To all those who think Vick is overrated... (2 Viewers)

[Banger]

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.

I wonder with the year that Brees has had whether they would reconsider? I can't see how they couldn't since Brees and Tomlinson are both pro-bowlers leading their team to their first playoff appearance in years.

 

[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.

I wonder with the year that Brees has had whether they would reconsider? I can't see how they couldn't since Brees and Tomlinson are both pro-bowlers leading their team to their first playoff appearance in years.

Maybe they would...Certainly nobody expected Brees to do this well. But I still think it'd be close. I don't think many here understand just how much fear Vick puts into the hearts of GMs and coaches. I wouldn't be surprised if most teams would trade their TWO best players for him....he changes the game that much.

 

[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.

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.

I'd still put Brady ahead of Manning until Manning wins the Superbowl, or at least beats New England. I've explained my reasoning in other threads. Pittsburgh has to win a playoff game for me to move Roethlisberger into the top 6, and he'd have to win a Superbowl for me to put him ahead of Favre, who should probably be #2 or #3. Your "How does the team do without him" measurement doesn't work for Favre, but Green Bay has been competitive every year he's been there, and they've got the hardware. Right now, I'd say the top tier includes:BradyManningFavreVickAnd rounding out my top 10 there's another tier that's close, but needs to have some more postseason success before I move them up:McNabbCulpepperDelhommeRoethlisberger BreesPalmerI may be missing a couple QBs in there but that's about how I see it.

 

[packersfan]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

 

[bostonfred2]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.

Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland. Vick's #4 on my list and in my top tier because he won in Green Bay when nobody wins on the road in Green Bay, and because he's made a very poor team very good all by himself.

Edit to add Delhomme has been moving up my list. McNabb's got more sustained success, and Culpepper's got the stats but not the playoff success, so I put both of them in the category of top QBs, right around the same place I put Delhomme. Brees, Ben and maybe next year Palmer are definitely behind those three but anyone from that tier could squeeze into my top tier in the next year or two.

 

[packersfan]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland.

Until Vick can match or duplicate McNabb's playoff accomplishments, there's no way I believe he should be ranked ahead of him. Of course, I think Vick should be ranked considerably lower anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

 

[bostonfred2]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland.

Until Vick can match or duplicate McNabb's playoff accomplishments, there's no way I believe he should be ranked ahead of him. Of course, I think Vick should be ranked considerably lower anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I don't rank QBs solely on playoff accomplishments, although a QB who can't turn the corner (Manning, Culpepper, McNabb) gets downgraded on my list. Vick has had one playoff appearance, his first year as the starter, and he won in Green Bay. He was out a year, and the team lost. He's back, and leads them to a bye week. That's enough to put him in my top tier, although if he chokes in the playoffs I'll likely downgrade him.

 

[packersfan]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland.

Until Vick can match or duplicate McNabb's playoff accomplishments, there's no way I believe he should be ranked ahead of him. Of course, I think Vick should be ranked considerably lower anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I don't rank QBs solely on playoff accomplishments, although a QB who can't turn the corner (Manning, Culpepper, McNabb) gets downgraded on my list. Vick has had one playoff appearance, his first year as the starter, and he won in Green Bay. He was out a year, and the team lost. He's back, and leads them to a bye week. That's enough to put him in my top tier, although if he chokes in the playoffs I'll likely downgrade him.

Vick has had two playoff games. After beating the Packers, Atlanta lost to the Eagles the following week. So he's batting .500 so far in the playoffs in his career. And one thing about Vick, his influence on the Falcons beating Green Bay at Lambeau in the playoffs has been highly exaggerated over time. The fact of the matter is the Packers completely melted down with turnovers and that, alongwith a blocked punt, were the main reasons why they lost. Not Vick.Compare that to the Packers-Eagles playoff game last season. Granted, the Eagles benefited greatly from Ed Donatell's presence on the Packers' coaching staff, but McNabb just about single-handedly beat the Packers. Westbrook was out and the Eagles' WRs were putrid as usual, but McNabb was a one-man wrecking crew against the Packers. That was one of the most impressive playoff performances I've seen in some time. He simply would not allow his team to lose.

 

[bostonfred2]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland.

Until Vick can match or duplicate McNabb's playoff accomplishments, there's no way I believe he should be ranked ahead of him. Of course, I think Vick should be ranked considerably lower anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I don't rank QBs solely on playoff accomplishments, although a QB who can't turn the corner (Manning, Culpepper, McNabb) gets downgraded on my list. Vick has had one playoff appearance, his first year as the starter, and he won in Green Bay. He was out a year, and the team lost. He's back, and leads them to a bye week. That's enough to put him in my top tier, although if he chokes in the playoffs I'll likely downgrade him.

Vick has had two playoff games. After beating the Packers, Atlanta lost to the Eagles the following week. So he's batting .500 so far in the playoffs in his career. And one thing about Vick, his influence on the Falcons beating Green Bay at Lambeau in the playoffs has been highly exaggerated over time. The fact of the matter is the Packers completely melted down with turnovers and that, alongwith a blocked punt, were the main reasons why they lost. Not Vick.Compare that to the Packers-Eagles playoff game last season. Granted, the Eagles benefited greatly from Ed Donatell's presence on the Packers' coaching staff, but McNabb just about single-handedly beat the Packers. Westbrook was out and the Eagles' WRs were putrid as usual, but McNabb was a one-man wrecking crew against the Packers. That was one of the most impressive playoff performances I've seen in some time. He simply would not allow his team to lose.

Yes, but McNabb also can't get past the hump of the NFC championship game despite several attempts. Vick has only had the one try at the playoffs so far in his young career, and done well with it. Like I said, if Vick doesn't win a playoff game this year, he'll drop down my list. McNabb will probably move up it with another good performance this year. Maybe McNabb should even be in my top tier right now, but the fact that Feeley and Detmer looked so good when McNabb was hurt took some of the shine off of McNabb's accomplishments for me.

 

[packersfan]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland.

Until Vick can match or duplicate McNabb's playoff accomplishments, there's no way I believe he should be ranked ahead of him. Of course, I think Vick should be ranked considerably lower anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I don't rank QBs solely on playoff accomplishments, although a QB who can't turn the corner (Manning, Culpepper, McNabb) gets downgraded on my list. Vick has had one playoff appearance, his first year as the starter, and he won in Green Bay. He was out a year, and the team lost. He's back, and leads them to a bye week. That's enough to put him in my top tier, although if he chokes in the playoffs I'll likely downgrade him.

Vick has had two playoff games. After beating the Packers, Atlanta lost to the Eagles the following week. So he's batting .500 so far in the playoffs in his career. And one thing about Vick, his influence on the Falcons beating Green Bay at Lambeau in the playoffs has been highly exaggerated over time. The fact of the matter is the Packers completely melted down with turnovers and that, alongwith a blocked punt, were the main reasons why they lost. Not Vick.Compare that to the Packers-Eagles playoff game last season. Granted, the Eagles benefited greatly from Ed Donatell's presence on the Packers' coaching staff, but McNabb just about single-handedly beat the Packers. Westbrook was out and the Eagles' WRs were putrid as usual, but McNabb was a one-man wrecking crew against the Packers. That was one of the most impressive playoff performances I've seen in some time. He simply would not allow his team to lose.

Yes, but McNabb also can't get past the hump of the NFC championship game despite several attempts. Vick has only had the one try at the playoffs so far in his young career, and done well with it. Like I said, if Vick doesn't win a playoff game this year, he'll drop down my list. McNabb will probably move up it with another good performance this year. Maybe McNabb should even be in my top tier right now, but the fact that Feeley and Detmer looked so good when McNabb was hurt took some of the shine off of McNabb's accomplishments for me.

That was just one season. McNabb hasn't missed a game since. In any event, I would contend that just getting to a conference title game is pretty darn impressive. Granted McNabb hasn't been real good in those games, but given the NFL's playing field, I'd say you've done something right if you've been one of the league's four best teams at the end of three consecutive seasons. And I still add that Delhomme's playoff work has been even more impressive than Vick's.

 

[P Boy]

Well thank God! I was wondering where the daily Vick debate was.How can such a slightly-better-than-mediocre QB generate 3 2-page discussions & a 7-page discussion in one freakin' week?

 

[bostonfred2]

That was just one season. McNabb hasn't missed a game since. In any event, I would contend that just getting to a conference title game is pretty darn impressive. Granted McNabb hasn't been real good in those games, but given the NFL's playing field, I'd say you've done something right if you've been one of the league's four best teams at the end of three consecutive seasons.

I agree. McNabb's been very good. Maybe I should move him up on my list. I'm really looking forward to seeing how he handles the loss of Owens in the playoffs.

And I still add that Delhomme's playoff work has been even more impressive than Vick's.

Delhomme had been in the league five years before last year's playoff appearance, and didn't even win the starting job in preseason until Peete's terrible game to start the season. They didn't have the best record in the NFC last year, but they got hot at the right time and went to the playoffs. The same thing seems to be happening this year - which is impressive because of all the injuries they've dealt with. Delhomme's 20-14 record as a QB is good, but not great. His statistics are good, but not great. I would say he played well in the playoffs, but that games against Dallas, who came out very flat, Philly, where he had 101 net yards passing, and New England, who lost the majority of their D backs during the game, aren't enough for me to put him in the top tier. I do have a lot of respect for the double OT game against St Louis though. Bottom line with Delhomme - he did well in his first year as a starter, he looks pretty good this year, too, he seems like a winner, and he has decent, but not spectacular, stats. I'd call him a top 10 QB, which is just where I put him.

 

[bostonfred2]

Well thank God! I was wondering where the daily Vick debate was.How can such a slightly-better-than-mediocre QB generate 3 2-page discussions & a 7-page discussion in one freakin' week?

This was from October, and most of the posts today weren't about Vick.

 

[mrspree15]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland.

Until Vick can match or duplicate McNabb's playoff accomplishments, there's no way I believe he should be ranked ahead of him. Of course, I think Vick should be ranked considerably lower anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I don't rank QBs solely on playoff accomplishments, although a QB who can't turn the corner (Manning, Culpepper, McNabb) gets downgraded on my list. Vick has had one playoff appearance, his first year as the starter, and he won in Green Bay. He was out a year, and the team lost. He's back, and leads them to a bye week. That's enough to put him in my top tier, although if he chokes in the playoffs I'll likely downgrade him.

Vick has had two playoff games. After beating the Packers, Atlanta lost to the Eagles the following week. So he's batting .500 so far in the playoffs in his career. And one thing about Vick, his influence on the Falcons beating Green Bay at Lambeau in the playoffs has been highly exaggerated over time. The fact of the matter is the Packers completely melted down with turnovers and that, alongwith a blocked punt, were the main reasons why they lost. Not Vick.Compare that to the Packers-Eagles playoff game last season. Granted, the Eagles benefited greatly from Ed Donatell's presence on the Packers' coaching staff, but McNabb just about single-handedly beat the Packers. Westbrook was out and the Eagles' WRs were putrid as usual, but McNabb was a one-man wrecking crew against the Packers. That was one of the most impressive playoff performances I've seen in some time. He simply would not allow his team to lose.

Yes, but McNabb also can't get past the hump of the NFC championship game despite several attempts. Vick has only had the one try at the playoffs so far in his young career, and done well with it. Like I said, if Vick doesn't win a playoff game this year, he'll drop down my list. McNabb will probably move up it with another good performance this year. Maybe McNabb should even be in my top tier right now, but the fact that Feeley and Detmer looked so good when McNabb was hurt took some of the shine off of McNabb's accomplishments for me.

Stop saying Detmer and Feeley looked so great that year. They did not. Detmer was playing very well in the SF game (I'm still not sure how), but he got hurt. Feely came in and put up these numbers to finish the season:Comp:86 Att:154 1011 yds (6.5 ypa) 6 TDs 5 Ints

 

[bostonfred2]

Stop saying Detmer and Feeley looked so great that year. They did not. Detmer was playing very well in the SF game (I'm still not sure how), but he got hurt. Feely came in and put up these numbers to finish the season:Comp:86 Att:154 1011 yds (6.5 ypa) 6 TDs 5 Ints

Detmer threw for 277 yards and had 3 TDs while Feeley chipped in another TD when Detmer got hurt. Feeley then got a 10-3 win against St. Louis in his first start (after being a third string QB on the scout team), threw for 190 yards and 2 TDs in a 27-20 win against Seattle, threw for 210 yards and 2 TDs to beat Washington 34-21, threw for 253 yards a TD and 2 INTs in a 27-3 rout of Dallas, before finally losing 10-7 to the Giants. All in all, the team was 5-1 without McNabb, and 6-4 with him, in 2002. McNabb played against tougher competition, but the fact that the team actually won more without him is a dent in his armor in my opinion.

 

[cstu]

Just curious, why would you put McNabb (who's led his team to three consecutive NFC title games) below Vick (who has won one playoff game in his entire career) despite the fact he didn't have diddly to throw to prior to this season? If you're going to be judged on "winning" than McNabb has to be considered among the game's elite QBs.Edited to add Delhomme has more playoff wins than Vick as well and has led his team to a Super Bowl, something Vick has yet to do.

Because when McNabb was out, Feeley and Detmer looked like superheroes. When Vick was out, Atlanta looked like Cleveland.

Until Vick can match or duplicate McNabb's playoff accomplishments, there's no way I believe he should be ranked ahead of him. Of course, I think Vick should be ranked considerably lower anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I don't rank QBs solely on playoff accomplishments, although a QB who can't turn the corner (Manning, Culpepper, McNabb) gets downgraded on my list. Vick has had one playoff appearance, his first year as the starter, and he won in Green Bay. He was out a year, and the team lost. He's back, and leads them to a bye week. That's enough to put him in my top tier, although if he chokes in the playoffs I'll likely downgrade him.

Vick has had two playoff games. After beating the Packers, Atlanta lost to the Eagles the following week. So he's batting .500 so far in the playoffs in his career. And one thing about Vick, his influence on the Falcons beating Green Bay at Lambeau in the playoffs has been highly exaggerated over time. The fact of the matter is the Packers completely melted down with turnovers and that, alongwith a blocked punt, were the main reasons why they lost. Not Vick.Compare that to the Packers-Eagles playoff game last season. Granted, the Eagles benefited greatly from Ed Donatell's presence on the Packers' coaching staff, but McNabb just about single-handedly beat the Packers. Westbrook was out and the Eagles' WRs were putrid as usual, but McNabb was a one-man wrecking crew against the Packers. That was one of the most impressive playoff performances I've seen in some time. He simply would not allow his team to lose.

Yes, but McNabb also can't get past the hump of the NFC championship game despite several attempts. Vick has only had the one try at the playoffs so far in his young career, and done well with it. Like I said, if Vick doesn't win a playoff game this year, he'll drop down my list. McNabb will probably move up it with another good performance this year. Maybe McNabb should even be in my top tier right now, but the fact that Feeley and Detmer looked so good when McNabb was hurt took some of the shine off of McNabb's accomplishments for me.

Stop saying Detmer and Feeley looked so great that year. They did not. Detmer was playing very well in the SF game (I'm still not sure how), but he got hurt. Feely came in and put up these numbers to finish the season:Comp:86 Att:154 1011 yds (6.5 ypa) 6 TDs 5 Ints

You should have told him that if he says that he "entering a world of pain" :rotflmao:

 

[jwvdcw]

bump for Vick being the 2nd place MVP vote getter this year...looks like I"m not the only one who thinks highly of him.

 

[KevT]

bump for Vick being the 2nd place MVP vote getter this year...looks like I"m not the only one who thinks highly of him.

Weren't you the guy that voted for him over Manning?

 

[jwvdcw]

12/16 for 82 yards and 2 TDs and 0 INTs passing, 8 runs for 119 yards./4 errant passes and one fumble, otherwise completely flawless playoff performance.

 

[packersfan]

Vick's inability to generate a legitimate passing attack has to be viewed as a major concern

It seems appropriate to go back to this comment I made months ago about Vick because it was obvious going into this game that the Eagles were going to make Vick beat them with his arm. And he obviously failed miserably. If the Eagles could fluster a superior throwing QB with running skills such as Daunte Culpepper, as was the case last week, I don't know why anyone honestly believed Vick would fare better. The fact remains that for all of his wonderful athletic ability, he's yet to prove he can be a big-time winner throwing the football -- which, of course, is the No. 1 thing all QBs need to be able to do. The Falcons lost today because Philly was clearly the superior team, but they also lost because Vick has yet to prove he can consistently generate a quality passing attack. Until that day comes I won't back off my belief that this guy is seriously over-rated.

 

[jwvdcw]

Vick's inability to generate a legitimate passing attack has to be viewed as a major concern

It seems appropriate to go back to this comment I made months ago about Vick because it was obvious going into this game that the Eagles were going to make Vick beat them with his arm. And he obviously failed miserably. If the Eagles could fluster a superior throwing QB with running skills such as Daunte Culpepper, as was the case last week, I don't know why anyone honestly believed Vick would fare better. The fact remains that for all of his wonderful athletic ability, he's yet to prove he can be a big-time winner throwing the football -- which, of course, is the No. 1 thing all QBs need to be able to do. The Falcons lost today because Philly was clearly the superior team, but they also lost because Vick has yet to prove he can consistently generate a quality passing attack. Until that day comes I won't back off my belief that this guy is seriously over-rated.

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs2nd year strating: NFC Championship GameI mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

 

[BlueOnion]

As much as it pains me to agree with PackersFan.

 

[packersfan]

As much as it pains me to agree with PackersFan.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it? Hey we both agree Mike Tice is an idiot, don't we? We may have a lot of common ground here.

 

[Jason Wood]

Vick's inability to generate a legitimate passing attack has to be viewed as a major concern

It seems appropriate to go back to this comment I made months ago about Vick because it was obvious going into this game that the Eagles were going to make Vick beat them with his arm. And he obviously failed miserably. If the Eagles could fluster a superior throwing QB with running skills such as Daunte Culpepper, as was the case last week, I don't know why anyone honestly believed Vick would fare better. The fact remains that for all of his wonderful athletic ability, he's yet to prove he can be a big-time winner throwing the football -- which, of course, is the No. 1 thing all QBs need to be able to do. The Falcons lost today because Philly was clearly the superior team, but they also lost because Vick has yet to prove he can consistently generate a quality passing attack. Until that day comes I won't back off my belief that this guy is seriously over-rated.

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs2nd year strating: NFC Championship GameI mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

Because in order for Vick to win the big games even HE acknowledges that he'll in essence have to learn to downplay what makes him explosive (his running) and somehow develop as a passer; despite the fact that he's one of the, if not THE, rawest passer to play in the league in a long, long time.

 

[Hinezer]

Vick's inability to generate a legitimate passing attack has to be viewed as a major concern

It seems appropriate to go back to this comment I made months ago about Vick because it was obvious going into this game that the Eagles were going to make Vick beat them with his arm. And he obviously failed miserably. If the Eagles could fluster a superior throwing QB with running skills such as Daunte Culpepper, as was the case last week, I don't know why anyone honestly believed Vick would fare better. The fact remains that for all of his wonderful athletic ability, he's yet to prove he can be a big-time winner throwing the football -- which, of course, is the No. 1 thing all QBs need to be able to do. The Falcons lost today because Philly was clearly the superior team, but they also lost because Vick has yet to prove he can consistently generate a quality passing attack. Until that day comes I won't back off my belief that this guy is seriously over-rated.

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs2nd year strating: NFC Championship GameI mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

Because in order for Vick to win the big games even HE acknowledges that he'll in essence have to learn to downplay what makes him explosive (his running) and somehow develop as a passer; despite the fact that he's one of the, if not THE, rawest passer to play in the league in a long, long time.

Spergon Wynn makes him look like Joe Montana.

 

[jwvdcw]

Vick's inability to generate a legitimate passing attack has to be viewed as a major concern

It seems appropriate to go back to this comment I made months ago about Vick because it was obvious going into this game that the Eagles were going to make Vick beat them with his arm. And he obviously failed miserably. If the Eagles could fluster a superior throwing QB with running skills such as Daunte Culpepper, as was the case last week, I don't know why anyone honestly believed Vick would fare better.The fact remains that for all of his wonderful athletic ability, he's yet to prove he can be a big-time winner throwing the football -- which, of course, is the No. 1 thing all QBs need to be able to do. The Falcons lost today because Philly was clearly the superior team, but they also lost because Vick has yet to prove he can consistently generate a quality passing attack. Until that day comes I won't back off my belief that this guy is seriously over-rated.

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs

2nd year strating: NFC Championship Game

I mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

Because in order for Vick to win the big games even HE acknowledges that he'll in essence have to learn to downplay what makes him explosive (his running) and somehow develop as a passer; despite the fact that he's one of the, if not THE, rawest passer to play in the league in a long, long time.

What 'big games' are you talking about? Was winning in GB(where no team had ever won in the playoffs) not a big game? Was a second round playoff game last week not a big game? Vick got this year where McNabb has been the last 3 years...it taken McNabb a while to break through and it'll btake Vick a while as well. But he is indeed winning, and I'm completely confused as to why people continue to act as if his only leading his team this far is a disappointment in any way for a second year starting QB.

 

[Rhino]

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs2nd year strating: NFC Championship GameI mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

No - I don't expect him to win the NFC Championship in his second year starting. But even Eli Manning hasn't been shoved down my throat as much as Michael Vick. You can't watch a Sunday pre-game show without someone over-hyping this guy as one of the best QBs playing the game today. He's done nothing to show that he's as good as everyone says he is.And don't point to win-loss record... that is a TEAM statistic.

 

[jwvdcw]

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs2nd year strating: NFC Championship GameI mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

No - I don't expect him to win the NFC Championship in his second year starting. But even Eli Manning hasn't been shoved down my throat as much as Michael Vick. You can't watch a Sunday pre-game show without someone over-hyping this guy as one of the best QBs playing the game today. He's done nothing to show that he's as good as everyone says he is.And don't point to win-loss record... that is a TEAM statistic.

I'm not pointing just to W-L record, which is a team stat. I'm pointing to how the same team did without him(2-10) compared to how they did with him that year(3-1). He took a terrible 2-10 team and went 3-1 with them that year! Thats amazing. I'm sorry that Vick is being shoved down your throat, but I really don't think people are overhyping him like you say. I have never ever heard any commentator say that Vick is a top 3 QB in the league. Personally, I believe that he falls into the #4-7 range, which seems to be exactly where most of the media place him as well.

 

[packersfan]

Vick's inability to generate a legitimate passing attack has to be viewed as a major concern

It seems appropriate to go back to this comment I made months ago about Vick because it was obvious going into this game that the Eagles were going to make Vick beat them with his arm. And he obviously failed miserably. If the Eagles could fluster a superior throwing QB with running skills such as Daunte Culpepper, as was the case last week, I don't know why anyone honestly believed Vick would fare better. The fact remains that for all of his wonderful athletic ability, he's yet to prove he can be a big-time winner throwing the football -- which, of course, is the No. 1 thing all QBs need to be able to do. The Falcons lost today because Philly was clearly the superior team, but they also lost because Vick has yet to prove he can consistently generate a quality passing attack. Until that day comes I won't back off my belief that this guy is seriously over-rated.

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs2nd year strating: NFC Championship GameI mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

I addressed everything in the other Vick thread (I agree there's probably no reason for multiple threads of this nature) just so you didn't think I was dodging your questions.

 

[rhawkins68]

Vick's inability to generate a legitimate passing attack has to be viewed as a major concern

It seems appropriate to go back to this comment I made months ago about Vick because it was obvious going into this game that the Eagles were going to make Vick beat them with his arm. And he obviously failed miserably. If the Eagles could fluster a superior throwing QB with running skills such as Daunte Culpepper, as was the case last week, I don't know why anyone honestly believed Vick would fare better.The fact remains that for all of his wonderful athletic ability, he's yet to prove he can be a big-time winner throwing the football -- which, of course, is the No. 1 thing all QBs need to be able to do. The Falcons lost today because Philly was clearly the superior team, but they also lost because Vick has yet to prove he can consistently generate a quality passing attack. Until that day comes I won't back off my belief that this guy is seriously over-rated.

I just don't get it.1st year starting: Second year of playoffs

2nd year strating: NFC Championship Game

I mean, do you really expect him to win a championship within his first two years starting? HE HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT HE CAN WIN GAMES WITHOUT BEING A DOMINANT PASSER. Vick is so unique that he doesn't have to pass to be great. Give him a few more years like you would with any other QB. I mean, are you honestly telling me that if Eli Manning takes his team to the 2nd round next year, then gets hurt his third year, and then goes to the Championship game his fourth year, that you'd consider that disappointing?? So why the difference with Vick? I don't think Vick will ever be a great passer, but he'll be a great quarterback and he is a winner.

Because in order for Vick to win the big games even HE acknowledges that he'll in essence have to learn to downplay what makes him explosive (his running) and somehow develop as a passer; despite the fact that he's one of the, if not THE, rawest passer to play in the league in a long, long time.

What 'big games' are you talking about? Was winning in GB(where no team had ever won in the playoffs) not a big game? Was a second round playoff game last week not a big game? Vick got this year where McNabb has been the last 3 years...it taken McNabb a while to break through and it'll btake Vick a while as well. But he is indeed winning, and I'm completely confused as to why people continue to act as if his only leading his team this far is a disappointment in any way for a second year starting QB.

4th year.

 

[jwvdcw]

The Falcons running game is better this year than last year, that's pretty much the only difference.  The passing game isn't better.  Vick was supposed to be a great passer as soon as he got a WR like Price.  Well now they also got him Michael Jenkins and Dez White.

Vick will be overrated until he stops showing up in the top 15 lists for QBs or he significantly improves his passing.

McNabb isn't overrated.  He got the weapon he wanted and is playing amazingly.

If the Falcons want a QB, Matt Schaub is their best bet.  Vick is a RB.

As for McNabb....you are totally missing my point. I think you are one of those totally caught up in fantasy stats, as evidenced by you thinking that Vick isn't playing well now(as if a QB's goal is to put up stats; not to win games and be 3-0)The Eagles went 9-1 a few years back with Feely and Detmer at the helm. They had a worse winning percentage with McNabb at the helm...explain that to me. Stats don't matter...wins do.

I'm not caught up in fantasy stats at all. I'm caught up in reality. McNabb has been playing lights out, Vick is putting up passing stats that would get many QBs benched, like he did in his 2002 season. Like I've said all along, when teams stop Vick from running, it's over with. Vick can't pass and that's one of the requirements of being a QB. When he does pass it, it is a dumpoff to the RB or TE.His WRs caught 3 passes for 36 yards today. For the season they have 14 catches for 165 yards.

As for winning is all that matters. He just barely beat the Cardinals, only getting 6 points. They slipped by a pretty bad 49ers team week 1. They beat up on the Rams, but they too are a team sinking fast.

Vick is not a good QB, he's a good runner. Anything more than that is a stretch.

bump...now since the Falcons went to the NFC Championship, you can't use the "its only because he played bad competition" defense....so now what? Vick's first year as a starter: 2nd round of playoffs, 2nd year: 3rd round...what else do you want?

 

[jwvdcw]

I believe the Falcons will win 10 games or more if Vick stays healthy. Their schedule is that easy.

Then get destroyed in the playoffs when they play a real team with a defense unlike bad defenses like Arizona, San Francisco, and St. Louis.

There is a reason those teams have 1 win total.

Vick is a bad passing QB, that will not get his team to a Super Bowl until he improves his accuracy considerably.

I'd rather have

Culpepper

Manning

McNabb

Hasselbeck

Pennington

Brady

Green

Bulger

McNair

Brooks

Delhomme

Favre

all as real life QB's rather than the current Michael Vick.

Any of those QB's dropped into ATL would put up better real life QB numbers than Vick for the entire year.

I'd also include Testaverde as borderline better. He has a strong accurate arm.

again, I'll say it: STATS DON'T MATTER.Not many of those QBs would put up more wins than Vick in Atlanta, and that is all that matters.

 

[P Boy]

again, I'll say it: STATS DON'T MATTER.Not many of those QBs would put up more wins than Vick in Atlanta, and that is all that matters.

There's that great logic again.Okay, let's try out this logic.Dilfer = 1 SB winVick = 0 SB winsDilfer > VickQ.E.D.

 

[jwvdcw]

Gosh its frusterating arguing with you all sometimes.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERY QB THAT HAS A GOOD WINNING PERCENTAGE IS GREAT.

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

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

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

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

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

Pony Boy...heres a post from page 2 of my thread that deals with your Dilfer argument.Dilfer was obviously taking advantage of a great situation and a great team. A team that despite losing their star RB was still a 2nd round playoff team the next year without Dilfer! Contrast that to the Falcons who were 2-10 without Vick.

Just to make things totally clear: I am not saying that any QB that wins is great. I am saying that you can measure a QB's greatness by how much more his team wins with him than without him. There is a huge difference there.

 

[jwvdcw]

With a leg injury yesterday, Vick still turned in a pretty good game as a pocket passer, having 2 pass TDs and leading his team to 24 points on the road against a tough Buffalo defense.

 

[KevT]

tough Buffalo defense.

Not that tough, look at the amound of yards they've given up to the run this year. Vick did look really good yesterday though.

 

[Da Guru]

The only way Vick can win is with a great running game and a great defense..and Atlanta has both!

 

[BlueOnion]

He has the same problem Manning does, cannot win the big one. Manning could not beat Florida, Vick could not beat Florida State. Once a loser always a loser I guess.

 

[jwvdcw]

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.

Ok then....what happened to that TEAM last year when they were 2-10?And why did they suddenly go 3-1 last year after Vick returned despite playing 4 very tough opponents?

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.

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?

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.

LOL at "top 7 QB in the league."

 

[Phlash]

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.

Ok then....what happened to that TEAM last year when they were 2-10?And why did they suddenly go 3-1 last year after Vick returned despite playing 4 very tough opponents?

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.

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?

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.

LOL at "top 7 QB in the league."

very LOL

 

[Chaka]

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.

Ok then....what happened to that TEAM last year when they were 2-10?And why did they suddenly go 3-1 last year after Vick returned despite playing 4 very tough opponents?

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.

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?

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.

LOL at "top 7 QB in the league."

WB jwvd... I see your schtick hasn't changed since this thread was started.