Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Top notch effort by the Great Mike Vick (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lod01
- Start date
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
Maybe they should just run a split backs shotgun formation all game where Vick and Schaub both lineup as if they will take the snap. On most of the passing plays Schaub should take the snap and on most of the run plays Vick can take the snap. The D will be kept guessing, and in addition to that Schaub can continue to show his amense skills we first got a glimpse of in the preseason whilst he gutted vanilla schemes and backups on D for many many passing yards. Or, maybe we can give Vick a chance to learn the west coast offense and devolop more as a passer. He is, after all, only 25 or so.
phrozen
Footballguy
maybe you were watching a different Eagles/Falcons game.Vick scans the field once and if he doesn't see an open receiver at that time he tucks the ball and tries to take off and run it. It works for him most of the time but the Eagles Defense totally shut down his running lanes and Vick became a lame duck back there.Vick may have the blistering speed if he gets an open lane but he isn't able to scramble like McNabb when defenders are on him. McNabb was making moves past defenders yesterday and giving his receivers time to get open. They did and he connected with them and completed 65% of his passes.Vick couldnt get his rushing established and therefore he was out of place. When it came down to him trying to mount a comeback with his arm he couldn't get it done. He completed a very hefty 45% of his passes.The ATL defense and special teams have helped Vick out a lot by being solid most of the year and keeping games within reach. In the famous 27-0 blowout the defense couldn't get it done and Vick couldn't even manage to lead the team down the field to put 3 points on the board.Is Vick a good athlete? SureIs he fun to watch? SureIs he a solid QB? No wayI don't wish Vick any bad luck. I am just tired to people pimping him as the second coming and an amazing player when he isn't even a soild QB. If he wasn't pimped by ESPN and the media in general I don't think there would be such a high level of debate.Brian Westbrook is a solid RB/WR. Maybe he could practice throwing the ball and get a $100 mil contract for another team too.6.9 YPA is not all run, no pass.nice job slumlord
joffer
Footballguy
if that's what you saw, then maybe we were watching a different game.However, i wasn't commenting on the Eagles game at all. The comment was that he's all running, no passing. A 6.9 YPA does not tell me that at all. It tells me that the Falcons are a lot more run than pass.And that Brian Westbrook comment is getting old. If you really believe that, then there's really nothing more to say.Edit: and who exactly on this thread is pimping him as "the second coming"maybe you were watching a different Eagles/Falcons game.Vick scans the field once and if he doesn't see an open receiver at that time he tucks the ball and tries to take off and run it.6.9 YPA is not all run, no pass.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shlon
Footballguy
Actually Vick led the Falcons down to the Bucs redzone 4 times in that game. Twice he threw two interceptions on 1st & goal at the 3 yard line (easily could've been 14 points if we ran it with Duckett). Fumbled inside the 20 yard line as he was hit from behind. And went for it on 4th down within FG range but had to go for TD because it was late in the game. We had plenty of opportunities to score we just made mistakes.
Theo Epstein
Footballguy
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Vick IS an incredible athelete. He MAY evolve into a real quarterback. If he doesn't get his completion percentage into the 60s, you can call it a career. Next year will be very interesting. I have a LOT of confidence in Mora's ability as a coach.
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
Nice backtrack.
I don't think MT and I were making any point other than refuting your statement that Vick was a sub 50% passer in college. In fact he was far above that. Now if you want to discuss his system, that is fine, but that still won't make his numebrs drop below 50%Vick is just 24, a good two years away from his athletic peak. He ahs improved each year, despite working in a different system. I see no reason why should not continue to improve.
cstu
Footballguy
You would certainly imagine that at 24 he would only get better as a passer. I do question the decision to go to a WCO when you have a strong armed QB with questionable accuracy. Guys like Montana and Brady (average arm, highly accurate) are ideal, but I guess you can look at the sucess of McNabb for a guy in the WCO who isn't highly accurate. That's not a knock on McNabb since he throws the ball a majority of the time, but when he misses passes he really misses them. Vick has to get better as a passer because in the playoffs teams will do exactly what the Eagles did and stack the line to stop the run and dare him to beat them passing the ball.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Falcons fans would do cartwheels through Buckhead if Vick put up the kind of passing numbers "Young McNabb" did in his first NFC Championship game season...58% completion, 25 TDs, 12 Ints. In other words, Vick has to almost double his TD output, keep his Ints the same and increase his completion percentage by a full 2 points.
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
Agreed. I've always found it curious that Vick supporters long to point to McNabb as a means of comparison when that actually weakens their position significantly. McNabb, even when he was struggling, has always been a far superior passer than Vick. And when you consider that prior to this season, you can make a strong case that McNabb had considerably less to work with in the passing game than Vick has had the comparison becomes even worse for Vick.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
Okay, how about Vick fans say they are VERY happy with where their man is at age 24 as compared to where McNabb was at age 24.At age 24 (the 1999 season) McNabb had complted just one season in the NFL, starting six games, had a completion percentage of 49.1%, 4.39 YPA, 8TDs and 7 INTs with a passer rating of 60.1, and 313 yards on the ground. McNabb would turn 25 mid-way through the next season (20Nov), and did have a much better second year, but was 25 when for a good portion of it.
Vick at age 24 has led his team to the playoffs twice, the NFC Champiohnship once, and put up these numbers at that age: 56.4% completion percentage, 7.21 YPA, 14 TDs, and 12 INTs through the air, a 78.1 passer rating, and 902 yards and three TDs on the ground.
The comparison of the two at the same age certainly seems not only fair, but perhaps in Vick's favor as he has two full season under his belt. McNabb got better. There is no reason to think Vick won't as well.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Hunter,Comparing them chronologically is a terribly difficult argument for me to accept. Whether a player gets to the NFL at 20 or 28, it's about experience in the league, and on the field that shape how they're going to progress.
If you want to compare them to how many years they've played, that's a much more logical progression than comparing their birthdays.
Take another position as an example. Two linebackers are drafted in the first round of the 2000 draft. Both start in their 2nd year. Five years into their playing careers, one has made four consecutive Pro Bowls while the other hasn't distinguished himself in that regard. The difference...the one with all the Pro Bowls is 29 (he was 24 when drafted), the other who's never made a Pro Bowl is 25 (he was 20 when drafted). Are you going to buy ANYONE making the contention that the team with the 25 year old should be thrilled because after all, he's just 25?
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
Excellent points all Jason. I do happen to think age in this comaprison must be considered -- though I myself have no idea how much. I will leave that to you guys who are far smarter than I. McNabb came out after four years at a major program. Vick obviously did not. Now is Vick's three years in the NFL worth more than the extra two college years McNabb had at Syracuse? I think that it is, but could see the agument against.It seems to me that you/your side/Vick haters (lumping all of them together while recognizing that not all labels apply) wants to use ONLY NFL experience. I took the Devil's Advocate side and used just age. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. It is a fact that a Man's physical prime is that mid-to-late 20s time. Vick is just NOW entering that while McNabb was already there when he got to the NFL. I would argue that McNabb has improved each year. I think Vick will do the same and, from age 24, has a better base than McNabb did at that age.
So while your way may seem more logical, it does not tell the whole story in any comparison, and I feel it especially does not in this one. Age has to play some role, and that is clearly on Vick's side. By the time Vick reaches Mcnabb's ripe old age
of 28, I think he will have accomplished a great deal and improved to McNabb-like levels, if not exceeded them.
pinequick
Footballguy
I've got to side with Wood on this one. Think about any other workplace. One guy gets hired at age 22, the other at age 25. Both work for two years, so they're now 24 and 27, respectively.I don't think the company is going to expect less from the 24-year-old (relative to the 27-year-old) simply because he is YOUNGER. They both have the same experience.Excellent points all Jason. I do happen to think age in this comaprison must be considered -- though I myself have no idea how much. I will leave that to you guys who are far smarter than I. McNabb came out after four years at a major program. Vick obviously did not. Now is Vick's three years in the NFL worth more than the extra two college years McNabb had at Syracuse? I think that it is, but could see the agument against.It seems to me that you/your side/Vick haters (lumping all of them together while recognizing that not all labels apply) wants to use ONLY NFL experience. I took the Devil's Advocate side and used just age. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. It is a fact that a Man's physical prime is that mid-to-late 20s time. Vick is just NOW entering that while McNabb was already there when he got to the NFL. I would argue that McNabb has improved each year. I think Vick will do the same and, from age 24, has a better base than McNabb did at that age.
So while your way may seem more logical, it does not tell the whole story in any comparison, and I feel it especially does not in this one. Age has to play some role, and that is clearly on Vick's side. By the time Vick reaches Mcnabb's ripe old age
The logical comparison is to compare their EXPERIENCE ON THE JOB, not their AGE.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Hey Hunter,You make a solid retort in explaining your side of the equation. I guess I just look at Vick and have to wonder how much he can really improve as a passer. No other NFL QB has had the limited ability he's had as a passer (in terms of mechanics, experience, footwork, tutelage) and evolved into a very good passer IMHO; at least none that I can recall.Excellent points all Jason. I do happen to think age in this comaprison must be considered -- though I myself have no idea how much. I will leave that to you guys who are far smarter than I. McNabb came out after four years at a major program. Vick obviously did not. Now is Vick's three years in the NFL worth more than the extra two college years McNabb had at Syracuse? I think that it is, but could see the agument against.It seems to me that you/your side/Vick haters (lumping all of them together while recognizing that not all labels apply) wants to use ONLY NFL experience. I took the Devil's Advocate side and used just age. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. It is a fact that a Man's physical prime is that mid-to-late 20s time. Vick is just NOW entering that while McNabb was already there when he got to the NFL. I would argue that McNabb has improved each year. I think Vick will do the same and, from age 24, has a better base than McNabb did at that age.
So while your way may seem more logical, it does not tell the whole story in any comparison, and I feel it especially does not in this one. Age has to play some role, and that is clearly on Vick's side. By the time Vick reaches Mcnabb's ripe old age
The one point you make re: physical maturity is an interesting one, and one that I think further separates McNabb (and Culpepper) from Vick (and Garcia among others). McNabb is almost 250 pounds and chiseled (and Culpep is even bigger), when they run it's not like the linebackers and safeties have anything on them. Vick, whose running is a much more important component of what he brings to the table, is slighter of frame and his value as an overall player would be decimated if he were ever hurt to the point where he was forever slowed or unable to take off as he does currently.
I wonder if there's a chance Vick can continue getting physically stronger? I hadn't of considered that possiblity.
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
You miss the entire point of the physical demands on the job. The NFL is NOT like the average workplace. If we ignored child labor laws, you are saying that it would be better to invest in a 55-year old cinder block carrier who has been GREAT on the job than it would be to invest in a 17-year old with only two years experience. That is absurd. One is at the limits and surely on the downhill side of his career, the other has yet to reach his peak.Yes, this is an extreme example, but it shows that age MUST play a factor in these equations. Vick, if the examples of 99% of mankind are accurate, is going to fill out more and become a better athlete over the next couple of years. That should help him at his job -- playing in the NFL. I readily acknowledge that it would mean little in the accounting industry.I've got to side with Wood on this one. Think about any other workplace. One guy gets hired at age 22, the other at age 25. Both work for two years, so they're now 24 and 27, respectively.I don't think the company is going to expect less from the 24-year-old (relative to the 27-year-old) simply because he is YOUNGER. They both have the same experience.Excellent points all Jason. I do happen to think age in this comaprison must be considered -- though I myself have no idea how much. I will leave that to you guys who are far smarter than I. McNabb came out after four years at a major program. Vick obviously did not. Now is Vick's three years in the NFL worth more than the extra two college years McNabb had at Syracuse? I think that it is, but could see the agument against.It seems to me that you/your side/Vick haters (lumping all of them together while recognizing that not all labels apply) wants to use ONLY NFL experience. I took the Devil's Advocate side and used just age. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. It is a fact that a Man's physical prime is that mid-to-late 20s time. Vick is just NOW entering that while McNabb was already there when he got to the NFL. I would argue that McNabb has improved each year. I think Vick will do the same and, from age 24, has a better base than McNabb did at that age.
So while your way may seem more logical, it does not tell the whole story in any comparison, and I feel it especially does not in this one. Age has to play some role, and that is clearly on Vick's side. By the time Vick reaches Mcnabb's ripe old age
The logical comparison is to compare their EXPERIENCE ON THE JOB, not their AGE.
The NFL is not, "any other workplace," and to use that comaprison is just wrong. it is a unique environment where physical skills do matter, thus physical maturity MUST matter.
Again, I am not saying the age is the only or even the major factor, but it is A factor. Too many here are just dismissing it entirely. If age didn't matter, why not go out and get Staubach back on the field? He has an impressive resume. You don't b/c he is too old to handle the rigors of the job and perform it like he would need to. His experience means nothing here. Age can both diminsh skills AND increase them. Some seem to forget the latter part.
For the record, I would take McNabb right now. I would take McNabb for next year. But I will not dismiss Vick's entire future career for his play before the age of 25.
Heck, his insurance premiums haven't even gone down yet!
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Well, there's got to be a point of diminishing returns...[/David Boston]
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
Oh, and I am somewhat amused by the assumptions that Vick will get hurt running for being so small. You act as though he were some delicate flower. He is as big as most RBs in the league right now. The odds say that he will add about 5-7 more pounds (minimum) on his frame in the coming years. That would put him over 220 lbs at 6'0 1/2+ frame. That is not small.
A little comaprison, even if Vick were to defy most medical studies and not grow a bit in muscle or fill out even a smidgen:
Willis McGahee 6'0 228
Corey Dillon 6'1 225
DeShaun Foster 6'0 222
Chris Brown 6'3 219
Ahman Green 6'0 218
VICK 6'0 215
Edge James 6'0 214
Priest 5'9 213
Tatum Bell 5'11 213
Marshall Faulk 5'10 211
C-Martin 5'11 210
Bennett 5'9 209
Ju. Jones 5'9 205
Portis 5'11 205
Westbrook 5'10 205
Tiki Barber 5'10 200
Dunn 5'9 180
So we are talking about a guy just as big as Ahman Green and bigger and faster than Edge or Portis or Faulk or Priest. Vick is not that tiny amd all medical evidence indicates he will get a little bigger and stronger as well.
Oh, and some other notables:
Sweetness 5'10 202
Emmitt 5'10 216
A little comaprison, even if Vick were to defy most medical studies and not grow a bit in muscle or fill out even a smidgen:
Willis McGahee 6'0 228
Corey Dillon 6'1 225
DeShaun Foster 6'0 222
Chris Brown 6'3 219
Ahman Green 6'0 218
VICK 6'0 215
Edge James 6'0 214
Priest 5'9 213
Tatum Bell 5'11 213
Marshall Faulk 5'10 211
C-Martin 5'11 210
Bennett 5'9 209
Ju. Jones 5'9 205
Portis 5'11 205
Westbrook 5'10 205
Tiki Barber 5'10 200
Dunn 5'9 180
So we are talking about a guy just as big as Ahman Green and bigger and faster than Edge or Portis or Faulk or Priest. Vick is not that tiny amd all medical evidence indicates he will get a little bigger and stronger as well.
Oh, and some other notables:
Sweetness 5'10 202
Emmitt 5'10 216
Shlon
Footballguy
From CNNSI:
From Marc Wilson, of Marietta, Ga.: "Where is the criticism of Mike Vick? In the NFC title game his statistics are just barely below his season numbers, but no one mentions that. Commentators were heaping praise on him all week, because all they had seen of him was ESPN highlights (all running) and one game against a horrible St. Louis defense. The truth is that was the real Mike Vick versus Philly. He can't read a defense or make progressions to different receivers, witnessed by the fact that he hasn't hit his second option in a pattern this year. He's not a top-20 quarterback. He's just a bunch of hype.''
Peter King: Lots to address there, Marc. Let me just say that in a conversation I had with Jim Mora last week, he told me, "Mike Vick won't be the same quarterback in 2007 as he is now.'' Meaning, he's going to stand in the pocket and look for his first, second and third options in a pattern. You're right; he often takes off too quickly. But Marc, I'm not sure you could feel what it was like in Philly from your couch in Georgia, if that's where you watched the game. I was there and it was an ungodly cold day, with a knifing wind like they must have in the Iditarod. And one other thing: He did not have a rushing attempt in the last 47 minutes of the game. He was looking for receivers. They either weren't there, or he couldn't get the ball to them.
From Marc Wilson, of Marietta, Ga.: "Where is the criticism of Mike Vick? In the NFC title game his statistics are just barely below his season numbers, but no one mentions that. Commentators were heaping praise on him all week, because all they had seen of him was ESPN highlights (all running) and one game against a horrible St. Louis defense. The truth is that was the real Mike Vick versus Philly. He can't read a defense or make progressions to different receivers, witnessed by the fact that he hasn't hit his second option in a pattern this year. He's not a top-20 quarterback. He's just a bunch of hype.''
Peter King: Lots to address there, Marc. Let me just say that in a conversation I had with Jim Mora last week, he told me, "Mike Vick won't be the same quarterback in 2007 as he is now.'' Meaning, he's going to stand in the pocket and look for his first, second and third options in a pattern. You're right; he often takes off too quickly. But Marc, I'm not sure you could feel what it was like in Philly from your couch in Georgia, if that's where you watched the game. I was there and it was an ungodly cold day, with a knifing wind like they must have in the Iditarod. And one other thing: He did not have a rushing attempt in the last 47 minutes of the game. He was looking for receivers. They either weren't there, or he couldn't get the ball to them.
packersfan
Footballguy
Therein lies the fundamental problem with Vick as far as I'm concerned.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
LOL...revisionist history my friend. The Falcons line protected Vick plenty of times and Vick stood back dancing around because Kearse and Burgess were containing him inside the pocket. Yes the Eagles did a great job of blitzing (but any elite defense is going to pose that challenge) but where the Eagles (and Bucs and any other disciplined defense) found success was in NOT bringing too many rushers at Vick. Keep containment, have your outside backers play in the flats and not overpursue and let Vick try to make a read and complete a pass. He simply couldn't.And 2007 is a LONG way away; if I'm Mora you better hope Vick develops a passing game faster than that.
packersfan
Footballguy
Thanks for interpreting King's sentence to fit your point of view. Very conveinent.
Even if that were the case -- and having watched the game I'd place most of the blame on Vick for his inability to hit his WRs -- that still doesn't explain all the games this season where he was unable to connect with his WRs. Now I agree Price isn't exactly a master of getting off the line of scrimmage, but there were countless numbers of times I saw him open this season and Vick couldn't come close to getting the ball to him.You'll get no argument from me that Atlanta's WRs suck big-time. But I've listed several QBs in this thread who have also worked with pedestrian (or worse) WRs and gotten the job done. But that was not something Vick was able to do this season. Maybe by 2007 he will be able to; I'm not ruling that out. But as we sit here today I don't know how anyone could feel comfortable putting the game in Vick's hands as a passer and expecting him to beat a good team.
I asked this question in another Vick thread and nobody responded, but I'll try again. When McNabb got hurt in 2002, he basically played the entire game vs. the Cardinals on one foot and was limited to playing in the pocket. He didn't run at all because he couldn't. Instead, he was strictly a pocket passer throwing to dogs like Thrash and Pinkston. The result was 80% completion percentage, 255 yards passing and 4 TD passes. Granted this came against the Cardinals, but is there anyone who honestly -- and I mean honestly -- believes Vick could do the same thing if his running game was taken away completely?
I sure as hell don't.
Shlon
Footballguy
When the line protected him & had time were the receivers getting open? The handful of times he did have time he got the ball to Price & Crumpler (only touchdown drives) besides that they really weren't getting open. 2007 is 2 years & would be his 4th season in the WCO which Steve Young says is the time you should get comfortable in it.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
I hope for you and other Falcons fans that's true, but again, making Vick a competent passer in the WCO is akin to fitting a square peg in a round hole. Admittedly a talented peg, but misshapen nonetheless.
Shlon
Footballguy
Uh what about the times the ball hit Price right in the hands & he would drop the ball, hence Price having the lowest catch % in the NFL (under 40%). White, Crumpler, and Finneran were all over 60%. There were times when Vick overthrew Price but a lot of times Price could've continue running upfield but instead gave up on the play.Fair enough, but give Vick a playmaking WR & his development as a passer will increase that much faster.Thanks for interpreting King's sentence to fit your point of view. Very conveinent.
You'll get no argument from me that Atlanta's WRs suck big-time. But I've listed several QBs in this thread who have also worked with pedestrian (or worse) WRs and gotten the job done. But that was not something Vick was able to do this season. Maybe by 2007 he will be able to; I'm not ruling that out. But as we sit here today I don't know how anyone could feel comfortable putting the game in Vick's hands as a passer and expecting him to beat a good team.
I asked this question in another Vick thread and nobody responded, but I'll try again. When McNabb got hurt in 2002, he basically played the entire game vs. the Cardinals on one foot and was limited to playing in the pocket. He didn't run at all because he couldn't. Instead, he was strictly a pocket passer throwing to dogs like Thrash and Pinkston. The result was 80% completion percentage, 255 yards passing and 4 TD passes. Granted this came against the Cardinals, but is there anyone who honestly -- and I mean honestly -- believes Vick could do the same thing if his running game was taken away completely?
I sure as hell don't.
If Vick was forced to who knows? Probably not, but unless he was put in that scenario then I don't know. He only throws in tight coverage to Crumpler because he's the only one he trusts.
Shlon
Footballguy
That's your opinion, according to Bill Walsh & Steve Young (2 experts imo) they believe Vick is the ideal QB for a WCO.I hope for you and other Falcons fans that's true, but again, making Vick a competent passer in the WCO is akin to fitting a square peg in a round hole. Admittedly a talented peg, but misshapen nonetheless.
packersfan
Footballguy
Again, I'm not questioning whether Price stinks. I agree that he's horribly miscast as a No. 1 WR. However, many of the Vick supporters constantly want to point to McNabb as a means of comparison and I'm simply asking if they beileve Vick could do the same type of thing McNabb has done before and basically what Vick needed to do last Sunday to beat the Eagles.
Shlon
Footballguy
I watched every snap this season & I know Vick needs to improve as a passer. Only a handful of times do I remember Vick running around trying to buy time for his receivers. When this happened, the resulting play was a big play:
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~danpye/vickpass1.gif
Almost every time the pocket breaks down Vick looks for maybe one more read & takes off. I see Vick looking more so for a open running lane then an open receiver. Unlike Mcnabb, who when the pockets break down instead of run first he runs around & goes through his progressions & after making 2-3 reads if no one's open he takes off. Remember that Monday Night Play where Mcnabb ran around the pocket for 15 seconds looking for a open receiver, Vick this past year would've never done that he would've ran much earlier and not wait that long. Our WR's are garbage as well though yes. But once Vick realizes that he can use his leg more so to buy time for his WR's to get open instead of finding an open running lane I believe his passing game will be that much more effective.
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~danpye/vickpass1.gif
Almost every time the pocket breaks down Vick looks for maybe one more read & takes off. I see Vick looking more so for a open running lane then an open receiver. Unlike Mcnabb, who when the pockets break down instead of run first he runs around & goes through his progressions & after making 2-3 reads if no one's open he takes off. Remember that Monday Night Play where Mcnabb ran around the pocket for 15 seconds looking for a open receiver, Vick this past year would've never done that he would've ran much earlier and not wait that long. Our WR's are garbage as well though yes. But once Vick realizes that he can use his leg more so to buy time for his WR's to get open instead of finding an open running lane I believe his passing game will be that much more effective.
Last edited by a moderator:
i think jim johnson had this tendency of vick "pegged" - it seemed the D was playing him to run as soon as vick did not make a throw in his initial reads - not even honoring the pass... vick needs to get an instinct to at least fake the throw as he's approaching the line (like mcnabb).
