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

[Shlon]

This is Vicks 4th game in a brand new, west coast offense. He's still learning & hasn't fully grasped it yet. His passing stats should increase as he continues to learn.

 

[Demian]

Sure Vick hasn't shown anything in the passing game in the WCO, but guess what, he didn't show anything special in the passing game before the WCO either.

^|

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

People, Please let this thread die it's long overdue death.That is all

 

[BuckeyeArt]

At this point, it's impossible to try to remove the blinders that the Vick-faithfull have on. With a 4-0 record you can hardly argue with the results. But the fact is there are words being thrown around to describe Vick which are completely inaccurate:"Premier Player", "freakin' STUD", "once in a lifetime talent"...Someone please show me the stats to back up these claims. Team winning records and results alone do not make Michael Vick - the individual - a great player because those are TEAM acheivements. Put Michael Vick alone on a field opposite 11 other players and he's dead meat. He needs his team as much as they need him. If you want to argue that Vick is an "amazing talent" or a "premier player" then compare his numbers to that of quaterbacks who are unquestionably considered the best - you'll find Vick is nowhere near in that category.People are so blinded by the freak show of a quarterback running 80 yards for a touchdown that they forget - It's Not the Quarterback's JOB to run for 120 yards in a game! that's what running backs are for!?!This is Vick's fourth year in the league. Argueably third since he lost most of last season to an injury. These are his career stats thus farassing:G GS Att Comp Pct Yards YPA Lg TD Int Rate 32 25 713 378 53.0 4911 6.89 74 24 16 76.8 Rushing:G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD32 25 217 1543 7.1 58 10 20 85As a Rusher he's averaging about 750 yds a season. (given 16 games = one season) Not the production you would call "premier". But then he's not supposed to be a rusher, is he?!? And as a Passer... lets just say those stats hardly qualify someone as one of the greatest in the game. Again, given a 16 game season, he's averaging less than 2500 yards a season and 12 TDs.I'm not sure how else to look at this. This has nothing to do with Fantasy Football - I don't own Vick and could care less what his fantasy production is. I just want some justification as to why people want to put him in the same category as quarterbacks whose teams have enjoyed the same success as the Falcons, yet those quarterbacks have managed to post statistics that dwarf Michael Vick's?!? Culpepper, McNabb, Favre, Brady, Manning - all these guys' teams are winning as much if not more than the Falcons - and the QB's stats reflect that success.

It kind of funny to compare Vick to McNabb and come to the conclusion that McNabb is great and Vick is average. Here are their QB ratings since they became starters:Vick --------- 24 games ----- 79.5 ratingMcNabb ----- 62 games ----- 83.5 ratingand rushingVick -------- 186 - 1254 - 6.74McNabb ---- 315 - 1962 - 6.23Both fairly yet McNabb is perceived as an elite QB and Vick as overhyped and overrated. Why? Probably because McNabb is given the credit for leading Philly to wins. But hasn't this been largely the result of Philly's defense, the same argument used against Vick? Surely, Atlanta's defense is not perceived as better than Philly's.And why should a QB just be a passer? For every other player in the game, being multidimensional is a plus. But for Vick, it seems to be a minus. 750 yards rushing on 100+ attempts is "premier". Does it really matter if the 7 yards comes from a rush or a pass attempt? It's still 7 yards.

 

[Shlon]

Also when Vick was at Virginia Tech, he never put up impressive passing #'s but all they did was WIN with him.

 

[4thAndForever]

Let's just say I'd take the far less flashy Tom Brady over Michael Vick without even thinking twice about it. I'd also take Peyton Manning and Steve McNair over Vick. And if we're throwing age out the window, give me Favre over Vick as well.My point? Vick basically gets as much press as any of these guys, and yet all of these guys have accomplished so much more than Vick has.I guess that's why I think Vick is overrated.

 

[Demian]

Passer Rating isn't exactly a good way to compare quarterbacks throwing ability. Arguably the best pure passer of all time, Dan Marino, has a career rating of 86.4.

 

[Shlon]

Let's just say I'd take the far less flashy Tom Brady over Michael Vick without even thinking twice about it. I'd also take Peyton Manning and Steve McNair over Vick. And if we're throwing age out the window, give me Favre over Vick as well.My point? Vick basically gets as much press as any of these guys, and yet all of these guys have accomplished so much more than Vick has.I guess that's why I think Vick is overrated.

He gets as much press, because he's the most exciting player in the nfl & a top jersey seller. A lot of people tune in just to watch him.

 

[Big Sug]

I have no further comment except to go on record as saying that barring severe or chronic injury, Vick will go down as one of the best QBs ever. Under any and all measurements of greatness.Believe the hype

 

[KevT]

Put Vick on Miami and I guess they're a superbowl team.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Passer Rating isn't exactly a good way to compare quarterbacks throwing ability. Arguably the best pure passer of all time, Dan Marino, has a career rating of 86.4.

Passer rating may not be the best but is their a better way? The passer rating combines comp %, YPA, TD/Att, and Int/Att. Since it is all based on attempts, it provides a way to compare 2 QB's with a different number of attempts. The QB with more attempts (and thus more yards and TD's) will always be thought of as a better QB.As for Marino, he is only regarded as suuch because he had so many attempts. His career passer rating is that way because in many of his years, he just piled up an enormous number of yards on many attempts. Many of his later years look remarkably like Vick's (without the running).

 

[Big Sug]

Put Vick on Miami and I guess they're a superbowl team.

Well, Atlanta 2003 was Miami 2004, if you'll recall. Until Vick screwed it all up by coming back and winning a couple of games.So, the short answer is yes.

 

[Phlash]

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.

I'd say Manning and Brady are used almost exactly the same way. Both the Colts offense and the Patriots offense are VERY similiar, aka both have no-name lines (name me two good starters on the Colts line other than Tarik Glenn, and name me two good starters on the Patriots line other than Matt Light), both have very deep receiving corps (although the Colts obviously have an advantage in this department talent wise, although the Patriots WRs are more deep), and both have great RBs (Edgerrin James and Corey Dillon are both great runners right now, and although Dillon has solid hands, Edge has great hands), and both are led by great QBs.Both Manning AND Brady call audibles at the line now (Brady was given that duty this year, and now calls as many audibles at the line as Manning). Bellichick wants to give Brady the full reigns to the offense soon (I suspect that this is because Weis is leaving soon, and he trusts Brady more than a rookie OC, as he should). Brady and Manning are also very equal in physical abilities, although Brady definitely has much better mobility than Manning. All in all, both guys are the at the top of the NFL, talent wise.

 

[rhawkins68]

Let's just say I'd take the far less flashy Tom Brady over Michael Vick without even thinking twice about it. I'd also take Peyton Manning and Steve McNair over Vick. And if we're throwing age out the window, give me Favre over Vick as well.My point? Vick basically gets as much press as any of these guys, and yet all of these guys have accomplished so much more than Vick has.I guess that's why I think Vick is overrated.

He gets as much press, because he's the most exciting player in the nfl & a top jersey seller. A lot of people tune in just to watch him.

I tuned in this weekend because I didn't have a choice and wasn't impressed.Now I tuned into the Colts vs Packers game because I knew there was going to be an aerial show. If I want to watch someone run I want to see him lay the wood to someone. Quick sprints outside because you can't throw the ball down field don't impress me.

 

[rhawkins68]

I have no further comment except to go on record as saying that barring severe or chronic injury, Vick will go down as one of the best QBs ever. Under any and all measurements of greatness.Believe the hype

Good cop out for a running QB that has already proven he can't take the beating he will have to take. To achieve that.When he takes the time to learn the offense and learn to throw the ball. He'll be a top 10 QB. I don't think he makes the top 10 best of all-time.

 

[Rhino]

It kind of funny to compare Vick to McNabb and come to the conclusion that McNabb is great and Vick is average. Here are their QB ratings since they became starters:Vick --------- 24 games ----- 79.5 ratingMcNabb ----- 62 games ----- 83.5 ratingand rushingVick -------- 186 - 1254 - 6.74McNabb ---- 315 - 1962 - 6.23Both fairly yet McNabb is perceived as an elite QB and Vick as overhyped and overrated. Why? Probably because McNabb is given the credit for leading Philly to wins. But hasn't this been largely the result of Philly's defense, the same argument used against Vick? Surely, Atlanta's defense is not perceived as better than Philly's.And why should a QB just be a passer? For every other player in the game, being multidimensional is a plus. But for Vick, it seems to be a minus. 750 yards rushing on 100+ attempts is "premier". Does it really matter if the 7 yards comes from a rush or a pass attempt? It's still 7 yards.

First, look at the number of games. It's a good example of skewing the stats when you compare a small sample size to a larger sample size. Lets compare those ratings when Vick has 62 games under his belt. Or, if you want, go see what McNabb's rating was for his first 24 games. That would be a more accurate comparison.But regardless. You ask "what is wrong with being multi-dimensional?" I say, absolutely nothing. But Vick is NOT multi-dimensional. He can run, period. His stats prove he can't throw better than most second string quarterbacks in the NFL.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

It kind of funny to compare Vick to McNabb and come to the conclusion that McNabb is great and Vick is average. Here are their QB ratings since they became starters:Vick --------- 24 games ----- 79.5 ratingMcNabb ----- 62 games ----- 83.5 ratingand rushingVick -------- 186 - 1254 - 6.74McNabb ---- 315 - 1962 - 6.23Both fairly yet McNabb is perceived as an elite QB and Vick as overhyped and overrated. Why? Probably because McNabb is given the credit for leading Philly to wins. But hasn't this been largely the result of Philly's defense, the same argument used against Vick? Surely, Atlanta's defense is not perceived as better than Philly's.And why should a QB just be a passer? For every other player in the game, being multidimensional is a plus. But for Vick, it seems to be a minus. 750 yards rushing on 100+ attempts is "premier". Does it really matter if the 7 yards comes from a rush or a pass attempt? It's still 7 yards.

First, look at the number of games. It's a good example of skewing the stats when you compare a small sample size to a larger sample size. Lets compare those ratings when Vick has 62 games under his belt. Or, if you want, go see what McNabb's rating was for his first 24 games. That would be a more accurate comparison.But regardless. You ask "what is wrong with being multi-dimensional?" I say, absolutely nothing. But Vick is NOT multi-dimensional. He can run, period. His stats prove he can't throw better than most second string quarterbacks in the NFL.

The stats weren't skewed. I don't know why you'd want to wait till Vick has 62 games - he most likely will improve on those numbers with experience. His rating this year is currently higher than his career rating. But, if you want too look at McNabb's first year and a half of starting for comparison, here is his rating for 2000 and half of 2001:McNabb ------- 24 games ----- 79.59Did you expect it to be higher when he was inexperienced?So now that we have a more accurate comparison, how can Vick be no better than a 2nd sting QB as a passer when his passer rating (a measure of only his passing ability) is essentially equivalent to McNabb's?

 

[jwvdcw]

An average QB can win games with Great defense or a great supporting cast.

They were 2-10 last year without him. Average would be a compliment.They were 7-9 the year before Vick led them to the 2nd round of the playoffs with Chris Chandler at the helm. Thats the very definition of average.In short, I agree with your statement, and I think it applies perfectly to Vick.

 

[jwvdcw]

People, Please let this thread die it's long overdue death.That is all

Why? It seems like a good debate that many people feel fairly strongly about. There have been a myriad of great points on both sides. Whats wrong with that?A lot of going on in here imo.

 

[jwvdcw]

Also when Vick was at Virginia Tech, he never put up impressive passing #'s but all they did was WIN with him.

Another good point...some guys are just winners(i.e. Joe Montana- not that I'm comparing Vick to him....just giving an example of a winner).

 

[jwvdcw]

Let's just say I'd take the far less flashy Tom Brady over Michael Vick without even thinking twice about it. I'd also take Peyton Manning and Steve McNair over Vick. And if we're throwing age out the window, give me Favre over Vick as well.My point? Vick basically gets as much press as any of these guys, and yet all of these guys have accomplished so much more than Vick has.I guess that's why I think Vick is overrated.

Well, I started this topic, and even I admit that Brady and Manning are way better. They are the Montana-Marino of their generation and might go down as two of the best of all time.I'd put McNair and Favre as in the same class right now as Vick. With McNair, many of the criticism of Vick in this thread (injury prone, no great stats, good supporting cast is what wins games for them, etc.) can be applied to him.You're right that Vick gets as much press as them. But thats not what I'm talking about when I say hes not overrated. I mean that when you look at the average shark's opinion of Vick, they are not overrating him...if anything, as evidenced by this thread, I think they're underrating him.

 

[rhawkins68]

People, Please let this thread die it's long overdue death.That is all

Why? It seems like a good debate that many people feel fairly strongly about. There have been a myriad of great points on both sides. Whats wrong with that?A lot of going on in here imo.

Agreed. In fact I believe this is one of the first strongly argued posts where facts have been used and not much name calling. And only one "If you knew real football not fantasy post".Keep up the good debating here guys.

 

[jwvdcw]

Put Vick on Miami and I guess they're a superbowl team.

I think Miami would finish about 8-8 with Vick. Remember that with Ricky Williams, this was a playoff contender. They have a great defense. They just need that one threat on offense. Vick would give it to them. The Miami RBs and WRs would find much less attention paid to them and things would be a lot easier. Also, I know that we've critisized Vick's accuracy, but he does have a cannon, which would mean teams would at least respect the deep ball(especially with their WRs, who actually are pretty talented), which you can't say teams do with their current QBs back there.

 

[jwvdcw]

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.

I'd say Manning and Brady are used almost exactly the same way. Both the Colts offense and the Patriots offense are VERY similiar, aka both have no-name lines (name me two good starters on the Colts line other than Tarik Glenn, and name me two good starters on the Patriots line other than Matt Light), both have very deep receiving corps (although the Colts obviously have an advantage in this department talent wise, although the Patriots WRs are more deep), and both have great RBs (Edgerrin James and Corey Dillon are both great runners right now, and although Dillon has solid hands, Edge has great hands), and both are led by great QBs.Both Manning AND Brady call audibles at the line now (Brady was given that duty this year, and now calls as many audibles at the line as Manning). Bellichick wants to give Brady the full reigns to the offense soon (I suspect that this is because Weis is leaving soon, and he trusts Brady more than a rookie OC, as he should). Brady and Manning are also very equal in physical abilities, although Brady definitely has much better mobility than Manning. All in all, both guys are the at the top of the NFL, talent wise.

Your comparison of the two offenses doesn't nearly show how much better Indy's offense is(and thus show how much more important and great Brady is).The WR comparison isn't even close, as you make it seem. Indy has the best WR trio in the league in many people's opinions. NE is not even top 20 in the league imo. Name me 13 teams that have worse WRs.Dillon has never been a GOOD pass catching RB. He has never caught a lot of passes. Edge meanwhile is one of the top 10 pass catching RBs in the league.

 

[BigTex]

Vick compared to B. Sanders by Car Def: http://www.panthers.com/news/newsroomNewsDetail.jsp?id=14944

Here's another: http://www.panthers.com/news/newsroomNewsDetail.jsp?id=14934

 

[BigTex]

There's was an article last week on Panthers site in which they spent an entire day focusing on Vick. Sorry can't find the link.But what do the Panthers know, they're only a professional football team!

 

[rhawkins68]

Vick compared to B. Sanders by Car Def: http://www.panthers.com/news/newsroomNewsDetail.jsp?id=14944Here's another: http://www.panthers.com/news/newsroomNewsDetail.jsp?id=14934

Just some quick notes on this articles.

"You have to play team defense," said Buckner. "That's the important thing. Someone coming back healthy won't matter because no one man can stop Vick. If he does break loose, there have to be 11 men going to the ball to get him down, just like if Barry Sanders or Priest Holmes were to break loose.

He's not really compaing him talent wise to Sanders unlesss you mean....

"I compare him to Deion Sanders," said Buckner.

I believe you could add Faulk, Lewis, Dillon, Johnson, Williams, Smith, etc. to that statement. Basically just about any good runner. The point is you have to play sound defense.

"We aren't sleeping on Warrick Dunn," said Manning. "You better believe that. We have been watching film on him and he's running really well. One of our main goals is to stop the run. That includes Dunn, Vick, and T.J. Duckett, also."

"They have arguably the best tight end in the League on their team (Alge Crumpler)," said Buckner. "Warrick Dunn is a proven veteran, and they have good wide receivers.

This shows you that they are worried about the Run period not just Vick. This is good support for it being a Team effort. Also, from the above quotes Carolina understands what has to be done to stop ATLANTA not Vick. He is one piece of the puzzle but not nearly ALL of it.

Meanwhile, Manning will be one of the few players on the field with the speed to challenge Vick in the open field. Might it be tough overcoming the temptation to spy on the Falcons quarterback while covering a receiver at the same time?"It's not tough at all," said Manning. "I just have to stay with my responsibility. I don't worry about Vick until he breaks the line of scrimmage. Some of it depends on our coverage. If I'm man-to-man against a guy, I have to stay focused on that guy. While Vick is scrambling around, he's buying time and my guy is trying to get open. It's my job to go with him wherever he goes. If Vick does get that deep into the secondary, THEN I have to try to tackle him."

. As Arizona proved a week ago, he can be contained if you maintain your responsibility and play team defense.

I added the two above quotes to backup my statements of the DE's and basically the defense holding their assigments is the key to stop vick. Of course this is the case of stopping any decent offense.

 

[BigTex]

This shows you that they are worried about the Run period not just Vick. This is good support for it being a Team effort. Also, from the above quotes Carolina understands what has to be done to stop ATLANTA not Vick. He is one piece of the puzzle but not nearly ALL of it.

Never said just Vick needed to be stopped. When I went to the Panther web-site last week to check on the status of Davis. And I was amazed at the focus they put on Vick. IMHO it's premature to say Vick is done in a new system. I'm not a Vick homer or a Falcons fan, but some of the things that some have said on this thread is without merit. Unless it's based off of own perception and not on facts.

 

[rhawkins68]

This shows you that they are worried about the Run period not just Vick. This is good support for it being a Team effort. Also, from the above quotes Carolina understands what has to be done to stop ATLANTA not Vick. He is one piece of the puzzle but not nearly ALL of it.

Never said just Vick needed to be stopped. When I went to the Panther web-site last week to check on the status of Davis. And I was amazed at the focus they put on Vick. IMHO it's premature to say Vick is done in a new system. I'm not a Vick homer or a Falcons fan, but some of the things that some have said on this thread is without merit. Unless it's based off of own perception and not on facts.

He's one of the Key players and the highest profile player for sure. All of the talk will surround him. It's just natrual.I wouldn't say Vick is done in the new system. In fact it SHOULD help him become a better QB. The West Coast was/is designed for high percentage passing to replace running. As long as he works hard he can become a good QB in that system and not just a runner. I'm sure once he gets a full grasp of the system they will work on his passing mechanics and we should see him getting better and better at thowing the ball.I only have a problem when he's all the sudden one of the Greatest to play the position.

 

[BigTex]

I only have a problem when he's all the sudden one of the Greatest to play the position.

I never said he was the Greatest maybe one of the most exciting! And I agree with your post above.

 

[BigTex]

Just some quick notes on this articles.QUOTE "You have to play team defense," said Buckner. "That's the important thing. Someone coming back healthy won't matter because no one man can stop Vick. If he does break loose, there have to be 11 men going to the ball to get him down, just like if Barry Sanders or Priest Holmes were to break loose. He's not really compaing him talent wise to Sanders unlesss you mean....QUOTE "I compare him to Deion Sanders," said Buckner.

Sounds like is comparing him to B. Sander, P. Holmes and D. Sanders. Just in different ways.

 

[Rhino]

It kind of funny to compare Vick to McNabb and come to the conclusion that McNabb is great and Vick is average. Here are their QB ratings since they became starters:Vick --------- 24 games ----- 79.5 ratingMcNabb ----- 62 games ----- 83.5 ratingand rushingVick -------- 186 - 1254 - 6.74McNabb ---- 315 - 1962 - 6.23Both fairly yet McNabb is perceived as an elite QB and Vick as overhyped and overrated. Why? Probably because McNabb is given the credit for leading Philly to wins. But hasn't this been largely the result of Philly's defense, the same argument used against Vick? Surely, Atlanta's defense is not perceived as better than Philly's.And why should a QB just be a passer? For every other player in the game, being multidimensional is a plus. But for Vick, it seems to be a minus. 750 yards rushing on 100+ attempts is "premier". Does it really matter if the 7 yards comes from a rush or a pass attempt? It's still 7 yards.

First, look at the number of games. It's a good example of skewing the stats when you compare a small sample size to a larger sample size. Lets compare those ratings when Vick has 62 games under his belt. Or, if you want, go see what McNabb's rating was for his first 24 games. That would be a more accurate comparison.But regardless. You ask "what is wrong with being multi-dimensional?" I say, absolutely nothing. But Vick is NOT multi-dimensional. He can run, period. His stats prove he can't throw better than most second string quarterbacks in the NFL.

The stats weren't skewed. I don't know why you'd want to wait till Vick has 62 games - he most likely will improve on those numbers with experience. His rating this year is currently higher than his career rating. But, if you want too look at McNabb's first year and a half of starting for comparison, here is his rating for 2000 and half of 2001:McNabb ------- 24 games ----- 79.59Did you expect it to be higher when he was inexperienced?So now that we have a more accurate comparison, how can Vick be no better than a 2nd sting QB as a passer when his passer rating (a measure of only his passing ability) is essentially equivalent to McNabb's?

Statistically, if you use a larger sample size (in this case, more games played) the chances are that Vick's (or any QB's numbers for that matter) are going to go down because you're talking about more opportunities for incompletions, interceptions, etc...For example, if I flip a coint 5 times I might get "heads" 4 times and you would say "Wow - you can flip a coin and get heads 80% of the time!" In reality, if I flip a coin 100 times, chances are that percentage is going to be more accurate and closer to 50%.I'm not saying Vick's QB rating won't improve by the time he gets to 62 games. I'm just saying it's more accurate to compare equal sample sizes... "apples to apples" so to speak.My point about him not being on par with a backup quarterback is not based on his QB rating. I think it's been shown previously in this thread that some of the QB's that poeple consider "elite" don't always have the greatest ratings. I'm basing it on his actual statistical performace, which week in and week out tends to be less than average.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Statistically, if you use a larger sample size (in this case, more games played) the chances are that Vick's (or any QB's numbers for that matter) are going to go down because you're talking about more opportunities for incompletions, interceptions, etc...

For example, if I flip a coint 5 times I might get "heads" 4 times and you would say "Wow - you can flip a coin and get heads 80% of the time!" In reality, if I flip a coin 100 times, chances are that percentage is going to be more accurate and closer to 50%.

I'm not saying Vick's QB rating won't improve by the time he gets to 62 games. I'm just saying it's more accurate to compare equal sample sizes... "apples to apples" so to speak.

My point about him not being on par with a backup quarterback is not based on his QB rating. I think it's been shown previously in this thread that some of the QB's that poeple consider "elite" don't always have the greatest ratings. I'm basing it on his actual statistical performace, which week in and week out tends to be less than average.

I understand probability and sample size but neither have anything to do with a QB gaining experience as more games are played. You coin flipping example has a known expected outcome of .5 per flip. Vick does not have a known expected outcome so you can no more say that his next 38 games will be better or worse. You should only expect that he improve with attempts.I would be happy to accept that QB rating is not the best measure of a QB's passing ability, if you can show me a better objective measure. Since the QB rating is a compilation of the 4 most important passing statistics, it is a much better and more objective way to measure a QB's passing ability than a subjective assessment of his week to week statistical performance.

By the way, here are the ratings of the other 4 elite QBs' during their first year and a half of starting. Vick seems to fit right in.

Favre --------- 80.6

Culpepper ---- 92.1

Manning ------- 77.6

Brady --------- 86.2

It could be argued that Culpepper's rating is skewed because of his first year where he got to throw to receivers named Moss, Carter, and Reed, and his decline in rating in the following years reflect that.

 

[Rhino]

Statistically, if you use a larger sample size (in this case, more games played) the chances are that Vick's (or any QB's numbers for that matter) are going to go down because you're talking about more opportunities for incompletions, interceptions, etc...

For example, if I flip a coint 5 times I might get "heads" 4 times and you would say "Wow - you can flip a coin and get heads 80% of the time!"  In reality, if I flip a coin 100 times, chances are that percentage is going to be more accurate and closer to 50%.

I'm not saying Vick's QB rating won't improve by the time he gets to 62 games.  I'm just saying it's more accurate to compare equal sample sizes... "apples to apples" so to speak.

My point about him not being on par with a backup quarterback is not based on his QB rating.  I think it's been shown previously in this thread that some of the QB's that poeple consider "elite" don't always have the greatest ratings.  I'm basing it on his actual statistical performace, which week in and week out tends to be less than average.

I understand probability and sample size but neither have anything to do with a QB gaining experience as more games are played. You coin flipping example has a known expected outcome of .5 per flip. Vick does not have a known expected outcome so you can no more say that his next 38 games will be better or worse. You should only expect that he improve with attempts.I would be happy to accept that QB rating is not the best measure of a QB's passing ability, if you can show me a better objective measure. Since the QB rating is a compilation of the 4 most important passing statistics, it is a much better and more objective way to measure a QB's passing ability than a subjective assessment of his week to week statistical performance.

By the way, here are the ratings of the other 4 elite QBs' during their first year and a half of starting. Vick seems to fit right in.

Favre --------- 80.6

Culpepper ---- 92.1

Manning ------- 77.6

Brady --------- 86.2

It could be argued that Culpepper's rating is skewed because of his first year where he got to throw to receivers named Moss, Carter, and Reed, and his decline in rating in the following years reflect that.

Since you asked - I'll show what I think is a more accurate way to look at a quarterback's performace. By more accurate, I mean more accurate than QB Rating.Here are the stats for the last game of what I would consider "elite" QB's in the NFL today:

Player - att/comp - comp% - yds - td - int - rush - yds - td - QB rating - result - opponent

Brady - 17/30 - 56% - 298 - 2 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 112.9 - Win - Buffalo

Culpepper - 19/30 - 63% - 360 - 2 - 0 - 5 - 13 - 1 - 127.1 - Win - Chicago

*Favre - 12/18 - 66.7% - 110 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 78.5 - Loss - NY Giants

McNabb - 24/38 - 63.2% - 237 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 78.5 - Win - Chicago

Manning - 20/29 - 69% - 220 - 2 - 1 - 3 - (-3) - 0 - 99.8 - Win - Jaxsonville

* - Favre left the game half way thru from a concussion.

And for comparison here are the stats for four "backup" QB's who played in Week 4 because the starters were injured:

Collins - 21/38 - 55.3% - 237 - 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 41.2 - Loss - Houston

Roethlisberger - 17/25 - 68% - 174 - 1 - 0 - 4 - 2 - 0 - 101.1 - Win - Cincinnati

Volek - 39/58 - 67% - 278 - 2 - 0 - 3 - 17 - 0 - 89.6 - Loss - San Diego

Quinn - 26/43 - 60% - 215 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 81.1 - Loss - Philadelphia

And now, hold onto your seats ladies and gentlemen - here's Mike Vick:

Vick - 10/18 - 55.6% - 148 - 0 - 0 - 7 - 35 - 0 - 82.6 - Win - Carolina

Whew... Ok, now that all that stats crap is out of the way, how would I evaluate this? First off let me say that I'm not looking at this from a Fantasy perspective. I don't own Vick, and I don't care what he scores for a fantasy team. I'm simply trying to determine if he more rightly belongs in the "elite" category or the "backup" category.

Now granted, one game does not a career make. But I'm trying to be objective by taking the last game played here - and we are argueing who is in the top tier in the league right now - so he should be performing on par with the best in the league.

First glaring thing that jumps out at me is his attempts and completions. Here is an offense that doesn't seem to want to rely on Michael Vick throwing the football. That says to me "I'm the offensive coordinator, and I'd rather put the game in the hands of my running backs and just ask my quarterback not to go out and make mistakes and lose the game for us." The next lowest number of attempts is Roethlisberger at 25. Even Favre who played roughly half a game got in 18 attempts.

Second is his yardage. Now this is going to be a product of attempts. But 148 yards is not impressive at all. As a matter of fact, over his carrer Vick has played in 32 games and amassed 4911 yards. That averages to 153 yards a game. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and average only the games he started (25) that is only 196 yards per game. By comparison, here are the averages of the "elite" QB's:

QB - Games Played - Average Yds per Game

Brady - 51 - 217

C'pep - 61 - 243

Favre - 197 - 236 (I gotta say this impresses the hell outta me)

McNabb - 74 - 192

Manning - 100 - 260 (again - Wow!)

Vick - 32 - 153

Those numbers are pretty telling. Think of it this way... to have the same average as Tom Brady has after 51 games, Vick would have to average 324 yards a game to catch Brady.

Bottom Line - Vick's numbers nowhere NEAR support any claim that he is even close to a top tier quarterback. And you really have no proof to say that "he's going to get better." If anything he's going to be at a disadvantage as he gets older because he's inevitabley going to lose a step as age reduces his speed. Michael Vick had better learn how to throw the football if he's going to have a lasting career in the NFL.

The success of the Falcons is a Team Effort. Yes, Michael Vick is a part of that team, and thus deserves part of the credit for that success. But to ignore the talent of the running backs and defense and say, Michael Vick alone makes Atlanta a winning football team - I'm not buying it.

 

[jwvdcw]

From ESPN.com, I think this shows what I've been trying to say:

As expected, Panthers coach John Fox came up with a few new wrinkles to contain Vick. Unlike the Cardinals, who occasionally put five defensive linemen to contain his running, the Panthers cheated linebackers to the line of scrimmage. On one play, they put linebacker Will Witherspoon on the line standing up between the defensive tackle and defensive end. On other plays, they put an outside linebacker along the line as an outside end.

 

[packersfan]

From ESPN.com, I think this shows what I've been trying to say:

As expected, Panthers coach John Fox came up with a few new wrinkles to contain Vick. Unlike the Cardinals, who occasionally put five defensive linemen to contain his running, the Panthers cheated linebackers to the line of scrimmage. On one play, they put linebacker Will Witherspoon on the line standing up between the defensive tackle and defensive end. On other plays, they put an outside linebacker along the line as an outside end.

And this is precisely why Vick should be able to make more plays through the air -- defenses are worrying about his running ability and they're cheating extra defenders up closer to the line of scrimmage. That should be opening things up in the secondary for the receivers and yet Vick still can't get the ball to them. Yes his receivers stink, but as I stated earlier, other QBs have been saddled with pedestrian WRs in the very same offense and still produced passing numbers of note. Geez even Kyle Boller made a big play downfield on Monday night and he's awful. But that's one more big play downfield than Vick has made this season.That has been my point of contention with Vick. He is a poor to average (at best) passing quarterback. As good as Dunn and that defense has been, it's really scary to think what the Falcons would be doing if they had a quarterback who could actually throw the football. In time, maybe Vick will be that guy but we're a few years into his NFL career and he still isn't someone you can trust to generate much in the way of passing yardage.

 

[rhawkins68]

From ESPN.com, I think this shows what I've been trying to say:

As expected, Panthers coach John Fox came up with a few new wrinkles to contain Vick. Unlike the Cardinals, who occasionally put five defensive linemen to contain his running, the Panthers cheated linebackers to the line of scrimmage. On one play, they put linebacker Will Witherspoon on the line standing up between the defensive tackle and defensive end. On other plays, they put an outside linebacker along the line as an outside end.

Could you provide a link? I'd like to see the whole article. Did J. Fox say this or is this commentary from someone else?J. Fox did do this but I believe in doing so he was wanting to stop the entire Running game not just Vick. It's not unusual to do that in order to stop the Run. I do not believe this would be done just to stop Vick.

Also by doing this J. Fox is saying we don't think your QB is good enough to beat us by passing. You can see this also in how teams defend the Ravens.

Arizona also made the statement by adding a 5th lineman that you are not going to run on us whether it's Vick or Dunn. We want Vick to beat us through the air. Luckily for Atlanta there D got turn-overs all day in the Red Zone. Vick proved them right in choking out only 6 points against them. Unfortanatly for the Cards there QB is worse.

The way the past two teams defensed Vick shows that they are not worrying about him throwing on them. As good as Dunn is playing Vick should be having huge days while teams try and stop the run.

If I'm Vicks coach I work on his technique, form, reads and force overtime to get him passing better. In order for the Falcons to continue the win streak he's going to have to start hitting the deep ball and proving he can beat defenses geared to stopping the run.

 

[Mrskoal333]

Vick is overrated as an NFL QB because he still has problems reading defenses, knowing where to go with the ball and being accurate. He is not however overrated when it comes to athletic ability. His athletic ability lets him run around the defenses or just move around in the pocket for extra time to find recievers downfield. His athletic ability is why he is so hard to defend and if he did not have that he would not be able to make it in the NFL as a QB because he is not a great pocket passer and never will be that. He is not the smartest QB but his athleticism makes him exciting and gives him time to throw or just run the ball downfield himself. He makes plays with his legs and is 1 of the most exciting players in the league which means he will always get big press coverage and be overrated. Plus the league has never seen as good an athlete as the QB position so he will always be overhyped. To sum it up he is overrated as a QB but not as an athlete.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Since you asked - I'll show what I think is a more accurate way to look at a quarterback's performace. By more accurate, I mean more accurate than QB Rating.

Here are the stats for the last game of what I would consider "elite" QB's in the NFL today:

Player - att/comp - comp% - yds - td - int - rush - yds - td - QB rating - result - opponent

Brady - 17/30 - 56% - 298 - 2 - 0 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 112.9 - Win - Buffalo

Culpepper - 19/30 - 63% - 360 - 2 - 0 - 5 - 13 - 1 - 127.1 - Win - Chicago

*Favre - 12/18 - 66.7% - 110 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 78.5 - Loss - NY Giants

McNabb - 24/38 - 63.2% - 237 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 78.5 - Win - Chicago

Manning - 20/29 - 69% - 220 - 2 - 1 - 3 - (-3) - 0 - 99.8 - Win - Jaxsonville

* - Favre left the game half way thru from a concussion.

And for comparison here are the stats for four "backup" QB's who played in Week 4 because the starters were injured:

Collins - 21/38 - 55.3% - 237 - 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 41.2 - Loss - Houston

Roethlisberger - 17/25 - 68% - 174 - 1 - 0 - 4 - 2 - 0 - 101.1 - Win - Cincinnati

Volek - 39/58 - 67% - 278 - 2 - 0 - 3 - 17 - 0 - 89.6 - Loss - San Diego

Quinn - 26/43 - 60% - 215 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 81.1 - Loss - Philadelphia

And now, hold onto your seats ladies and gentlemen - here's Mike Vick:

Vick - 10/18 - 55.6% - 148 - 0 - 0 - 7 - 35 - 0 - 82.6 - Win - Carolina

I was excited when I thought you were going to show me a better objective measure of ability. But, all I see is a very subjective and confusing assessment.

Now granted, one game does not a career make. But I'm trying to be objective by taking the last game played here - and we are argueing who is in the top tier in the league right now - so he should be performing on par with the best in the league.

You're right here. It's absurd to use 1 game as a measuring stick.

Ok, now that all that stats crap is out of the way, how would I evaluate this? . . . First glaring thing that jumps out at me is his attempts and completions. Here is an offense that doesn't seem to want to rely on Michael Vick throwing the football. That says to me "I'm the offensive coordinator, and I'd rather put the game in the hands of my running backs and just ask my quarterback not to go out and make mistakes and lose the game for us." The next lowest number of attempts is Roethlisberger at 25. Even Favre who played roughly half a game got in 18 attempts.

Well, let's see. Maybe the low attempts by Roethlisberger and Vick have to do with the fact that they were winning and the high number of attempts by the Packers have to do with they were losing. In fact, the 'winners' in your above example averaged 27 attempts per game while the 'losers' averaged 46 attempts per game. It doesn't appear that number of attempts is a good predictor of QB ability but rather whether the team is winning or losing.

Second is his yardage. Now this is going to be a product of attempts. But 148 yards is not impressive at all. As a matter of fact, over his carrer Vick has played in 32 games and amassed 4911 yards. That averages to 153 yards a game. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and average only the games he started (25) that is only 196 yards per game.

You're correct here. Yardage is largely a product of attempts. It's kind of silly to duplicate the "attempts" argument. But, if you are, you absolutely have to discard the partial games when using "yards/game" as a stat. Any other way would be completely misleading. So if you use 196 yds/game, Vick is right there with McNabb and not that far off from Brady. Here are a few other QB's:Aikman ------- 199

Simms -------- 204

Montana ------ 211

McNair -------- 188

Are these meaningful? Yes, it means their teams were winning. Manniings and Culpepper's numbers are highest because their defenses are awful and they are required to throw. Do you think any winning coach wants to throw 40 times/game?

Bottom Line - Vick's numbers nowhere NEAR support any claim that he is even close to a top tier quarterback.

I agree, he's not top tier yet. But, by any measure, he's very close to McNabb and McNair, both generally considered top tier.

And you really have no proof to say that "he's going to get better."

No proof, of course. Nothing is certain. But logic and history would suggest that most players improve with practice and repetition.

If anything he's going to be at a disadvantage as he gets older because he's inevitabley going to lose a step as age reduces his speed.

All players do but there is no reason to expect he will lose his speed any faster than any other player. He's starting at 4.2.No matter how you measure him objectively, he compares favorably to McNabb. McNabb didn't become 'accurate' until his 5th year of strting and the addition of a future Hall of Fame receiver. Maybe that's all Vick needs to to become accepted.

 

[dancing_conan]

We'll see how Vick does when he faces a REAL defense like Seattle, Carolina, Tampa and Denver.

one down, 3 to go.I'm curious, did anyone here actually WATCH the Carolina/Atlanta game? Because if you did, you would have noticed that Vick didn't have an incomplete pass in the 1st quarter. I believe he started out 7/7 or something like that.we got ahead. we ran the ball. no need to pass.

 

[quickvickthick]

When you're the top rushing team in the league, and your defense is the top team against the run, it's very simple, you don't need to throw the ball 30 times a game. Get Dunn and Duckett to split 25 carries, let Vick carry 5-10 times, throw some 3rd down passes to Crumpler, and let your Special Teams and defense do the rest. It may not be what fantasy owners want to see, but it's effective.BTW, there's no doubt in my mind the Falcons could be successful throwing the ball 30 times/game, but they have not trailed in a game all year, not even for a second. IF you see the Falcons fall behind in a game (and it is bound to happen eventually), you will see Vick throw more and have higher passing numbers.

 

[jwvdcw]

Posted by mrharrier in another thread, I think this is perfectly stated:The problem with this debate is that it's being held in a fantasy football forum, not a football forum. And while many of you may be "experts" or "sharks" at fantasy football, I can assure you after reading these posts that you're nothing but barcaloungers at actual football analysis.Michael Vick is not a tremendous passer. He probably never will be. However, he's one of the better quarterbacks in the league, and as he learns the WCO will become one of the best, so long as injuries don't force him to miss entire years any longer. Vick's ability to quarterback is not measured just by the passing stats that he puts up. Rather, as Tremblay noted, having Michael Vick in the game changes the defensive structure enough that more opportunities are available to Atlanta. I would agree that their OC has done a poor job of gameplanning so far, but Michael Vick himself is a huge asset to that team and the major reason why they are winning this year with almost the identical team that the had last year, when they were losers.Michael Vick has incredible arm strength and athleticism, and a great QB coach as his head coach. The WCO takes 3 years to learn and 5 years to be automatic--at least according to Steve Young and Bill Walsh, both of whom know a little bit about it. Part of McNabb's excellence toward the end of last year and the beginning of this year was just reaching that point with the offense. As Vick continues to grow as a QB, he will most likely never put up the kidns of passing numbers that McNabb or Young did, but he will continue to put his team in a position to win, and create opportunities for them to win, as he does now. I'm sure he'll continue to disappoint fantasy owners, however, and will get bashed by people here who are "experts" and "sharks" but don't know the first thing about a sam or mike blitz and sure as hell wouldn't recognize a QB who dealt with it incorrectly as opposed to correctly.

 

[jwvdcw]

Oh and one more thing....today on ESPN's pregame show, they anonymously(sp?) interviewed 8 NFL GMs. 7 out of 8 of them would take Vick over Tomlinson, Brees, and Caldwell(the trade that happened at the draft). How many QBs in the league do you think 7/8 NFL GMs would turn down the best RB in the game for(not to mention Brees and Caldwell)?

 

[jwvdcw]

Wow...huge surprise! Vick sits down and Atlanta loses! Atlanta is now 2-11 in the past 2 years without Vick and 14-4 with him.Oh yeah but its all the defense Where exactly was that great defense yesterday against a very very average Saints team?

 

[bostonfred2]

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

I mostly agree with this list, but have never been that big a fan of McNair because other QBs have stepped in and done decently in relief.

 

[jwvdcw]

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

I mostly agree with this list, but have never been that big a fan of McNair because other QBs have stepped in and done decently in relief.

That was written at the beginning of the season...some things have obviously changed. I'd now put Big Ben somewhere on it, remove McNair, and probably put Manning at #1.

 

[packersfan]

Wow...huge surprise! Vick sits down and Atlanta loses! Atlanta is now 2-11 in the past 2 years without Vick and 14-4 with him.Oh yeah but its all the defense Where exactly was that great defense yesterday against a very very average Saints team?

In terms of talent, I'd say the Saints are well above average in the NFL. And they clearly wanted that game more than the Falcons did. It was pretty obvious Mora was bagging it and that mindset permeated throughout his team. That said, there's no question the Falcons are a better team with Vick at QB. I think we're all in agreement on that. I did think it was funny, though, that Schaub (even though he didn't look real good) did something Vick is apparently incapable of doing -- get the ball to Price and Dunn in the passing game.

 

[cstu]

Oh and one more thing....today on ESPN's pregame show, they anonymously(sp?) interviewed 8 NFL GMs. 7 out of 8 of them would take Vick over Tomlinson, Brees, and Caldwell(the trade that happened at the draft). How many QBs in the league do you think 7/8 NFL GMs would turn down the best RB in the game for(not to mention Brees and Caldwell)?

First of all, I don't believe it unless all those GM's were from dome teams. You really think Vick would be a great fit in GB, CHI, BUF, etc?

 

[packersfan]

Oh and one more thing....today on ESPN's pregame show, they anonymously(sp?) interviewed 8 NFL GMs. 7 out of 8 of them would take Vick over Tomlinson, Brees, and Caldwell(the trade that happened at the draft). How many QBs in the league do you think 7/8 NFL GMs would turn down the best RB in the game for(not to mention Brees and Caldwell)?

First of all, I don't believe it unless all those GM's were from dome teams. You really think Vick would be a great fit in GB, CHI, BUF, etc?

That's a pretty small sample size too. It's only 1/4 of the NFL. I'd take Tomlinson straight up for Vick without a doubt and if Brees demonstrates this season wasn't a fluke then the trade will be a complete no-brainer.

 

[jwvdcw]

Oh and one more thing....today on ESPN's pregame show, they anonymously(sp?) interviewed 8 NFL GMs. 7 out of 8 of them would take Vick over Tomlinson, Brees, and Caldwell(the trade that happened at the draft). How many QBs in the league do you think 7/8 NFL GMs would turn down the best RB in the game for(not to mention Brees and Caldwell)?

First of all, I don't believe it unless all those GM's were from dome teams. You really think Vick would be a great fit in GB, CHI, BUF, etc?

I don't remember the specifics(it was a while ago), but I think they surveyed 8 GMs and asked a bunch of questions and then presented us with their answers. And 7/8 said they'd take Vick. Now, they didn't reveal their identities, but I see no reason why ESPN would lie or choose 8 GMs all from domes or other very similar circumstances which would obviously skew the results.