Gotcha.So lets see. 2000 - Fiedler plays all games but 1 (can't find boxscores to see which one he missed). 11-52001 - he plays all 16 games 11-52002 - he plays 10 games, 7-3 with him, 2-4 without2003 - he plays 12 games, 8-4 with him, 2-2 without2004 - he has played .5 games they are 0-3Recap: 37-17 with fiedler, 4-9 without (over a 5 year stretch).Conclusion: Fiedler is better than Vick and should be in the hall of fame.
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)
- Thread starter jwvdcw
- Start date
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
Its pretty obvious that Vick is overrated...any player that is hyped, headlined, and spoken about this much while putting up absolutely mediocre numbers is of course overrated. Is he important to his team? Yes. Important like Peyton Manning or Favre? No. Important like Kordell was to the Steelers early in his career or Dilfer to Ravens? Yes. Don't go out there and suck like Sling Johnson...thats all Vick has to do...don't suck like the other garbage we had on our team last year. That is his job....and this is a guy with video games and roller coaster commercials and every kid in the America wearing his jersey and basically the most popular and recognizable player in the NFL.Yes. He IS overrated.jw made a comparison to Shaq...I think the better comparison is Vince Carter. Spectacular to watch, popular as heck....but never quite gets beyond being the athletic freak show. Not saying that Vick will never be great, the potential is there, but please quit saying that he already has reached that level because he won 9 games two years ago....
A few more things...First, I've repeatedly said that the Falcons were 2-9 last year when Vick didn't start...they were actually 2-10. Just makes it all that more impressive.And, I'd also like to point out the schedule. Consider this: A 2-10 team. Going into week 14(they had their bye already), they are getting Vick back, and here is their schedule:Carolina@Indy@Tampa BayJacksonvilleThats one tough schedule. Yet Michael Vick takes a 2-10 team and wins 3 out of those 4 games.I can't believe we're even arguing this, as its not close.
I guess you didn't see the post RIGHT ABOVE YOURS, in which I addressed this in point #3.(And he really falls into point #1 as well). Come on...I honestly think you're just fishing now since you're totally dismissing points I've already made and just spouting on and on about how great Fiedler is.Jay Fiedler is a very solid QB ala Trent Dilfer. Surround him with a good supporting cast and he'll due well. I really don't think hes all that bad, but hes nothing special. BTW, he should be starting over Feely. His teamates love him just as they loved Dilfer in Baltiimore. So, yes, I do think Fiedler is a bit underrated actually. I think he is a top 15-20 QB in this league and definitely deserves a starting job somewhere...is that so hard to fathom?
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
IMHO I don't think Vick is overrated. But I am dissapointed in his play so far.Vick is 26th in passing 17th in passer rating 23rd in rushing I expected more of him, I guess I'm just a little dissapointed.Now it could be that #1, maybe Mora (whom I think didn't deserve the head coaching job) is not the right one for Vick. #2 Vick needs a real WR Price won't do.#3 Vick needs a real RB Dunn won't do.Then and only then will we be able to correctly state whether Vick is overrated or not. 
packersfan
Footballguy
You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
uring five seasons with the Bucs, Dunn had two 1,000-yard rushing seasons and nearly had a third (978 as a rookie). He also had at least 1,400 total yards in three seasons and had at least 1,000 total yards in every season he was there. He caught at least 44 passes in every season but one and twice had more than 60. Interestingly, his YPC average last season without Vick was the highest of his career and his combined YPC in two seasons with Vick (4.1) is less than he produced in three of his five seasons in Tampa Bay.Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm almost certain this is a fishing trip, but I'll play along...."Its pretty obvious that Vick is overrated...any player that is hyped, headlined, and spoken about this much while putting up absolutely mediocre numbers is of course overrated. " So anyone who is hyped but doesn't put up spectacular numbers is bad? HE DOESN'T PUT UP SPECTACULAR NUMBERS BECAUSE DEFENSES GAMEPLAN SOLELY TOWARDS HIM WHICH MAKES EVERYTHING SO MUCH EASIER ON EVERYONE ELSE AND LETS HIS TEAM WIN. GOSH, I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD BY NOW YET YOU ALL KEEP RAISING THIS SAME STUPID POINT. So I guess you think Tom Brady is overrated as well because he doesn't put up great fantasy stats?"Is he important to his team? Yes. Important like Peyton Manning or Favre? No. Important like Kordell was to the Steelers early in his career or Dilfer to Ravens? Yes. Don't go out there and suck like Sling Johnson...thats all Vick has to do...don't suck like the other garbage we had on our team last year. "This would be the main fishing trip part of your post. "Don't go out there and suck." Are you kidding me? If any QB in the league is told "Go out there and make stuff happen, we'll live with your mistakes, but we need you to make stuff happen for us" its Michael Vick. I honestly can't take anything you said after this seriously at all."That is his job....and this is a guy with video games and roller coaster commercials and every kid in the America wearing his jersey and basically the most popular and recognizable player in the NFL."I'm not talking about over or underrated by some 8 year old kid. I'm talking about what we, sharks, think about him. No real football fan thinks hes currently the best player in the game..although I do think hes top 25."jw made a comparison to Shaq...I think the better comparison is Vince Carter. Spectacular to watch, popular as heck....but never quite gets beyond being the athletic freak show. Not saying that Vick will never be great, the potential is there, but please quit saying that he already has reached that level because he won 9 games two years ago...."The main knock on Vince Carter was that he never made his teamates better and he never won. If anything, I've shown in this thread that is exactly what Michael Vick does. This point is terrible.
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
So anyone that disagrees with you is on a 'fishing trip'?....I don't get into that kinda ****. I voice my opinion. And my opinion is rooted in reality. If you actually take off your 'Mike Vick is my hero' glasses you would be able to see that what I said in my post is dead on. As for your ridiculous 'teams gameplan against him' argument. That might be the silliest thing any grown man who actually pretends to know anything about football has ever said to me. Breaking news here so listen up....TEAMS GAMEPLAN AGAINST EVERY PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE. You think for every other game teams just tell their coaching staff to take the week off...I'm sure coaches are like "We'll just wing it this week guys its not like we're playing Mike Vick or anything" or maybe a Tuesday meeting goes like this "Tapes of games? Who needs em. We only study tapes of Mike Vick so we can prevent him from winning 10 super bowls in a row"Get serious man I think its you that is fishing. Just the fact that you are unable to accept that he is overrated and YES, IF YOU ARE BEING HYPED THIS MUCH YOUR PLAY SHOULD BACK IT UP
I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You're right about Dunn. I kept hearing about how hes doing so well this year that I just assumed he was doing better(Also someone claiming that the fact that they're 3-0 this year was due to Dunn caused me to automatically assume that Dunn was having a great year but I guess people here often make silly points, so I should check facts and not assume). My mistake, but I still maintain that Vick clearly makes everyone on the team a ton better by having everyone focus upon him.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
packersfan
Footballguy
You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it.And I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. How is the Atlanta passing game doing so far this season?I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
No, its just you thats on a fishing trip(either that or your debate skills need serious work). I know I mentioned fishing trip once earlier, but that was only because I was getting frusterated that I had just replied to what he was then asking me yet again.Your Vince Carter analogy was totally off. VC is a superstar who was critisized for not making teamates any better(actually making them worse by hogging the ball...see Tracy McGrady) and by not winning. Your comment about Vick being told to 'just don't mess up' is what made me think your were fishing....this is absolutely absurd. Its the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. If I could pick any player in the league that is exact opposite of what you said, it is indeed Vick. You're crazy(or fishing). This made me think that you're fishing. I'm sorry if you're not. I apologize if this offended you. Still, I can't see how on earth you can possibly believe that Vick is told to 'just not lose' the games. Vick is their offense. Vick is the Falcons. Vick makes all the plays. Without him they are boring and bland."TEAMS GAMEPLAN AGAINST EVERY PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE"- Obviously they gameplan against everyone, but who do they focus on. Do you not agree that if a WR draws double coverage that its helps the #2 WR? Now consider Randy Moss who draws triple coverage on some routes...see how much that would help the #2 WR. Do you not agree that when teams always contain Vick on run plays(for fear that hes play actioning and taking off) that it helps the RB? Do you see how since they leave someone to spy on Vick that it helps his WRs? "You think for every other game teams just tell their coaching staff to take the week off...I'm sure coaches are like "We'll just wing it this week guys its not like we're playing Mike Vick or anything" or maybe a Tuesday meeting goes like this "Tapes of games? Who needs em. We only study tapes of Mike Vick so we can prevent him from winning 10 super bowls in a row""Huh? Where did I say this? What on earth are you reading? Yes, of course, teams GAMEPLAN for every team. But their gameplan for most teams is to cover everone 1-on-1(obviously not always, but lets keep this simple). But with those rare athletes like Vick or Moss or Ray Lewis, their gameplan involves spending extra effort and more than 1 player to account for him, which helps the rest of the Falcons offense immensely. I don't see how you can't see this, and I really can't see how you can call it the silliest thing ever. Here is all I'm saying:GOOD PLAYERS REQUIRE EXTRA ATTENTION FROM THE DEFENSE, WHICH HELPS THE OTHER OFFENSIVE PLAYERS SINCE TEAMS OFTEN MUST BE LAX TOWARD THEM IN ORDER TO PAY THAT EXTRA ATTENTION. GREAT PLAYERS LIKE VICK, MOSS, AND LEWIS REQUIRE EVEN MORE EXTRA ATTENTION WHICH HELPS THEIR TEAMATES EVEN MORE. If teams didn't gameplan towards Moss or Vick(I'll leave R Lewis out of this since its a bit different since hes a defender) and they treated them as any other player(ie. single covered Moss and didn't spy on Vick), I'm willing to bet that Moss would put up 2000 yards receiving and Vick could rush for 1500 yards.
Huh? What planet are you living on? Read what I wrote again, then read your response. Here I'll type it out for you...."I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played."You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it.And I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. How is the Atlanta passing game doing so far this season?I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
"You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it."
I didn't say any of what you claimed that I said! What are you reading????
"You just did it again"
NO I DIDN'T!
" so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play."
I DIDN'T SAY THAT!
"Nor did he "share time" that season"
YES HE DID!
Here is what I said:
"its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played"
Notice, I even said that its a bit confusing. This infers that I don't recall all the specifics, so I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge over the situation. Notice I also said 'I think', once again saying that I realize I could be a little wrong. I'm totally open to the fact that I sometimes get facts wrong. We're all human- we make mistake. I realize that I do sometimes as well which is why I say 'I think'. But please don't misquote me like that.
Wadsworth
Footballguy
BB and the Pats have taught me a lot about football in the past 3 years. It's all about finding a way to win games. You don't need a QB(or any other position) to perform at all-pro level every snap. In fact pushing yourself to preform at that level can create mistakes. What you need is players that can get the job done when it's needed for a win. Is Vick that type of player?
The Falcons record with him starting would seem to support his case. But it too soon to tell. When I talk to people about Vick, their opinions of him almost always fall into one of three "versions of Vick". In three games this season you've seen all three versions of Vick.
Vick is a winner: Week 1 he played well in the first half and once the Falcons had the lead, coasted to a victory.
Vick is a superstar: Week 2 Vick was amazing. He was without a doubt the best football player on the field that game.
Vick is an over-hyped bust: Week 3 Vick made an average at best Cards D looks great. He turned the ball over several times and did little to help his team win.
Which version is correct? It's going to take more than his brief NFL tenure to tell. At this point a case can be made for all three. However it plays out, I know I'll be watching him play whenever I can and enjoying every minute of it.
The Falcons record with him starting would seem to support his case. But it too soon to tell. When I talk to people about Vick, their opinions of him almost always fall into one of three "versions of Vick". In three games this season you've seen all three versions of Vick.
Vick is a winner: Week 1 he played well in the first half and once the Falcons had the lead, coasted to a victory.
Vick is a superstar: Week 2 Vick was amazing. He was without a doubt the best football player on the field that game.
Vick is an over-hyped bust: Week 3 Vick made an average at best Cards D looks great. He turned the ball over several times and did little to help his team win.
Which version is correct? It's going to take more than his brief NFL tenure to tell. At this point a case can be made for all three. However it plays out, I know I'll be watching him play whenever I can and enjoying every minute of it.
packersfan
Footballguy
I'll make this simple for you. Here is what you need to remove from your argument:"I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played."Huh? What planet are you living on? Read what I wrote again, then read your response. Here I'll type it out for you...."I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played."You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it.And I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. How is the Atlanta passing game doing so far this season?I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
"You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it."
I didn't say any of what you claimed that I said! What are you reading????
"You just did it again"
NO I DIDN'T!
" so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play."
I DIDN'T SAY THAT!
"Nor did he "share time" that season"
YES HE DID!
Here is what I said:
"its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played"
Notice, I even said that its a bit confusing. This infers that I don't recall all the specifics, so I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge over the situation. Notice I also said 'I think', once again saying that I realize I could be a little wrong. I'm totally open to the fact that I sometimes get facts wrong. We're all human- we make mistake. I realize that I do sometimes as well which is why I say 'I think'. But please don't misquote me like that.
You are using this statement repeatedly as a means of evidence to say the Eagles were a better team without McNabb than they were with him and by continuing to say this you are providing misleading information and severely weakening the overall point you're trying to make.
Stop saying this and that will clear things up dramatically.
Very good post. Notice, however, two points:1.Vick's team still own when he played poorly. People often say about Brady, he does just enough to let his team win. That is when they need offense, he'll open it up and go for the gusto. And when his defense is playing well, he'll play it safe and not give up any points.
2.I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but lets give some credit to the Cardinals defense. Their offense is horrible, so they get little rest and they're constantly put in bad field position. Yet they held the Rams in St Louis to 17 points(only one TD there), held the Pats to 23 points(and 7 of those points were a direct result of NE getting a turnover in Arizona territory), and then Atlanta to 6 points. I'm not saying they're great, but they're not terible....(btw, I'm not saying you're doing this, as you even said 'average at best', I'm just raising the issue here.
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
My debate skills seem fine...its your read & response skills that might need brushing up (kinda like Vick). I never said that he's TOLD anything...I said his job is not to suck. My belief is thats all he has to do for this team to win against weak opponents...and thats exactly what he's been doing...unless now you're gona try and sell me that his numbers are amazing too. So basically he's been playing mediocre and they've been winning. What does that mean? ding ding. That he just has to NOT suck for this team to win. Is that one clear for you?Now the gameplan thing...Your gameplan against a great WR is to deny him the ball or if he does get that ball then yards after catch. A QB is taking the snaps, he has the ball on every posession. Therefore a QB is ALWAYS the focus of a gameplan because he ALWAYS has the ball not just the special ones like your boy Vick. Now if he has a spy which is usually a strong safety or more likely a linebacker then where is the proof that Vick is taking advantage of these mismatches wouldn't it make sense that he'd be finding all these open guys that are all over the field since his own greatness is drawing so much attention? No, instead he's pulling it down and running it some more...or better yet just fumbling. How is this taking making his teammates better? You argue thats he's not overrated yet he may be the very definition of ovverated...when your hype is much bigger than your production...you are overrated.You argue that its not numbers but wins that matter and when someone shows you that a QB as amazing as Fiedler shows the same propensity for winning games...you say that its not just wins.Then you say his numbers are down because he's busy making everyone else on his team better...yet he last time I checked he doesn't play defense and his offense isn't exactly blowing up.I know you are deadset on your opinion here so I'm just gonna stop trying to drive this point home to you because its obvious common sense and logic is just something that someone so in love cannot see. But I definitely like your energy in this argument...so good job so far and please continue making no sense whatsoever.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Can we at least get the FACTS introduced into this argument????From www.pro-football-reference.comHuh? What planet are you living on? Read what I wrote again, then read your response. Here I'll type it out for you...."I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played."You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it.And I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. How is the Atlanta passing game doing so far this season?I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
"You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it."
I didn't say any of what you claimed that I said! What are you reading????
"You just did it again"
NO I DIDN'T!
" so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play."
I DIDN'T SAY THAT!
"Nor did he "share time" that season"
YES HE DID!
Here is what I said:
"its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played"
Notice, I even said that its a bit confusing. This infers that I don't recall all the specifics, so I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge over the situation. Notice I also said 'I think', once again saying that I realize I could be a little wrong. I'm totally open to the fact that I sometimes get facts wrong. We're all human- we make mistake. I realize that I do sometimes as well which is why I say 'I think'. But please don't misquote me like that.
Philadephia Eagles, 2002
McNabb -- McNabb played and started in 10 games, Week 1 through 11. They were 7-3 with him in the lineup.
Koy Detmer -- Appeared for 2 pass attempts in week 3, saw his only real action in Week 12, in place of McNabb. He was 1-0
A.J. Feeley -- Appeared in the last five games, went 4-1THE EAGLES WERE 5-1 (NOT 9-1) WHEN DETMER AND FEELEY PLAYED. Still impressive, and no less in support of the point that the Eagles were good regardless of the QB, so why insist on the 9-1 when it's a mistake? You don't lose the effectiveness of your argument by sticking to the facts.
Well is that statement true or not?(I'm not saying it is, I am truly asking you, as I'm not positive as I said). If it is true, then why are you telling me that I need to stop saying it. Is the truth not a good thing to say?Ok, its clear that neither of us know the exact facts, so let me research them(I'm searching for them right now as I type this):I'll make this simple for you. Here is what you need to remove from your argument:"I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played."Huh? What planet are you living on? Read what I wrote again, then read your response. Here I'll type it out for you...."I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played."You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it.And I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. How is the Atlanta passing game doing so far this season?I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
"You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it."
I didn't say any of what you claimed that I said! What are you reading????
"You just did it again"
NO I DIDN'T!
" so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play."
I DIDN'T SAY THAT!
"Nor did he "share time" that season"
YES HE DID!
Here is what I said:
"its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played"
Notice, I even said that its a bit confusing. This infers that I don't recall all the specifics, so I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge over the situation. Notice I also said 'I think', once again saying that I realize I could be a little wrong. I'm totally open to the fact that I sometimes get facts wrong. We're all human- we make mistake. I realize that I do sometimes as well which is why I say 'I think'. But please don't misquote me like that.
You are using this statement repeatedly as a means of evidence to say the Eagles were a better team without McNabb than they were with him and by continuing to say this you are providing misleading information and severely weakening the overall point you're trying to make.
Stop saying this and that will clear things up dramatically.
2002 Philly Eagles
week1: McNabb plays whole game, Eagles lose
week2: McNabb plays whole game, Eagles win
week3: McNabb plays most of the game; Detmer plays a little, Eagles win
week4: McNabb plays the whole game, Eagles win
week5: McNabb plays whole game, Eagles lose
week6: bye
week7: McNabb plays whole game, Eagles win
week8:Mcnabb plays whole game, EAgles win
week9: Mcnabb plays whole game, Eagles win
week10: McNabb plays whole game, Eagles lose
week11:McNabb plays most of the game; Detmer plays a little, Eagles win
week12
etmer plays most of the game; Feely plays a little, Eagles winweek 13:Feely plays the whole game, Eagles win
week14:Feely plays the whole game, Eagles win
week15:Feely plays the whole game, Eagles win
week16:Feely plays the whole game, Eagles win
week17:Feely plays the whole game, Eagles lose
Totals:
McNabb plays whole game: 5-3
McNabb plays most, Detmer plays a little: 2-0
Detmer plays most, Feely a little: 1-0
Feely plays all:4-1
So, I'm sorry, it was 7-1(not 9-1) when one of them played. I apologize for getting the facts wrong. I'm not sure even how we got into this issue, as I thought this was about Vick. Clearly, though, at worst, you can see the Eagles were just as good with AJ Feely(who we're seeing how great he is now in Miami).
I will concede that this sample size might be too low to draw conclusions just yet.
packersfan
Footballguy
I hope you have better luck getting him to see his mistake than I did.Can we at least get the FACTS introduced into this argument????From www.pro-football-reference.comHuh? What planet are you living on? Read what I wrote again, then read your response. Here I'll type it out for you...."I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played."You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it.And I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. How is the Atlanta passing game doing so far this season?I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
"You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it."
I didn't say any of what you claimed that I said! What are you reading????
"You just did it again"
NO I DIDN'T!
" so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play."
I DIDN'T SAY THAT!
"Nor did he "share time" that season"
YES HE DID!
Here is what I said:
"its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played"
Notice, I even said that its a bit confusing. This infers that I don't recall all the specifics, so I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge over the situation. Notice I also said 'I think', once again saying that I realize I could be a little wrong. I'm totally open to the fact that I sometimes get facts wrong. We're all human- we make mistake. I realize that I do sometimes as well which is why I say 'I think'. But please don't misquote me like that.
Philadephia Eagles, 2002
McNabb -- McNabb played and started in 10 games, Week 1 through 11. They were 7-3 with him in the lineup.
Koy Detmer -- Appeared for 2 pass attempts in week 3, saw his only real action in Week 12, in place of McNabb. He was 1-0
A.J. Feeley -- Appeared in the last five games, went 4-1THE EAGLES WERE 5-1 (NOT 9-1) WHEN DETMER AND FEELEY PLAYED. Still impressive, and no less in support of the point that the Eagles were good regardless of the QB, so why insist on the 9-1 when it's a mistake? You don't lose the effectiveness of your argument by sticking to the facts.
Gosh all of my work for nothing, as you were doing it at the same time...lol.Can we at least get the FACTS introduced into this argument????From www.pro-football-reference.comHuh? What planet are you living on? Read what I wrote again, then read your response. Here I'll type it out for you...."I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played."You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it.And I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. How is the Atlanta passing game doing so far this season?I didn't make state any wrong facts about McNabb. It was just a bit unclear on my part. The Eagles had so many QBs play that year, its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played.You really need to check out some facts before you post. First you missed on the Eagles' record minus McNabb and now you apparently haven't taken a second to look at Dunn's career history. So allow me to help you
Care to tell me again how Vick has made Dunn a superstar?
Oh and then tell me how Vick has made any of the receivers on the Falcons' roster better.
"You just did it again. McNabb played and started in 10 games that season. He did not miss 10, so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play. Nor did he "share time" that season. He was clearly the starting QB for the Eagles. Your argument here is invalid and weakens your case if you continue to use it."
I didn't say any of what you claimed that I said! What are you reading????
"You just did it again"
NO I DIDN'T!
" so you can't say the Eagles were 9-1 in games in which he did not play."
I DIDN'T SAY THAT!
"Nor did he "share time" that season"
YES HE DID!
Here is what I said:
"its a bit confusing, but I think the fact was that the Eagles were 9-1 when Feely or Detmer played and much worse when only McNabb played"
Notice, I even said that its a bit confusing. This infers that I don't recall all the specifics, so I'm not claiming to have complete knowledge over the situation. Notice I also said 'I think', once again saying that I realize I could be a little wrong. I'm totally open to the fact that I sometimes get facts wrong. We're all human- we make mistake. I realize that I do sometimes as well which is why I say 'I think'. But please don't misquote me like that.
Philadephia Eagles, 2002
McNabb -- McNabb played and started in 10 games, Week 1 through 11. They were 7-3 with him in the lineup.
Koy Detmer -- Appeared for 2 pass attempts in week 3, saw his only real action in Week 12, in place of McNabb. He was 1-0
A.J. Feeley -- Appeared in the last five games, went 4-1THE EAGLES WERE 5-1 (NOT 9-1) WHEN DETMER AND FEELEY PLAYED. Still impressive, and no less in support of the point that the Eagles were good regardless of the QB, so why insist on the 9-1 when it's a mistake? You don't lose the effectiveness of your argument by sticking to the facts.
Bull Dozier
Footballguy
It's disputable because your argument depends on the fact that Atlanta had horrible backups last year. If they had a servicable veteran who could run the show, they wouldn't have had as bad a record (possibly) and your argument would be nulified. We can debate back and forth if they would have, so lets just assume they had a better backup, and their record was 10-2, instead of 2-10. What's your argument for Vick's greatness then? Hinging your whole argument on the suckiness of Doug Johnson doesn't make me impressed with Vick.
You make some good points here, which I must say I wasn't expecting after your first post. I still think your VC comparison was terrible(which you havn't replied to, but thats probably a good thing).I still think you're way off in saying that "...I said his job is not to suck. My belief is thats all he has to do for this team to win against weak opponents...and thats exactly what he's been doing.."Yes, you're right...against a team like Arizona, he can sit back and rely upon his defense. I've agreed with this all along. A few posts up, I compared him to Brady saying, ".Vick's team still own when he played poorly. People often say about Brady, he does just enough to let his team win. That is when they need offense, he'll open it up and go for the gusto. And when his defense is playing well, he'll play it safe and not give up any points." But thats not just Vick..thats every player in the league. Take a look at any oother games....he definitely is relied upon a ton to win games. Do you really want me to provide all the examples(I don't really feel like doing research after the whole McNabb thing, but I will). Vick makes his team win.
Ok, very good point.So heres what we're left with:1.D Johson is very good, Vick is the greatest QB ever2.D Johnson is average, Vick is a great QB3.D Johnson is below average, Vick is one of the top QBs in the league(top 5)4.D Johnson is very poor, Vick is a very good QB(top 10)5.D Johnson is absolutely horrible and has no business in the NFL, Vick is goodI realize that none of us can say for sure, but I find it hard to believe that the hes truly that bad. I would lean more towards options 3 or 4. I think option 2 has just a good of chance as option 5.I'd say these are the odds of each being true IMO:1: less than 1%2.10%3.40%4.40%5.10%
I think a more telling comparison would be between Chris Chandler in 2001. The Falcons went 7-9 that year. Imo Chris Chandler is the very definition of an average QB, although he was pretty good for a while there. He could be at any given time a top 10-20 QB in the league.Well, Vick was 9-6-1 with the same team Chandler was 7-9(2 wins and 3 losses better, so 2.5 games better).But heres the thing: Vick was 2.5 games better than an average QB in his 2nd year....hes obviously improved since then. Now I'd say hes about 4-5 games better than average, which puts him imo only behind Brady, Manning, Favre, McNair, and mcNabb.
Bull Dozier
Footballguy
You're options 1-5 are completely arbitrary, and thus are difficult to discuss. Even if I agreed with your assumptions that 1-5 were true, there is nothing to base those on, so I can't really comment. They really have no founding more reliable than me saying "well, if the Falcons had a Dan Marino from his prime as his backup, then the Falcons would have gone 11-1 in Vicks absense, and therefor Vick doesn't belong in the league." Both your statementsAlso, your comparison to Chandler is invalid in my opinion. Chandler was way past his usefulness in 2001. I think that if Atlanta had any inkling that Vick would miss significant time, they would have signed someone else. I think they went after Chandler because of his veteran influence over Vick, moreso than what he provided on the field.But we could go on forever on this (and I suspect you will). I disagree with the foundation of your arguement. We disagree on the quality of Atlanta's backups. I just don't think you can judge quarterbacks universally by the play of their backups.Look at it this way, did Joe Montana suck because Steve Young played just as well as he did? Steve Young's backups over the years (Bono, Grbac, others) won just as well. Maybe they all sucked and the rest of the team rocked. You need to base the argument on more than the performace of the backup, and in my opinion, that shouldn't be a part of the argument at all.
rhawkins68
Footballguy
I can't believe the lengths people go to make Vick look good. 1. Football is a team sport. Vick plays a single position on the field. Without the rest of the team he is useless. Period. You credit the Arizona win to him when your counting his stats but ignore the defense that actually won the game. Without those 11 guys the Falcons lose. No question about it. Yet you seem to think that wonder dog Vick has something to do with it.2. Secondly, being a good QB and being a good runner are not the same. Yes he brings an added dimension to the Falcons game. That is the ability to be a 3rd RB that can throw a semi-decent pass. No way if I'm the coach do I keep Vick at QB. I look for someone who can run a team not RUN. 3. His gun for an arm is useless if he cannot aim it and use it consistantly. Once again I would find another QB for the job. I'd prefer a weaker arm with more accuracy for the QB position. I also want a guy who does not think to run first pass second. 4. you make a huge deal out of the play-off win versus the packers. The facts are he was not succesfull in that game. 13-25, 117, 1td, 4.5 per pass. Rushing wise they had almost 200yds. Also the DEFENSE had a blocked punt for a TD, 2 intereceptions and 3 fumbles they recovered. That win was the Falcons defense taking advantage of a bad Packers outing not Vick being an elite QB.Edit: Also, the Packers had a slew of injries on Defense and offense if I recall.I've said it before. Vick is nothing more than an average QB until he learns to be a real QB that can read defenses, throw accuractly, and not run first. I have also stated he will be a good not great QB if he can master those skills. This will come down to mental disiplince, his want to do it, and coaching. Until then I take the majority of QB's starting now over Vick as my QB of choice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shlon
Footballguy
The 9-6-1 year was Vick's first year as a starter as well. And to all those complaining about all the hype he's getting. It's obvious he's getting it, because he's the single-most exciting player in the NFL. Even my non-football friends tune in to Falcons games to watch Vick, no other person can do tune them in.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Michael Vick cause a team to win 4-5 games more than if they had an average QB.The Falcons were 2-10 without Vick last year. I think Johnson was subpar, and with an average QB they'd have been about 4-8. With Vick, I'd put them at 8-4 or 9-3, which is 4-5 games better.Are you telling me that the Falcons going 8-4 with Vick is so outrageous thats its fishing? If so, how? Why is 8-4 so hard to belive for you? They're 3-0 right now! They were 9-6-1 2 years ago. They were 3-1 with Vick last year....8-4 doesn't seem all that ridiculous imo. Tell me why I'm wrong.
Ahem...3-0 thanks to a defense that has also given me 25+ fantasy points so far this year!! (
)and its only a value of the worth to his team....there is not doubt that Vick is the MVP of the falcons but that dosent mean hes in the top five QB's in the league, certainly dosent look that way right now to me. And if he cant play smart and stay healthy his career will be over before it even gets really rollingrhawkins68
Footballguy
Last 4 gamesPanthers (11-5) Def16 Vick 179 yards passing and 141 rushing. A good performance to help the Falcons win. What was the difference maker in this game. Well Vick and company had it tied into overtime where the Panters got the ball and guess what the DEFENSE ran a pick in for a TD. Colts (12-4) Def05 Huge blow out by the Colts. Vick could only get 47 yds passing going. The Def just couldn't win this game for them the Colts were to good.Bucs (7-9) Def04 4 turnovers created by the defense 1 pick for a TD which was the last score that was not a FG. Basically this won the game for them. Vick only had 119 yds passing and was shut down mid way through the second quarter. Jags (5-11) Def17 A good all around game by the Falcons although Vick only had 180 pass yards. Both teams had one turnover in a close game. Although the rushing attack minus fick had 136 yards to his 180 passing. Vick had 2 td passes so I'd give him the game ball since he's the QB.So that's the breakdown of the games when Vick got back. He made the SMALL difference they needed. Of the games they lost the majority were close games 4-13 were blow-outs without him. With him 1-4 were blow out losses. I still believe Vick is an below-average to average QB in the league nothing more nothing less. He'll hit dead on average after he learns to think more in the pocket.
I can handle being wrong. Some people have raised very good counter points. However, its so frusterating when people totally ignore what I've already said or totally misquote me, especially when they do it in a sarcastic manner. Here is what I've ALREADY said:"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. "Allow me to repeat once again: "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."Yet you seem to totally miss when I've said that, and you're very sarcastic in doing it.As I've said, I can be wrong, and I love to hear other viewpoints, but please don't raise issues I've already addressed or misquote me.
Good points....I totally agree with you about being injury prone if he runs too much. I don't doubt that his style may lead to injury. However, when healthy and playing like that, he is not overrated. He did win those 9 games. Was it a health concern? Yes. Was he injury prone? Yes. But he is/was one of the best QBs in the league and is not overrated im
k fine...lets dismiss the Cardinals victory this past week, since they're no good. How about when he took over for a 2-10 Falcons team last year and proceeded to go 3-1 against Carolina, Indy, Jacksonville, and Tampa Bay with two of those on the road. Is that good enough competition to beat, especially considering they were 2-10 without him?Just curious...but where do you rank Tom Brady?Because you're using the same logic(flawed, I believe) that Brady haters use:"Sure they win with him and they were terrible without him, but they win by a small margin with him and he doesn't put up good stats, so I believe that its the defense, coaching, and other offensive players that are responsible for their wins."Again I'll ask...where was this 'turnover forcing' defense when Vick was injured?
DaveGrumbles
Footballguy
All you have proven is that he is significantly better than Doug Johnson(wow)...how does that equate to greatness? When other people have pointed out that Fiedler has a better winning percentage...you have made it clear that Fiedler is just good not great. But for some reason Vick's winning percentage means he is great. This is where 'hype' and 'overrated' come into play... people are more mesmerized by his athletic ability than his actual production.Bringing me back your Shaq comparison which I still don't agree with...You compare the most dominant force in his sport and a man whose career numbers will place him alongside people like Chamberlain, West and Jordan, a man who has been to 5 finals while winning three to Michael Vick....huh?And your reasoning is that because like Shaq he makes the guys around him better. So since Kobe has previously led the league in scoring and so have the Lakers as a team...then wouldn't you equate that to a Vick receiver leading the league in yards or receptions or his team leading the league in scoring? Which by the way isn't even close to happening.Yet you call my comparison to Vince Carter way off...when its actually dead on.Vince = spectacular man to watch,amazing athlete( Vick too) Vince = soft/injury prone (Vick too)Vince = Hype without production (Vick too)Vince = never improved his game since rookie year. No defense, suspect jumper and selfish with the ball (Vick replace defense with patience in the pocket)...Vick(replace suspect jumper with progression reads...Vick replace with selfish with the ball)Vince = slobbering fans like jw to hang from his nuts all day long( Vick has slobbering fans like jw who hang from his nuts all day long)Eerie stuff.
rhawkins68
Footballguy
The logic isn't flawed. The team is good because of the supporting cast and Coaching staff in New England. Each variable is important in creating a winning team I know this for fact.Now I rank Tom Brady as a real life top 7 QB in the league. He has shown he can consistantly throw for 3000 yards a season if given the oppurtunity completing at least 60% of his chances. He has consistantly had a passer rating of 86. He limits his mistakes from int's to taking a sack at the wrong time. He keeps cool in the pocket and leads his team and doesn't try and force the game and win it himself. Also he doesn't take unnecasary risk and put himself in harms way. Brady is not a spectacular QB but he doesn what's required and fits the system he is in. Not to mention he has helped his team achieve two super bowls in 3 years by being there and healthy through three season.Now as for Vick in his one complete (almost) season as a starter he didn't crack 3000. He has never completed over 55% of his passes. He makes mistakes and looks to force the game and win it himself. His passer rating for his career sits at 76. He places himself as a leader in jeopardy and by doing so has never played a full season yet. By doing this he is not a leader but provides a good 3rd RB option in my opinion. This actually hurts a team because the Wide outs learn that he's going to run (panic) and not look for another option so they get lazy on there routes hurting the entire team. Plus alot more I will not go into.My whole problem with these threads is Vick is just an average QB when your generous and everyone is making him out to be some incredbile QB one of the best ever. I admit he's a great athlete but there is a big difference.If he listens to his coaches and works on it he could end up being a great QB but in no way shape or form is one now or showing any signs of it.
I appriciated your thoughts in this thread, but I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. We seem to have a different idea of what constitutes a good or great QB. You seem hung up on stats. I think winning matters, whehter its making an bad team good or an average team great.IMHO top 7 is an insult to Tom Brady. I believe he is far and away the best QB in the NFL, just as I believe Joe Montana was far and away the best QB of his generation. I've been through all of this about Brady before, but I'll lay out my basic argument one more time.The Pats were 5-11 in 2000. They were 0-2 in 20001 when Drew Bledsoe got hurt. Going into week 3 THEY WERE 14 POINT UNDERDOGS! Thats how bad everyone thought this team was. WHERE WAS THIS GREAT DEFENSE OR GREAT COACHING YOU SPEAK OF? A combined 5-13 record? Thats great defense and coaching. And its not like Bledsoe was terrible, so you can't really pull that 'well their other QB was just that bad' like with Johnson/Vick(you should espeically like Bledose since he was putting up good stats back then).Tom Brady took that 0-2 team that was a 14 pt underdog and coming off a 5-11 season and turned them into a dynasty.Tom Brady is the sole reason why that happened. Their defense was never even considered good before then and Belicheck was viewed as a playoff choker more than a coaching genius.As I said, you and are just going to have to agree to disagree. I hate what fantasy football has done to people's perception of the NFL. Now everyone only focuses on stats. Keyshawn Johnson isn't considered by many to be a very good WR because the fantasy players that hes one of the top 3 blocking WRs(I'd put R Smith and H Ward as the other two). Brady is finally getting some recognition. Vick gets that recognition from the casual fan due to his abiliity, but the fantasy player still is hung up on stats. Stats don't win games. Stats don't mean anything to me. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
I wasn't comparing Vick at all to Shaq's accomplishments or numbers(at least not yet).I was comparing their situations. With both players, teams can totally gameplan for them and take them away. Teams can double team Shaq, and teams can spy one man and have everyone else also be keeping an eye on Vick.Both of them can have terrible stats because of this. The thing that this does though is it gives their teamates tons of opportunities since almost nobody is focusing upon them. However, every now and then Shaq's teamates just can't hit an open shot and they'll lose poorly. If you look at the stats of these games, it'd be easy to blame Shaq since he didn't score a lot of points. But in reality, its his teamates fault because the defense is totally keying on Shaq yet they still can't score. Same thing with Vick: Every now and then, his team will only put up 6 points and Vick will have poor numbers. But I think its the lack of his teamates stepping up that is the problem.Now this isn't to say that Shaq or Vick never have a bad game(and perhaps the Arizona game was indeed a bad game for Vick). I'm simply saying that more often than not, its simply due to all of the attention focused upon them.THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I WAS COMPARING VICK AND SHAQ. I WASN'T COMPARING THEM IN ANY OTHER WAY, ESPECIALLY NOT SAYING THAT VICK HAS ACCOMPLISHED AS MUCH OR IS AS DOMINANT AS SHAQ.As for the VC comparison....Vick wins! Thats the bottom line. You say 'hype without production.' To me, winning is production, not stats!
rhawkins68
Footballguy
We can easily agree to disagree. Although, I'd like to point out I am not about Fantasy Football when I post. Some stats are very important to me others are not. As a coach you have to look at stats or you are not doing your job. It seems alot of people here think that coachs don't look at numbers but they do. Also, alot of people believe that pure football doesn't deal with stats but it does. But I never post from a Fantasy perspective unless it's stated. Some of the stats I would rely on are not on our fantasy sights. Such as sacks avoided, ball thrown away versus coverage, secondary and terciary completions. Although Int, completation % (w/versus coverage removed) are important in my eyes.If you re-read what I consider facts you'll see it's not about Fantasy. As a coach Brady is what you are looking for in a QB. "He limits his mistakes from int's to taking a sack at the wrong time. He keeps cool in the pocket and leads his team and doesn't try and force the game and win it himself. Also he doesn't take unnecasary risk and put himself in harms way. Brady is not a spectacular QB but he does what's required and fits the system he is in. Not to mention he has helped his team achieve two super bowls in 3 years by being there and healthy through three season."As far as insulting him you have the following QB's for him to compete with Manning, Farve, Culpepper, Pennington, Hasslebeck, McNair, Bulger, Green. All of these QB's would thrive with the Patriots and win.Lastly, Your point on winning and losing from a coachs perspective I disagree with. My following examples are not to be sarcastic as others have been. A player will appear as good as he fits the system. You have to look at the talent the player has and how he and the team uses it. Also, how does he perform basic tasks such as planting, follow through, release points, throw away, finding secondary and terciary targets, etc. I don't know if you watched S. Young when he played for Tampa but you could see he was a good QB even though he started most of the games in 86 and only won two. If you went by wins then he doesn't qualify as a QB at all then. My sole point on vick is he lacks in alot of areas right now. I'll let this be my final post unless you request more info.1. Vick does not mange the pocket well. He runs way to early and thinks of running early. He hasn't shown a clear understanding of dumping the ball for non loss versus running for -2 to 2 yard gain.2. Vick has a cannon but cannot control it as indicated by his accuracy numbers. I know before he went down last year they had stated working on this was the number one issue. This year i believe it's getting him to understand the West coast. So he's got a set back there.3. Vick does not manage his team well even though they win. He seems to think he has to run even with Quality there now at skill positions. In other words I do not see him finding secondary and other targets quickly or easily.4. He doesn't seem to always understand what's going on when he out there. Although, as a spectator we have no idea if he does or doesn't. The atlanta offense could be that fubared.5. Vick cannot stay healthy for an entire season yet. And due to his running puts himself in harms way where if he's injured the team suffers.6. Vick always taking the responsibility of getting the first or making the big play puts the rest of the team in a "loafing zone". They need to support him all out and not depend on him as much as they do to "RUN" the ball. 7. He does not have good mechanics when throwing but as stated they were working on that last year. Unfortanatly that probably was scraped with the inseration of a new offense this year.
packersfan
Footballguy
And yet I've already presented statistics to you which clearly show Dunn was also very productive in Tampa Bay and some of his statistics (notably YPC) were better last season when Vick was injured. Go figure.Also, I'm still waiting for you to show me how Vick has made any of the Falcon WRs better. As a QB, that is something I consider to be a vital element of his makeup. For example, Brett Favre has a well-earned reputation for bringing out the best in his (often mediocre) WRs. In Favre's career, he's played with only legitimate All-Pro WR and that was Sterling Sharpe. And yet, Favre puts up 30 touchdown seasons at the drop of a hat. Even when he has pedestrian WRs to work with, Favre manages to bring out the best in them -- and he's helped make a few of them quite rich in the process (see Antonio Freeman and Bill Schroeder).
Now it's not fair to compare Vick to one of the game's greatest players of all time and a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Fair enough. So how about Trent Green? Green has had d**k to work with at wide receiver in Kansas City and yet he had a banner season last year. Sure he has Gonzalez and Holmes (which are obviously two huge weapons), but Vick has a good tight end in Crumpler and a good receiving RB in Dunn, so it's not like he has nothing at those positions to work with in the passing game.
And yet Vick has averaged less than 155 passing yards a game in his last seven games dating back to last season. If Vick was truly as good as so many people want to believe and if he really did make players around him better, shouldn't he be showing something in the passing game? He is, after all, a quarterback. That really shouldn't be so much to ask for.
I guess you missed what I wrote..."You're right about Dunn. I kept hearing about how hes doing so well this year that I just assumed he was doing better(Also someone claiming that the fact that they're 3-0 this year was due to Dunn caused me to automatically assume that Dunn was having a great year but I guess people here often make silly points, so I should check facts and not assume). My mistake, but I still maintain that Vick clearly makes everyone on the team a ton better by having everyone focus upon him.
"
We've already gone on enough tangents, but you seem to debate well and I like to argue, so whats one more......I find it laughable that you include Marc Bulger even near Vick, yet alone above him. Marc Bulger has a top 3 set of WRs in the league and they are aruglably THE best. He also has one of the best RBs in the league, who is also one of the top 3 pass catching RBs. Addittionally, they have a nice change of pace RB and a coach who loves to air it out even if it ultimately hurts his team. Marc Bulger does not have a better arm than Vick nor is he nearly as fast. Even Vick's one big weakness-accuracy- I don't think Bulger is all that much better in that area. If you put Vick on the Rams, they would be the favorites for the super bowl imo.
packersfan
Footballguy
I did miss that and I apologize. But once again I ask: How has Vick made his WRs better? Is Price performing better this year with Vick than he did last year without him? Is Dez White better in Atlanta than he was in Chicago? As I've pointed out, a good QB can make even the most ordinary WRs look good. So is Vick doing that in Atlanta in an offensive scheme that everyone knows is very "quarterback friendly?"
I think people need to go easy on Vick.He's still such a young player. He's younger than Carson Palmer for Christ Sake!Give the guy a break. Most Qb's dont become great until they've been in the league for 4 or 5 seasons.......I think Vick will eventually settle down into a great passer, but honestly i watch alot of their games and their WR's are garbage.That coupled with the fact that he does indeed have a run first attitude, almost too much, that makes it difficult.He'll eventually learn and get it right, just give him some time.I've never seen someone take so much flack for being undefeated......Loop
I'm not sure if you're joking or not since you put it in quotation marks....but isn't the WCO one of the absolute hardest systems for a QB to learn and often takes 3 years? I remember people saying in the preseason about Vick's lack of preseason play: "I understand they don't want to hurt him, but they need to get him some reps with that new offense since its so difficult to learn."
packersfan
Footballguy
Yes the WCO is considered a difficult offense to learn. However, it is also considered by every QB who's ever played in it (at least the ones who had success) to be a very quarterback friendly offense. And while many of them did struggle to pick up and learn all of its finer points, many of them did have success while they were learning the system. So it's not an either/or situation. And yet with Vick, what have we seen? We've seen a quarterback struggling to adapt to the offense (no surprise and not an indictment of his ability), but also one who has yet to produce anything of substance in the passing game (that is a surprise given his physical ability and given the nature of the offense and its built-in elements to help a quarterback generate positive results). And I'll ask one final time: What evidence is there that suggests Vick has made his WRs better? Do you have an answer to this question or not? I'm curious because you have insisted one of Vick's strengths is his ability to make those around him better.
