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!
I don't really know what to read into it. KC sucked with and had a very good TOP rank whereas Atlanta was very mediocre in TOP.Maybe TOP is an over-rated stat that doesn't translate into Wins and losses, surprising as I would of thought the opposite.
TOP is actually what you should be going for to win games. KC had a good offense but a pathetic defense. THe only worse defense were GB, Stl, Min, & SF.
From looking at game logs it seems Atlanta gets killed in TOP when they get down in a game. That is the one area most agree that Vick is poor at. Thankfully he doesn't put his team in that position often, but as expected when he does they are horrible.So all in all, Vick needs to improve his passing to help his team out when they fall behind. In that one area most everyone is in agreement.
Tough to say. Some of the top half teams had very good running games and very good defenses. Teams like Indy and Phil were down low. KC is up high. So there is no absolute explanation. I guess you generalize and say that the really good defenses will stop offenses cold and not let them on the field. Which translates into more TOP. While mediocre d's or bad d's will be kept on the field longer. But ou still need a good offense. Phil was a bend but don't break defense so while they didn't allow alot of points they gave up lots of time and yards. Indy would just score so fast that the defense would have to come back on right away.
The DEFENSE was the reason that the Falcons were not behind too often. Didn't the Falcons' defense lead the league in sacks last year with 48? And don't say sacks isn't a big deal, putting pressure on the opposing QB is the most important thing for a defense to do, imo.Time of possession for the Falcon's is pathetic, average was less than their opponents.
When a team is usually in the lead in games the other team is in passing mode. When another team is in passing mode it makes it much easier for a defense to tee off and get sacks and int's.Vick puts the team in the lead, thus giving the defense many opportunities for defensive stats like sacks and int's.
The winning teams defense is in a better position to get sacks. You don't agree?
You can rank Vick in the top 8 QB's and can definitely make some valid points for him to be there. However:Ok Carter, What was your point again??????
I understand your arguments. You place the value of the team above Vick's individual efforts and feel the success of the Falcons can be duplicated under any TOP 15 QB. I tend to disagree with that theory because I believe that Vick brings an uncanny ability to pull tricks out of his bag at opportune times and that is what separates him from the stats of other QB's. I also feel this way about Brady, Favre, and McNabb. Manning is just a freak of statistical nature so he can come play with those guys as well. And if Rothburger and Cpepp have a good years next year I will push them up into that category as well. Pennington has shown flashes of that quality as well. There is something about these QB's that separates them from just any QB. You can't quantify it by stats. Yes the team has alot to do with winning, but do you discount the efforts of individual players just because he was surrounded properly?
While I don't regard Vick as "godlike" I think he is in the top 5-8 Qbs in the league.
I really think you need to rethink the size of your tiers. Like maybe 3 or 4 tiers.
I think Vick should be ranked in the 5-8 range as well. A QB is a team leader and the most important position on the field. I think wins are one way of determining good QBs as well. I am not syaing to solely base it on wins, but good QBs generally get wins.You can rank Vick in the top 8 QB's and can definitely make some valid points for him to be there. However:Ok Carter, What was your point again??????
I understand your arguments. You place the value of the team above Vick's individual efforts and feel the success of the Falcons can be duplicated under any TOP 15 QB. I tend to disagree with that theory because I believe that Vick brings an uncanny ability to pull tricks out of his bag at opportune times and that is what separates him from the stats of other QB's. I also feel this way about Brady, Favre, and McNabb. Manning is just a freak of statistical nature so he can come play with those guys as well. And if Rothburger and Cpepp have a good years next year I will push them up into that category as well. Pennington has shown flashes of that quality as well. There is something about these QB's that separates them from just any QB. You can't quantify it by stats. Yes the team has alot to do with winning, but do you discount the efforts of individual players just because he was surrounded properly?
While I don't regard Vick as "godlike" I think he is in the top 5-8 Qbs in the league.
I really think you need to rethink the size of your tiers. Like maybe 3 or 4 tiers.
I am not yet ready to rank Vick quite that high. He is an integeral part of Atl and is a good player who is developing into a QB. He just needs to improve before I consider him an elite QB.
I am not soley looking at the stats when I evaluate Vick, but it is hard to ignore his low completion percentage and TD numbers.
He is an unorthodox QB who gets some wins but not nearly enough yet to prove he is an eilite QB.
It's interesting that lack of TD's and low completion rate are brought up here...Vick had 321 passing attempts in 2004. If he completes 60% of his passes, thenhe would have 193 completions. He had 181 and so I just find it difficult to believe that so much concern is made over Vick's accuracy over what amounts to 1 less incomplete pass/game (even less than that)...especially given what he gives you on the ground.You can rank Vick in the top 8 QB's and can definitely make some valid points for him to be there. However:Ok Carter, What was your point again??????
I understand your arguments. You place the value of the team above Vick's individual efforts and feel the success of the Falcons can be duplicated under any TOP 15 QB. I tend to disagree with that theory because I believe that Vick brings an uncanny ability to pull tricks out of his bag at opportune times and that is what separates him from the stats of other QB's. I also feel this way about Brady, Favre, and McNabb. Manning is just a freak of statistical nature so he can come play with those guys as well. And if Rothburger and Cpepp have a good years next year I will push them up into that category as well. Pennington has shown flashes of that quality as well. There is something about these QB's that separates them from just any QB. You can't quantify it by stats. Yes the team has alot to do with winning, but do you discount the efforts of individual players just because he was surrounded properly?
While I don't regard Vick as "godlike" I think he is in the top 5-8 Qbs in the league.
I really think you need to rethink the size of your tiers. Like maybe 3 or 4 tiers.
I am not yet ready to rank Vick quite that high. He is an integeral part of Atl and is a good player who is developing into a QB. He just needs to improve before I consider him an elite QB.
I am not soley looking at the stats when I evaluate Vick, but it is hard to ignore his low completion percentage and TD numbers.
He is an unorthodox QB who gets some wins but not nearly enough yet to prove he is an eilite QB.
Let me use this example:In basketball, the small forward position is usually a position where the team asks the player to put points on the board.
Rodman was a PF, a position typically associated with rebounding and defense (which were Rodman's strengths). Dantley and Aguirre were the SFs on those Pistons teams.
That's incorrect. The front court rotation was Bill Laimbeer at C along with james Edwards. Rick Mahorn & John Salley at PF. Dantley and Aguirre were traded for one another and Rodman came in off the bench at the SF position.
I personally do not try and marginalize his abilities. His stats are only good if you look at running. I have a problem with him being ranked above average and given more credit to winning than the rest of the team. I believe most of the NFL starting QB's could come in and run the offense as good if not better than Vick. Here' how Vick & Atl stack up.Vick is not good at holding onto the ball at all his TD/TO was 17/19 as a comparision david car was 16/16. How about att/yds 366/2048 vs 519/3259. So maybe Vick is better than carr. I think that's debatable.The Atlanta defense would do a lot better if he could hold the ball. Now give him the KC or Stl defense and he starts getting his team slaughtered on the field. Houston's defense is a good comparision. The atlanta o-line is one of the top 10 in the league. I am sure most would agree with me on Run blocking. Now pass blocking is debatable. I put a lot of the blame for the Sacks on Vick and scrambling to soon (a lot of sacks for such an elusive guy). If he sits in the pocket or gets rid of the ball the Atl ranking goes up for pass blocking per passing attempt. Let's go back and compare to what car is working with his line would in my mind be ranked as about 25th to 28th in the league for rushing and passing.How about running backs well I would put duckett/dunn combo about middle of the pack for running backs but they are running behind a good o-line. Carr has D. Davis who is also a middle of the pack runner and that is with the terrible o-line houston has. As a whole the offense averaged 27.84 (18th) ydsd per drive. The lowest # of any play-off team. How about points per drive 1.66 (19) lowest of any play-off team. Well how about Carr and the Texans 28.45 (14) and 1.58 (21). So Houston is close to Vick and the Falcons offense wise.The Falcons win because of a complete team effort and Vick does his job as a starter and has proved he is one of the top 30 in the league so he is better than most backups at running the offense. I feel if he can correct his footwork, reads and patience he will be a top 10 QB in the league.
I think the comparison is this...there was nothing conventional about Dennis Rodman as a basketball player. He fit no pre-defined mold of what a basketball player with his physical attributes should be or could do.Rodman was 6'6 (even though he was listed at 6'8 - he later admitted this was his true height). But at 6'6, you could put him on the opposing teams center and Rodman would give him fits on defense.
I'm not saying Rodman wasn't important to the Pistons. He obviously was. But the pro-Vick crowd insist Vick is irreplaceable to the Falcons and they cite the team's poor record without him as proof. As good as Rodman was I don't know if I could single him out from the rest of the team (as the pro-Vick supporters do). There was Isiah obviously and Dumars and Dantley and Aguirre and Laimbeer and Vinny Johnson. That was a team in every sense of the word.Rodman eventually moved to PF full-time because that is where his skills were best suited. By that line of thinking perhaps Vick should be moved to RB since that is where it appears his strengths reside.
Comparing Rodman to Vick is laughable. Rodman was a PF, he was very good defensively and a very good rebounder, 2 things you love for your PF to have. Rodman's size doesn't really matter there have been several PF/C that have been undersized in the past that have been successful. Two that come to mind are Barkely (6'5) and Ben Wallace (6'8). The Qb is a throwing position, not a running position. Scrambling when you have to, is fine, but the QB's job is throwing the ball.
Part of Vick's regression in stats last year was the type of offense. For some reason Vick's attempts was only 321. In 2002 he had 421 which translated to 2936 yds. So he is capable if passing for 40yds more per game if he were given more attempts. But part of the reason he didn't pass as much could be that the team was ahead more so they ran the ball. The type of offense that Atlanta has is not suited for Vick's abilities. He doesn't have the timing and accuracy. I agree with that. But despite his deficiencies he overcomes them with his scrambling ability. So he has shown promise in the area of throwing and given time can adjust. It's never been his strength but he will most likely get better.In 2002, Atlanta's defense was 20th in the league yet the Vick was 8-6 against pretty difficult opponents.
This is a great point. People are putting Vick on par with QB's who have proven to be consistent winners and make it into the playoffs in the NFL. I know Peyton has not won the big game yet but the guy has provon that he can lead his team into the playoffs year after year.
I said the day the Pro Bowl teams were announced that Vick getting in ahead of Delhomme (not to mention Favre) was a joke. I agree what Delhomme did last season was very impressive -- and of course he's gotten further in the postseason than Vick to this point as well. Delhomme is a seriously under-rated QB. I just hope that remains the case so I can snag him late again next season like I did this past season when he turned out to be a terrific QB2.
I agree that Delhomme is underrated. But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.I said the day the Pro Bowl teams were announced that Vick getting in ahead of Delhomme (not to mention Favre) was a joke. I agree what Delhomme did last season was very impressive -- and of course he's gotten further in the postseason than Vick to this point as well. Delhomme is a seriously under-rated QB. I just hope that remains the case so I can snag him late again next season like I did this past season when he turned out to be a terrific QB2.
Or Super Bowl?
If we started a league and held a draft, regardless of the rest of the team, would you choose Delhomme or Vick?I don't pay much attention to pro bowls so I don't care about it. I know that it is all about big name players so Delhomme is not the only casualty of being snubbed.
I would take Delhomme over Vick. One of the main reasons is turn overs. 17/19 td/to versus 29/20.
Atlanta with Michael Vick, 3 wins vs Carolina with Jake Delhomme 0 wins. 1 Win was 2003 season the one when Vick was injured and Carolina went to the superbowl. 1 was early in the 2004 season. 1 was late in the season. Make your judgements about defenses and passing stats like I know you will. The game that Atlanta lost to Carolina in 2003, Vick wasn't playing. So he really can't be that valuable to the Falcons.
I guess you're a huge fan of Trent Dilfer then.Atlanta with Michael Vick, 3 wins vs Carolina with Jake Delhomme 0 wins. 1 Win was 2003 season the one when Vick was injured and Carolina went to the superbowl. 1 was early in the 2004 season. 1 was late in the season. Make your judgements about defenses and passing stats like I know you will. The game that Atlanta lost to Carolina in 2003, Vick wasn't playing. So he really can't be that valuable to the Falcons.
I give him the credit he deserves for managing an offense to the Superbowl. Have the Ravens gone back to the Superbowl since then. No. So does that mean you can just plug in any QB into that team and have the same success as they did. No. So he did something right. I also give credit to Delhomme, but I wouldn't pick him over Vick because he brings other qualities that don't show up in the stat columns.Ok I admit, maybe I am underestimating Delhomme and his qualities too and not because of his stats, but the other stuff I said I stand by.I guess you're a huge fan of Trent Dilfer then.Atlanta with Michael Vick, 3 wins vs Carolina with Jake Delhomme 0 wins. 1 Win was 2003 season the one when Vick was injured and Carolina went to the superbowl. 1 was early in the 2004 season. 1 was late in the season. Make your judgements about defenses and passing stats like I know you will. The game that Atlanta lost to Carolina in 2003, Vick wasn't playing. So he really can't be that valuable to the Falcons.
Were talking drafting a guy for his career, don't base things off 1 year.No GM in the entire NFL would take Delhomme over Vick all things considered equal (if they had the same salary and what-not)
I wish I could find the report, it was posted on here a while back.Anyway there was a poll of NFL execs which had them rank the QB's in the NFL. Almost every one had Vick in their top 8.
If you don't even know that Vick has had two winning seasons, then how qualified are you to evaluate his progress and/or career?
I agree to a certain extent, but to say he is replaceable by just any qb is also absurd. It's already been proven in the last three years that without Vick, the Falcons do not do well. So that alone puts him in consideration with the top 5-8 QBs. Hell i would consider Delhomme to be in that debate too but again, it is not because of his passing stats alone. There really is no way to prove that you can put a Delhomme or Green and insert them onto the Falcons and they make the playoffs so it is only a debate. The thing is that really the only thing that remains constant with QB's are the top 5. It doesn't really change. So anything below that is debatable. No one is right or wrong.
In all fairness - Kurt Kittner and who was the other guy who took over from Vick during his prolonged absence don't quite measure up to starting caliber quarterbacks (before you say that Delhomme didn;t either before he got the chance - fact is that he won, Vicks understudies didn't). It is atleast possible if you put in an accurate if not too mobile qb that Atlanta would win as well.
I have come to the conclusion that this is really just jvws... what ever the hell it is alias. 
