win." Sure, a win is a win whether the QB passes for 100 yards or 400 yards. However, the difference here is that if a QB passes for just 100 yards, then SOMEONE else is stepping up to make up for this, as opposed to the 400 yard passing QB who wins.Yesterday was the perfect example. Take Peyton Manning and Michael Vick. Both QBs won. The Colts' defense was atrocious, and Manning had to make up for this, and did so masterfully. Vick? He was sub-par, and the only thing that kept the Falcons in that game was the defense. The defense had to make up for Vick's shortcomings. You can't blame it on Dunn - he had over 100 yards rushing. You can't blame the WRs or TEs - Vick wasn't passing the ball, or when he did actually pass, he was highly inaccurate (10/20).We see this time and time again. Vick CAN take over a game, and has done so from time to time. You like to point out the 2002 season. Ok, let's take a look at it. He only had 6 games (out of 15 starts) that he passed for 200 or more yards. He had a completion % of 70% or better only twice - 60% or better 6 times (including the two 70% or better games). However, he rushed for 50+ yards in 7 out of 15 games that year. To me, that shows me that he's a one dimensional player. Run first, ask questions later.Against weaker teams, this philosophy may work. But when pressed, and up against tougher teams, he doesn't step up to the plate too often. He's the lucky beneficiary of an easy schedule this year. Two out of three games this year have been against weak teams (and the third, STL, I'd say is mediocre), and he did poorly against them. Only the defense kept them in those ballgames, not Vick.THIS is what I am talking about. He has all-world talent, but right now, he's too one dimensional in thinking and not even close to his full potential. THIS is why I feel he is overrated right now. Give him a schedule like what McNabb or Manning face, see if he steps up to the plate, and THEN we'll talk...

 

ConstruxBoy

Kate's Daddy
jwvdcw, you're seeing things in black in white when you say "a win is a win." Sure, a win is a win whether the QB passes for 100 yards or 400 yards. However, the difference here is that if a QB passes for just 100 yards, then SOMEONE else is stepping up to make up for this, as opposed to the 400 yard passing QB who wins.Yesterday was the perfect example. Take Peyton Manning and Michael Vick. Both QBs won. The Colts' defense was atrocious, and Manning had to make up for this, and did so masterfully. Vick? He was sub-par, and the only thing that kept the Falcons in that game was the defense. The defense had to make up for Vick's shortcomings. You can't blame it on Dunn - he had over 100 yards rushing. You can't blame the WRs or TEs - Vick wasn't passing the ball, or when he did actually pass, he was highly inaccurate (10/20).We see this time and time again. Vick CAN take over a game, and has done so from time to time. You like to point out the 2002 season. Ok, let's take a look at it. He only had 6 games (out of 15 starts) that he passed for 200 or more yards. He had a completion % of 70% or better only twice - 60% or better 6 times (including the two 70% or better games). However, he rushed for 50+ yards in 7 out of 15 games that year. To me, that shows me that he's a one dimensional player. Run first, ask questions later.Against weaker teams, this philosophy may work. But when pressed, and up against tougher teams, he doesn't step up to the plate too often. He's the lucky beneficiary of an easy schedule this year. Two out of three games this year have been against weak teams (and the third, STL, I'd say is mediocre), and he did poorly against them. Only the defense kept them in those ballgames, not Vick.THIS is what I am talking about. He has all-world talent, but right now, he's too one dimensional in thinking and not even close to his full potential. THIS is why I feel he is overrated right now. Give him a schedule like what McNabb or Manning face, see if he steps up to the plate, and THEN we'll talk...
:goodposting: As I made clear in the other thread on this, he's vastly overrated. He is inaccurate, doesn't read Defenses all that well, and runs way too early in a play. They will lose some games this year because of him, even with how good the D, Dunn and Feely are. Almost happened yesterday at home versus Arizona. :thumbdown:
 

Boulder

Footballguy
What Vick really needs is a randy moss type of WR. Someone with the speed to get separation & size to out jump the DBs. Someone vick could play jump ball with and will make up for Vicks poor passing/decisions. If that happens, vick be a better version of culpepper.Edit to add: Peerless price is a bum.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

P Boy

Footballguy
What Vick really needs is a randy moss type of WR. Someone with the speed to get separation & size to out jump the DBs. Someone vick could play jump ball with and will make up for Vicks poor passing/decisions. If that happens, vick be a better version of culpepper.Edit to add: Peerless price is a bum.
If you're looking for someone who can catch Vick's passes, you'd better be looking to sign Yao Ming.
 

Bull Dozier

Footballguy
IMHO the greatest measurement of a QB is how much more the team wins with him than without him.
This has got to be a fishing trip. Say the Falcons sign a clone of Joe Montana in his prime, and he is now Vick's backup. Does that mean that Vick, even though he is the same player with the same offensive starters, now is not as good because he has a backup that would win as much as he does? That has got to be the worst valuation I have ever heard of.A mediocre QB with a absolutely horrible backup is not better than a great QB with a great backup.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Why no mention of Jay Fiedler? If you are saying winning = good QB then Jay should be in your top 5. ;)

RECORD AS A STARTER: Fiedler is one of the winningest active quarterbacks in the league ... His record as a starting quarterback is 36-17, including a 35-17 record with the Dolphins and a 1-0 mark with Jacksonville (1999) ... Of current NFL quarterbacks with at least 25 starts to their credit, Fiedler’s winning percentage of .679 is the third-best in the league ... In addition, his 36-17 record after 53 games as a starter is the best record after 53 career games started among active quarterbacks ... When Fiedler reached 35 wins in his 52nd career start, a Miami 20-3 victory over the Buffalo Bills on December 21 at Ralph Wilson Stadium, he tied for the seventh fastest quarterback (along with Stan Humphries and Jay Schroeder) to reach 35 wins ...
Gosh its frusterating arguing with you all sometimes.I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERY QB THAT HAS A GOOD WINNING PERCENTAGE IS GREAT.

Nor am I saying that every QB that has a poor winning percentage is bad.

What I'm saying is that when you have a QB whose team plays remarkably better with him than without him, then hes great. Now obviously there is somewhat of a 'fluke' aspect to this. That is why the following three things are important in weighing this:

1.Sample Size-Obviously we need more than a few games to tell if it really is a trend or not. Vick was 9-6-1, 3-1, and 3-0 in consecutive years, while that same team was terrible without him...I just looked it up and the were 5-11 last year, meaning THEY WERE 2-9 LAST YEAR WITHOUT HIM!!! SO IN SHORT, DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS, THE FALCONS ARE 15-6-1 WITH VICK AND 2-9 WITHOUT HIM.

2.The ability to make others around him better. The entire team should perform better with a great QB at the helm. I believe Warrick Dunn is the best example of this. I believe that you could stick any RB in Atlanta with Vick playing, and he'll easily rush for 1300 yards...the defense simply focuses on Vick so much that its easy for the RB.

3.Skills: Plain and simple, to make sure its not a fluke, we need to see some physical evidence. Michael Vick is the most physically gifted QB of all time...no reason to waste on more time on this point, as its completely obvious to anyone who has watched him play.

 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Vick is not overrated. He's nearly impossible to game plan against. He makes the whole offense better because of the adjustments the defense has to make against him.
I agree that this is Vick's greatest strength at this point in time. He seldom beats you with the pass. Only one game over 300 yards, only 6 games over 200 yards. But he changes how defenses have to play against him to stop his running ability, and that helps open up the rest of the offense. The problem for Atlanta is that it's easier for a defense to adjust to Vick not being there than it is for Atlanta to adjust. Defenses have to play with a mostly unique defense (Vick rules?) against him, and Atlanta counts on that. As a result, it's a harder change for Atlanta to go to a Vickless scheme that they don't practice, than it is for the defense to switch back to the normal defensive schemes they play the other 14-15 games each season.So I guess you could say, Atlanta gets a big gain when he's in there, but the unique nature of that gain also makes the Falcons even worse off by his loss than another team would be when they lose their QB. Culpepper or McNabb are good (and I'll argue better than Vick overall), but if you lose them, it doesn't force your team to completely change their style of play like losing Vick does.
I'd somewhat buy that, but didn't the Falcons sit Vick practically the entire preseason so that they could practice without him(and of course keep him healthy). I think they, more than any other team in the NFL, play preseason games without their starting QB.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
jwvdcw, you're seeing things in black in white when you say "a win is a win." Sure, a win is a win whether the QB passes for 100 yards or 400 yards. However, the difference here is that if a QB passes for just 100 yards, then SOMEONE else is stepping up to make up for this, as opposed to the 400 yard passing QB who wins.Yesterday was the perfect example. Take Peyton Manning and Michael Vick. Both QBs won. The Colts' defense was atrocious, and Manning had to make up for this, and did so masterfully. Vick? He was sub-par, and the only thing that kept the Falcons in that game was the defense. The defense had to make up for Vick's shortcomings. You can't blame it on Dunn - he had over 100 yards rushing. You can't blame the WRs or TEs - Vick wasn't passing the ball, or when he did actually pass, he was highly inaccurate (10/20).We see this time and time again. Vick CAN take over a game, and has done so from time to time. You like to point out the 2002 season. Ok, let's take a look at it. He only had 6 games (out of 15 starts) that he passed for 200 or more yards. He had a completion % of 70% or better only twice - 60% or better 6 times (including the two 70% or better games). However, he rushed for 50+ yards in 7 out of 15 games that year. To me, that shows me that he's a one dimensional player. Run first, ask questions later.Against weaker teams, this philosophy may work. But when pressed, and up against tougher teams, he doesn't step up to the plate too often. He's the lucky beneficiary of an easy schedule this year. Two out of three games this year have been against weak teams (and the third, STL, I'd say is mediocre), and he did poorly against them. Only the defense kept them in those ballgames, not Vick.THIS is what I am talking about. He has all-world talent, but right now, he's too one dimensional in thinking and not even close to his full potential. THIS is why I feel he is overrated right now. Give him a schedule like what McNabb or Manning face, see if he steps up to the plate, and THEN we'll talk...
Again, you're not realizing just how much Vick opens up the field for every other player.Warrick Dunn is nothing special. He is decent at best. Yet with Vick back there, he is a superstar. Where was this great Warrick Dunn last year when Vick was hurt? I agree that a win is not always 'a win.' I agree that a QB can play poorly and the team can still win. However, my entire point is that EVERY TIME VICK HAS A GAME WITH A LINE LIKE 100 YARDS PASSING, 1 INT, 0 TDS, 50 YARDS RUSHING, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE PLAYED POORLY. ITS BECAUSE DEFENSES GAMEPLAN TO STOP HIM MORE THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER IN THE NFL(RANDY MOSS IS 2ND IMO), AND IT OPENS UP THE DOOR FOR EVERY OTHER PLAYER.Its hard to put up good stats when the entire other team is entirely focused on you. But it results in wins because the rest of your team can dominate.2-9 without him, 15-6-1 with him...the proof is right there. I don't see how that is disputable.
 

jwvdcw

Footballguy
I'm still just completely baffled at this.If...1.The QB didn't have great skills, then maybe I'd understand wanting to see a little more before we believe(for example, not everyone was sold on Brady after one season because he didn't have great skils. We wondered if he was another Joe Montana or another Trent Dilfer. But now he has proven himself, but at first we weren't sure).OR2.The new young stud QB comes in as they also bring new talent in(ala Kurt Warner with the Rams in 1999) and then they suddenly become powerful.OR3.The team struggles without the QB but it also might just be struggling because thye've lost other pieces of their team as well(Fiedler this year).For these reasons I don't think Fiedler was the key to the Dolphins, I don't think Kurt Warner was the sole reason for the Rams run, and at first I wasn't sold on Brady.But with Vick......they were bad before he got there. They went to the 2nd round of the playoffs with him. They were then terrible again without him. Then they're 3-0 now that hes back again. Honestly, I just can't call that a coincidence.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top