Vick = Selfish (1 Viewer)

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I just don't feel that a guy should be seen as one of the top 5-8 players at his positions soley based on wins when there is so many more variables to it, especially when he has not even accumulated 30 wins yet in his career. I mean 30 wins is only 10 wins a year for 3 years and we are saying this guy can fit into the top 5 -8 slot at his position soley based on one winning season.

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?

Actually the year you are referring to in which ATL had a record of 9 win 6 losses and 1 tie is a little misleading.One of the games Atl won M. Vick did not even play so he had 8 wins in that year. If you want to count 8 games won as a winning year then you got me there. The other years he did not play more then 4 games so it is pointless to say if that is a winning year or not.

SO excluding this year were he had 11 wins. His next best year as a starter is 8 wins!!!!! Yes your right it is impossible for me to judge this guy fairly and say he is a top 5-8 player at his position because he has not played enough to prove it..... Thanks you made my point very clear.

 

[lipster26]

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.

There is no way of determining if that theory is possible. But you can see why people think Vick is so valuable to the team. We don't know that Kittner and Johnson were that bad or the team was just that bad. All we know is that when Vick came in late in the season the team dramatically changed. I see what you are saying though, but there are not that many qb's in this league that you could just interchange into a different offense and have success consistently.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I agree that Delhomme is underrated. But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.

are we talking Pro bowl - fantasy football draft or NFL draft?

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 - Normally Vick would be reached for and I could use that to my advantage

What do you mean? It's your pick and you have a choice, Vick or Delhomme? If it's Delhomme, than you think he's better than Vick. If it's Vick than you think he's better.

Steady production = Delhomme. Freakish output once in a while = Vick.I'd rather have Delhomme as QB1, if we are picking QB2 I'd probably take a chance at Vick

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real life. Delhomme or Vick?

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I agree that Delhomme is underrated. But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.

are we talking Pro bowl - fantasy football draft or NFL draft?

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 - Normally Vick would be reached for and I could use that to my advantage

What do you mean? It's your pick and you have a choice, Vick or Delhomme? If it's Delhomme, than you think he's better than Vick. If it's Vick than you think he's better.

Steady production = Delhomme. Freakish output once in a while = Vick.I'd rather have Delhomme as QB1, if we are picking QB2 I'd probably take a chance at Vick

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real live. Delhomme or Vick?

For the next 3 years I would take Delhomme. If I was planning on longer then that I would take Vick because of age. This will be backed up in the next 3 years. Wait and see.

 

[jurb26]

I agree that Delhomme is underrated.  But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.

are we talking Pro bowl - fantasy football draft or NFL draft?

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 - Normally Vick would be reached for and I could use that to my advantage

What do you mean? It's your pick and you have a choice, Vick or Delhomme? If it's Delhomme, than you think he's better than Vick. If it's Vick than you think he's better.

Steady production = Delhomme. Freakish output once in a while = Vick.I'd rather have Delhomme as QB1, if we are picking QB2 I'd probably take a chance at Vick

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real live. Delhomme or Vick?

For the next 3 years I would take Delhomme. If I was planning on longer then that I would take Vick because of age. This will be backed up in the next 3 years. Wait and see.

Yeah this isn't exactly a fair question because to the age factors in regards to Jake. I would have to imagin though that several GMs would take Eli or Ben ahead of Vick though. I maybe wrong about that, but certainly both of these guys are looking like darn good players.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I just don't feel that a guy should be seen as one of the top 5-8 players at his positions soley based on wins when there is so many more variables to it, especially when he has not even accumulated 30 wins yet in his career.  I mean 30 wins is only 10 wins a year for 3 years and we are saying this guy can fit into the top 5 -8 slot at his position soley based on one winning season.

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?

Actually the year you are referring to in which ATL had a record of 9 win 6 losses and 1 tie is a little misleading.One of the games Atl won M. Vick did not even play so he had 8 wins in that year. If you want to count 8 games won as a winning year then you got me there. The other years he did not play more then 4 games so it is pointless to say if that is a winning year or not.

SO excluding this year were he had 11 wins. His next best year as a starter is 8 wins!!!!! Yes your right it is impossible for me to judge this guy fairly and say he is a top 5-8 player at his position because he has not played enough to prove it..... Thanks you made my point very clear.

But it's so funny how you don't deduct one of his losses, just one of his wins in the 2002 season as when he left the Tampa game that year, the Falcons were actually tied. it wasn't until Doug Johnson threw 3 INT's where the Falcons got smoked.So do I consider an 8-5-1 season a winning season, a .607 winning percentage? Most of the math wielding free world would.

How about the 11-3 recod he amassed in 2004. He missed one game and another in which he played a portion in, he left leading.

So IMO 19-8-1 is pretty good. Your reasoning of "his next best year as a starter, he only had 8 wins..." strikes me as kind of odd because the sample size is...2 seasons. In the other partial sample size, he went 3-1, bumping up the ol' record to 22-10-1.

So before you try and smoke and mirror your way to a reasonable argument and try and call me out for stating fact and calling out the misrepresentation you posted earlier, let's exercise a little objectivity in your analysis.

And one more thing...? How many career wins does Jake Delhomme, the QB you rate ahead of Vick have...

 

[rhawkins68]

I just don't feel that a guy should be seen as one of the top 5-8 players at his positions soley based on wins when there is so many more variables to it, especially when he has not even accumulated 30 wins yet in his career. I mean 30 wins is only 10 wins a year for 3 years and we are saying this guy can fit into the top 5 -8 slot at his position soley based on one winning season.

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?

Actually the year you are referring to in which ATL had a record of 9 win 6 losses and 1 tie is a little misleading.One of the games Atl won M. Vick did not even play so he had 8 wins in that year. If you want to count 8 games won as a winning year then you got me there. The other years he did not play more then 4 games so it is pointless to say if that is a winning year or not.

SO excluding this year were he had 11 wins. His next best year as a starter is 8 wins!!!!! Yes your right it is impossible for me to judge this guy fairly and say he is a top 5-8 player at his position because he has not played enough to prove it..... Thanks you made my point very clear.

But it's so funny how you don't deduct one of his losses, just one of his wins in the 2002 season as when he left the Tampa game that year, the Falcons were actually tied. it wasn't until Doug Johnson threw 3 INT's where the Falcons got smoked.So do I consider an 8-5-1 season a winning season, a .607 winning percentage? Most of the math wielding free world would.

How about the 11-3 recod he amassed in 2004. He missed one game and another in which he played a portion in, he left leading.

So IMO 19-8-1 is pretty good. Your reasoning of "his next best year as a starter, he only had 8 wins..." strikes me as kind of odd because the sample size is...2 seasons. In the other partial sample size, he went 3-1, bumping up the ol' record to 22-10-1.

So before you try and smoke and mirror your way to a reasonable argument and try and call me out for stating fact and calling out the misrepresentation you posted earlier, let's exercise a little objectivity in your analysis.

And one more thing...? How many career wins does Jake Delhomme, the QB you rate ahead of Vick have...

His record since becoming a starter is closer to .500. He was to fragile to play I count it against him. He is paid to play. Sure the back-ups were bad but he could not finish the season.

 

[rhawkins68]

I agree that Delhomme is underrated. But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.

are we talking Pro bowl - fantasy football draft or NFL draft?

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 - Normally Vick would be reached for and I could use that to my advantage

What do you mean? It's your pick and you have a choice, Vick or Delhomme? If it's Delhomme, than you think he's better than Vick. If it's Vick than you think he's better.

Steady production = Delhomme. Freakish output once in a while = Vick.I'd rather have Delhomme as QB1, if we are picking QB2 I'd probably take a chance at Vick

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real live. Delhomme or Vick?

For the next 3 years I would take Delhomme. If I was planning on longer then that I would take Vick because of age. This will be backed up in the next 3 years. Wait and see.

Yeah this isn't exactly a fair question because to the age factors in regards to Jake. I would have to imagin though that several GMs would take Eli or Ben ahead of Vick though. I maybe wrong about that, but certainly both of these guys are looking like darn good players.

Delhome has been a starter for two years and made the super bowl 50% of the time. Can Vick say that? EDIT: Oh yeah, and he beat the Eagles to get there. Can Vick say that?

EDIT2: Oh yeah, he has played two full back to back seasons. CFST?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I just don't feel that a guy should be seen as one of the top 5-8 players at his positions soley based on wins when there is so many more variables to it, especially when he has not even accumulated 30 wins yet in his career. I mean 30 wins is only 10 wins a year for 3 years and we are saying this guy can fit into the top 5 -8 slot at his position soley based on one winning season.

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?

Actually the year you are referring to in which ATL had a record of 9 win 6 losses and 1 tie is a little misleading.One of the games Atl won M. Vick did not even play so he had 8 wins in that year. If you want to count 8 games won as a winning year then you got me there. The other years he did not play more then 4 games so it is pointless to say if that is a winning year or not.

SO excluding this year were he had 11 wins. His next best year as a starter is 8 wins!!!!! Yes your right it is impossible for me to judge this guy fairly and say he is a top 5-8 player at his position because he has not played enough to prove it..... Thanks you made my point very clear.

But it's so funny how you don't deduct one of his losses, just one of his wins in the 2002 season as when he left the Tampa game that year, the Falcons were actually tied. it wasn't until Doug Johnson threw 3 INT's where the Falcons got smoked.So do I consider an 8-5-1 season a winning season, a .607 winning percentage? Most of the math wielding free world would.

How about the 11-3 recod he amassed in 2004. He missed one game and another in which he played a portion in, he left leading.

So IMO 19-8-1 is pretty good. Your reasoning of "his next best year as a starter, he only had 8 wins..." strikes me as kind of odd because the sample size is...2 seasons. In the other partial sample size, he went 3-1, bumping up the ol' record to 22-10-1.

So before you try and smoke and mirror your way to a reasonable argument and try and call me out for stating fact and calling out the misrepresentation you posted earlier, let's exercise a little objectivity in your analysis.

And one more thing...? How many career wins does Jake Delhomme, the QB you rate ahead of Vick have...

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I agree that Delhomme is underrated. But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.

are we talking Pro bowl - fantasy football draft or NFL draft?

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 - Normally Vick would be reached for and I could use that to my advantage

What do you mean? It's your pick and you have a choice, Vick or Delhomme? If it's Delhomme, than you think he's better than Vick. If it's Vick than you think he's better.

Steady production = Delhomme. Freakish output once in a while = Vick.I'd rather have Delhomme as QB1, if we are picking QB2 I'd probably take a chance at Vick

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real live. Delhomme or Vick?

For the next 3 years I would take Delhomme. If I was planning on longer then that I would take Vick because of age. This will be backed up in the next 3 years. Wait and see.

Yeah this isn't exactly a fair question because to the age factors in regards to Jake. I would have to imagin though that several GMs would take Eli or Ben ahead of Vick though. I maybe wrong about that, but certainly both of these guys are looking like darn good players.

Delhome has been a starter for two years and made the super bowl 50% of the time. Can Vick say that? EDIT: Oh yeah, and he beat the Eagles to get there. Can Vick say that?

Vick beat Delhommme. Can Delhomme say that ?

 

[rhawkins68]

I agree that Delhomme is underrated. But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.

are we talking Pro bowl - fantasy football draft or NFL draft?

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 - Normally Vick would be reached for and I could use that to my advantage

What do you mean? It's your pick and you have a choice, Vick or Delhomme? If it's Delhomme, than you think he's better than Vick. If it's Vick than you think he's better.

Steady production = Delhomme. Freakish output once in a while = Vick.

I'd rather have Delhomme as QB1, if we are picking QB2 I'd probably take a chance at Vick

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real live. Delhomme or Vick?

For the next 3 years I would take Delhomme. If I was planning on longer then that I would take Vick because of age. This will be backed up in the next 3 years. Wait and see.

Yeah this isn't exactly a fair question because to the age factors in regards to Jake. I would have to imagin though that several GMs would take Eli or Ben ahead of Vick though. I maybe wrong about that, but certainly both of these guys are looking like darn good players.

Delhome has been a starter for two years and made the super bowl 50% of the time. Can Vick say that?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and he beat the Eagles to get there. Can Vick say that?

Vick beat Delhommme. Can Delhomme say that ?

Nope. Vick won a regular season game against a injury depleted team. WOW.

Let's see. No super bowl. Creamed by Eagles. Two back to back seasons.

 

[lipster26]

I agree that Delhomme is underrated. But there is no way that you would choose him over Vick, rankings and stats be damned.

are we talking Pro bowl - fantasy football draft or NFL draft?

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 - Normally Vick would be reached for and I could use that to my advantage

What do you mean? It's your pick and you have a choice, Vick or Delhomme? If it's Delhomme, than you think he's better than Vick. If it's Vick than you think he's better.

Steady production = Delhomme. Freakish output once in a while = Vick.I'd rather have Delhomme as QB1, if we are picking QB2 I'd probably take a chance at Vick

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real live. Delhomme or Vick?

For the next 3 years I would take Delhomme. If I was planning on longer then that I would take Vick because of age. This will be backed up in the next 3 years. Wait and see.

Yeah this isn't exactly a fair question because to the age factors in regards to Jake. I would have to imagin though that several GMs would take Eli or Ben ahead of Vick though. I maybe wrong about that, but certainly both of these guys are looking like darn good players.

Delhome has been a starter for two years and made the super bowl 50% of the time. Can Vick say that? EDIT: Oh yeah, and he beat the Eagles to get there. Can Vick say that?

EDIT2: Oh yeah, he has played two full back to back seasons. CFST?

I give the credit to the Panthers Defense.

 

[rhawkins68]

I give the credit to the Panthers Defense.

Good defense without a doubt. I will not argue that helped.

 

[msommer]

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real life. Delhomme or Vick?

The question I asked was whether it was Fantasy football or not and the answer was fantasy football - so my answer stands. In real life things like draft position and salary cap (and many other) play in - and before you say all things equal - they never are.

 

[lipster26]

NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL. If you were a GM in real life. Delhomme or Vick?

The question I asked was whether it was Fantasy football or not and the answer was fantasy football - so my answer stands. In real life things like draft position and salary cap (and many other) play in - and before you say all things equal - they never are.

Considering we've only been discussing real football here I thought it was implied that the question was about real NFL. Sorry to confuse you like that. The problem with including everything in real life, then you would include marketability, age, ticket sales, etc. and most people would likely choose Vick just based on that.

 

[msommer]

The problem with including everything in real life, then you would include marketability, age, ticket sales, etc. and most people would likely choose Vick just based on that.

Sure - although I am pretty sure that Delhomme sells a lot of jerseys in Carolina, he does that not because he is an intrinsically interesting player, an espn highlight waiting to happen, but because in the last two seasons he took the team to the big dance for the first time in the history of the franchise.

 

[Dancing Bear]

To Carter_Can_Fly's point, to further support you ideas, Vick only had 9 wins last year. He did not play in either of the last two games!Also, I would like to know why folks are ignoring the fact that the Lions and the Chiefs made Vick look like a High School QB. Neither D was anywhere near mediocre; in fact they just plain stunk.How can you explain that?Oh yeah, a 50% completion ratio QB who cannot sustain drives and throws as many INT's as he does TD's ...I take all of these QB's before I take Vick if I want a chance at the Super Bowl:BradyPlummerBreesPalmerBulgerGreenDelhommeCulpepperRoethlisbergerManning [P.]Maybe even ...McNabbCollinsHasselbeck

 

[Chase Stuart]

To Carter_Can_Fly's point, to further support you ideas, Vick only had 9 wins last year. He did not play in either of the last two games!

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/atl2004.htmWhile it's true that Vick didn't play in either of the last two games, the Falcons lost both. The Falcons were 11-3 before Vick was rested.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

To Carter_Can_Fly's point, to further support you ideas, Vick only had 9 wins last year. He did not play in either of the last two games!

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/atl2004.htmWhile it's true that Vick didn't play in either of the last two games, the Falcons lost both. The Falcons were 11-3 before Vick was rested.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: So does that support your point Carter can Fly and Dancing Bear? LOL.

Great point Dancing Bear. You should be on the debate team LOL

 

[Dancing Bear]

My bad gentlemen ... Thanks for the correction Chase.Doesn't change the perspective for the remainder of my comment ...

 

[Chase Stuart]

My bad gentlemen ... Thanks for the correction Chase.

Doesn't change the perspective for the remainder of my comment ...

We all make mistakes...And you're right, it doesn't change much. Vick polarizes fans like few other players do. Not too long ago I stated that Vick is the best player in the NFL. Other days, I think he's not in the top fifteen QBs right now. I think a lot of the arguments for and against Vick are very flawed, so I generally stay out of these debates.

 

[lipster26]

To Carter_Can_Fly's point, to further support you ideas, Vick only had 9 wins last year. He did not play in either of the last two games!

Also, I would like to know why folks are ignoring the fact that the Lions and the Chiefs made Vick look like a High School QB. Neither D was anywhere near mediocre; in fact they just plain stunk.

How can you explain that?

Oh yeah, a 50% completion ratio QB who cannot sustain drives and throws as many INT's as he does TD's ...

I take all of these QB's before I take Vick if I want a chance at the Super Bowl:

Brady

Plummer

Brees

Palmer

Bulger

Green

Delhomme

Culpepper

Roethlisberger

Manning [P.]

Maybe even ...

McNabb

Collins

Hasselbeck

Ok, say what you want about Vick, but MAYBE McNabb. He doesn't give you a chance? He's the closest thing to a chance on that list other than Brady. Brees has one good year, Palmer an avg year, Plummer is soooo inconsistent.

 

[fatgirlsrock]

His record since becoming a starter is closer to .500. He was to fragile to play I count it against him. He is paid to play. Sure the back-ups were bad but he could not finish the season.

Please tell me your kidding. Your using the year Vick was injured in the preseason and counting losses he wasn't even in the game for against him to support your claim he has been .500 since becoming a starter.Probably some of the most ### backwards logic i've seen on the boards.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick. Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league. I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions. Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game. (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.M. Vick equals a good QB How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats. I don't get it. He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability. Not a great QB.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick. Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league. I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions. Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game. (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme.

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats. I don't get it. He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability. Not a great QB.

I think you are ignoring the intangibles or aren't aware of them. When a defense plays Vick, the focus soley falls on him and by doing that the other Falcons players are better for it. The Falcons were a great rushing team this year because teams had to focus on Vick and the Falcons used Vick as a decoy in causes to open holes for the run.

Vick is the MVP of the Falcons and without him they falter. Vick was learning a whole new offense this year and even Steve Young said he was doing a quick job of learning it. The other full years Vick has played, he has done a fine job on the sta sheet, and i think learning a whole new offense is probably tough and hence why he struggled statistically this season.

I don't care how he does it, but he does. Stats or no stats, it is not a coincidence that the Falcons are an NFC leader with Vick and a losing team without him. He is the difference maker.

 

[packersfan]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

I think you are ignoring the intangibles or aren't aware of them. When a defense plays Vick, the focus soley falls on him and by doing that the other Falcons players are better for it. The Falcons were a great rushing team this year because teams had to focus on Vick and the Falcons used Vick as a decoy in causes to open holes for the run.

Interesting then that he couldn't seem to make the WRs better. Granted none of them are All-Pro caliber by any stretch but I don't see too many people rushing Eddie Kennison and Johnnie Morton off to Canton and yet Trent Green is able to generate quality passing numbers. McNabb's had less to work with then Vick prior to this past season and he was able to produce quality passing numbers. I could name more but hopefully you get the point.Would it help Vick to get better WRs? Absolutely. But great QBs are able to make marginal (or worse) WRs look better than they really are (take a good look at some of the garbage Favre has worked with in GB during his career, for example and yes Bill Schroeder I'm talking to you), but I'm still waiting to see Vick do that.

So forgive me if I don't buy into the belief that he makes his teammates better. The Falcons' passing game is putrid (third-worst in the NFL last season) and while some of that can be attributed to the lack of talent at WR in my opinion the bulk of the blame falls on Vick's mediocre (to this point) passing skills.

The irony of this, of course, is that Vick was operating in an offensive system geared heavily toward the passing game and considered by most of its practioners to be "quarterback friendly."

 

[TheDirtyWord]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick. Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league. I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions. Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game. (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme.

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats. I don't get it. He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability. Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

 

[packersfan]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

Just curious, how'd Delhomme do in the Super Bowl?And how did he do last season after losing his top WR, both of his top two RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season?

TIA.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

Just curious, how'd Delhomme do in the Super Bowl?And how did he do last season after losing his top WR, both of his top two RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season?

TIA.

Delhomme had a 7.29 YPA and a 58.2% Completion RateVick had a 7.21 YPA and a 56.4% Completion Rate

In Delhomme's two seasons as starter, he has 31 INT's and 10 fumbles (31.5 games)

In Vick's three seasons as starter, he has 23 INT's and 9 fumbles (33 games)

And when you combine rushing and passing attempts during this period that we're measuring, Vick has 1115 combined attempts, Delhomme 1049.

And with Vick being tabbed as a guy who can barely hit the side of a barn with his passing accuracy, how much better is Delhomme at hitting his WR's? Plus, he has had guys emerge like Steve Smith and Mushin Muhammed. You might say that "why don't the Falcons WR's emerge like those guys".

Well, if you watch Peerless Price play, you know that he has no desire to fight to get open...and the rest of the Falcons WR's either lack ability or experience (other than TE Crumpler).

 

[lipster26]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

Just curious, how'd Delhomme do in the Super Bowl?And how did he do last season after losing his top WR, both of his top two RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season?

TIA.

He went 7-9 missing the playoffs.

 

[packersfan]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

Just curious, how'd Delhomme do in the Super Bowl?And how did he do last season after losing his top WR, both of his top two RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season?

TIA.

Delhomme had a 7.29 YPA and a 58.2% Completion RateVick had a 7.21 YPA and a 56.4% Completion Rate

In Delhomme's two seasons as starter, he has 31 INT's and 10 fumbles (31.5 games)

In Vick's three seasons as starter, he has 23 INT's and 9 fumbles (33 games)

And when you combine rushing and passing attempts during this period that we're measuring, Vick has 1115 combined attempts, Delhomme 1049.

And with Vick being tabbed as a guy who can barely hit the side of a barn with his passing accuracy, how much better is Delhomme at hitting his WR's? Plus, he has had guys emerge like Steve Smith and Mushin Muhammed. You might say that "why don't the Falcons WR's emerge like those guys".

Well, if you watch Peerless Price play, you know that he has no desire to fight to get open...and the rest of the Falcons WR's either lack ability or experience (other than TE Crumpler).

How many passing yards and TD passes did Delhomme have last season despite losing his top WR, both of his top 2 RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season? Oh, and how did he do in the Super Bowl?TIA.

 

[packersfan]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

Just curious, how'd Delhomme do in the Super Bowl?And how did he do last season after losing his top WR, both of his top two RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season?

TIA.

He went 7-9 missing the playoffs.

And yet he threw for nearly 4,000 yards and had 29 TD passes. He also led the Panthers to a 6-2 record in the second half of the season. Pretty impressive given the numerous injuries the Panthers suffered.

 

[lipster26]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

Just curious, how'd Delhomme do in the Super Bowl?And how did he do last season after losing his top WR, both of his top two RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season?

TIA.

He went 7-9 missing the playoffs.

And yet he threw for nearly 4,000 yards and had 29 TD passes. He also led the Panthers to a 6-2 record in the second half of the season. Pretty impressive given the numerous injuries the Panthers suffered.

I agree the 6-2 run was impressive. But he also threw the ball 200 more times and had a 6 game losing streak before that run. He was pretty inconsistent.

 

[packersfan]

I'd say given everything that happened to the Panthers last season Delhomme had a much more impressive season than Vick. Just personal opinion. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if he ended up being the better QB as time went on. Just because every GM in the league (or most of them) would want Vick doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be the better player. Time will tell. Un-heralded guys outperform more-hyped players all the time. Delhomme wouldn't be the first to do so.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick.  Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league.  I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions.  Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game.  (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme. 

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats.  I don't get it.  He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability.  Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

Just curious, how'd Delhomme do in the Super Bowl?And how did he do last season after losing his top WR, both of his top two RBs and having offensive line issues for most of the season?

TIA.

He went 7-9 missing the playoffs.

And yet he threw for nearly 4,000 yards and had 29 TD passes. He also led the Panthers to a 6-2 record in the second half of the season. Pretty impressive given the numerous injuries the Panthers suffered.

See, here's the interesting thing about the Panthers & Delhomme.When Nick Goings finally got their running game on track, the last 8 games he produced as follows:

190 carries, 733 yards, 5 TD's...which is pretty much the production they had come to rely on from Stephen Davis.

Prior to Goings insertion as the lead RB, Delhomme put up these numbers:

160 completions, 285 attempts, 1852 yards, 12 TD's, 11 INT's 56.1% Completion Rate, 6.49 YPA.

Essentially Delhomme needs a running game to take the heat off his shoulders. He's a complimentary player. Vick IS a running game...

Now I applaud Delhomme for leading his and the Panthers season out of the crapper. I think that Delhomme is underrated for what he brings to the table and in fact he improved as a player last year because he was able to deal with on field adversity.

But in no way shape or form do I think he approaches the level of Vick in terms of 1) impact on the field 2) the amount his team depends on him to have success and 3) ability to simply take over a game and make it his.

 

[packersfan]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think what Delhomme accomplished last season given all the injuries that team suffered -- including injuries to three of his top (and arguably the three top) skill position players -- was far more impressive than what Vick accomplished.

Vick ended up with the better record but that's because the Falcons were the better team, not because Vick had a better season. In my opinion.

 

[lipster26]

I'd say given everything that happened to the Panthers last season Delhomme had a much more impressive season than Vick. Just personal opinion. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if he ended up being the better QB as time went on. Just because every GM in the league (or most of them) would want Vick doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be the better player. Time will tell. Un-heralded guys outperform more-hyped players all the time. Delhomme wouldn't be the first to do so.

Fair enough. Your statement of unheralded players is a good one. I wouldn't be surprised if Vick doesn't live up to his potential. It happens sometimes that a player doesn't improve. But to just sit back and attribute his success only to his surroundings is not at all fair.I have no problem with you considering Delhomme statistical season better than Vicks b/c that is obvious. But considering the Panthers defense only gave up 2 more points and 10yds/game than the Falcons defense, the defenses were pretty similar, even with the Panthers injuries. So you could say that the Panthers have more talent and depth on defense. And the Falcons WR's are not better than the Panthers. The RB's are not head and shoulders above the Panthers. I don't know much about the Oline, so i'll leave them out. Yet the Falcons won 4 more games.

 

[rhawkins68]

His record since becoming a starter is closer to .500. He was to fragile to play I count it against him. He is paid to play. Sure the back-ups were bad but he could not finish the season.

Please tell me your kidding. Your using the year Vick was injured in the preseason and counting losses he wasn't even in the game for against him to support your claim he has been .500 since becoming a starter.Probably some of the most ### backwards logic i've seen on the boards.

He's paid to be the starter yet can not stay healthy for a complete season. This is mostly due to his playing style. He has yet to play back to back complete seasons. I do hold it against him if he can not stay healthy enough to lead the team to wins. I also believe if he continues to miss games with injury in the next two seasons he will be moved. No team wants an injury prone player.The fact is people who want to rank him top 10 need to forget he had not lead his team for two complete back to back seasons yet even thought that was his JOB.

Delhomme since being named the starter has played two complete seasons. He has lead his team to the super bowl already. Had a decent season with a depleted offense (Two top RB's and a WR probably more I do not recall) and still had his offense running better than Vick did his. In fact Delhome had the Car offense ranked 10th in pts per drive versus Vicks' offense being ranked 19th.

Delhome handles the ball better than Vick without a question. Vick had a almost 1/1 TD to turn over ratio last year. Also, Delhome was sacked less than Vick. Wonder why that is when Vick is so elusive? Not to mention he's playing behind a better line than Delhome also.

The majority of STARTING QB's in the league could be traded to Atlanta and manage the team better than Vick. Vick is there to sell tickets on 1 or two big plays a game. IF that's what you want at of you QB then fine I'll take a real QB over a ticket seller.

Vick must work on his QB skills such a footwork which is key for a WCO offense and reads. I have no doubt he has talent and can be a top 10 QB. He's just not there yet and is surviving with the team being good.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

His record since becoming a starter is closer to .500. He was to fragile to play I count it against him. He is paid to play. Sure the back-ups were bad but he could not finish the season.

Please tell me your kidding. Your using the year Vick was injured in the preseason and counting losses he wasn't even in the game for against him to support your claim he has been .500 since becoming a starter.Probably some of the most ### backwards logic i've seen on the boards.

He's paid to be the starter yet can not stay healthy for a complete season. This is mostly due to his playing style. He has yet to play back to back complete seasons. I do hold it against him if he can not stay healthy enough to lead the team to wins. I also believe if he continues to miss games with injury in the next two seasons he will be moved. No team wants an injury prone player.The fact is people who want to rank him top 10 need to forget he had not lead his team for two complete back to back seasons yet even thought that was his JOB.

Delhomme since being named the starter has played two complete seasons. He has lead his team to the super bowl already. Had a decent season with a depleted offense (Two top RB's and a WR probably more I do not recall) and still had his offense running better than Vick did his. In fact Delhome had the Car offense ranked 10th in pts per drive versus Vicks' offense being ranked 19th.

Delhome handles the ball better than Vick without a question. Vick had a almost 1/1 TD to turn over ratio last year. Also, Delhome was sacked less than Vick. Wonder why that is when Vick is so elusive? Not to mention he's playing behind a better line than Delhome also.

The majority of STARTING QB's in the league could be traded to Atlanta and manage the team better than Vick. Vick is there to sell tickets on 1 or two big plays a game. IF that's what you want at of you QB then fine I'll take a real QB over a ticket seller.

Vick must work on his QB skills such a footwork which is key for a WCO offense and reads. I have no doubt he has talent and can be a top 10 QB. He's just not there yet and is surviving with the team being good.

good post

 

[TheDirtyWord]

His record since becoming a starter is closer to .500.  He was to fragile to play I count it against him.  He is paid to play.  Sure the back-ups were bad but he could not finish the season.

Please tell me your kidding. Your using the year Vick was injured in the preseason and counting losses he wasn't even in the game for against him to support your claim he has been .500 since becoming a starter.Probably some of the most ### backwards logic i've seen on the boards.

He's paid to be the starter yet can not stay healthy for a complete season. This is mostly due to his playing style. He has yet to play back to back complete seasons. I do hold it against him if he can not stay healthy enough to lead the team to wins. I also believe if he continues to miss games with injury in the next two seasons he will be moved. No team wants an injury prone player.The fact is people who want to rank him top 10 need to forget he had not lead his team for two complete back to back seasons yet even thought that was his JOB.

Delhomme since being named the starter has played two complete seasons. He has lead his team to the super bowl already. Had a decent season with a depleted offense (Two top RB's and a WR probably more I do not recall) and still had his offense running better than Vick did his. In fact Delhome had the Car offense ranked 10th in pts per drive versus Vicks' offense being ranked 19th.

Delhome handles the ball better than Vick without a question. Vick had a almost 1/1 TD to turn over ratio last year. Also, Delhome was sacked less than Vick. Wonder why that is when Vick is so elusive? Not to mention he's playing behind a better line than Delhome also.

The majority of STARTING QB's in the league could be traded to Atlanta and manage the team better than Vick. Vick is there to sell tickets on 1 or two big plays a game. IF that's what you want at of you QB then fine I'll take a real QB over a ticket seller.

Vick must work on his QB skills such a footwork which is key for a WCO offense and reads. I have no doubt he has talent and can be a top 10 QB. He's just not there yet and is surviving with the team being good.

Again, some of the points made here involve partial truths:1) Vick has had one injury, a broken leg. He missed time (1.5 games) in 2002 for a shoulder injury and 1 game in 2004 (shoulder injury). Which means he was healthy 2 of the 3 seasons he's been the starter.

The whole notion of this "back-to-back seasons" consistency is ludicrous because he's been a starter for 3 years and the middle year he was hurt. It's only there to try and back up a flimsy argument.

This comment: "He's paid to be the starter yet can not stay healthy for a complete season."...is pretty much false.

2) If you think that Vick is only "1 or 2 big plays/game" you simply don't watch the Falcons. If you think that Vick doesn't manage the team well, you simply on't watch the Falcons or have very little familiarity with how and the way they respond to his presence.

3) Vick's high sack numbers can be attributed to these factors...

a) The Falcon O-Line from a pass protection standpoint is subpar.

b) Vick's mindset is to create something out of nothing...so he winds up holding the ball. He is getting better at throwing the ball away, but usually he does that after escaping danger. Very rarely does he throw it away while still in the pocket.

c) As I mentioned in an earlier post, Delhomme INT/Fumble ratio per attempt (rush or pass) is worse than Vick's. What I will say though is that this is a weak area in his game. He is careless with the ball in the pocket.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

How can anyone aruge the fact that people are jumping on the M. Vick train way to quick. Nobody has given any good arguments for rating a guy as a top 5-8 QB with very below avg QB stats for someone who has won a miniscule 24 games as a starting QB in the league. I would guess that he should only be given credit for maybe 12 of those games as other factors probably played more of a factor as I noticed a couple of those games were won where he completed single digit passing completions. Anyways, you guys are giving way to much credit to a guy who has made the playoffs only twice so far in his career and has never even played in a super bowl game. (this may change and he may make the playoffs more but until he does i don't see him as the 6th or even 7th best QB in the league).

My argument stands clear that over the next 3 years gm's would be just as happy to go with Delhomme as Vick and many of them favouring Delhomme.

Also, this has not been proved wrong that good QB's get wins, but great QB's get wins and stats.

M. Vick equals a good QB

How can you say he is top 5-8 in his position after only 24 wins with below avg stats. I don't get it. He may be a great leader that motivates his team and makes them better but he would be known as a great leader with good to avg QB'ing ability. Not a great QB.

What's hysterical is that you continue to compare Vick to Delhomme who has1) Fewer career wins

2) Fewer play-off appearances

...and if you want to come back with the argument of, "well Delhomme went to a SuperBowl" if you look at what you just wrote about Vick, you are not giving him credit for winning games when he had single digit completions.

Delhomme in the NFC Championship game: 9 completions, 101 yards (without the benefit of any threat on the ground)...so it wasn't Delhomme based on your logic who contributed to their SB appearance.

So keep digging, China's not too far away...

I am not saying Delhomme is the sole reason for Carolina's success! Just like I am trying to say that M. Vick is not the only reason Atl is and has made the playoffs. Is M.Vick a big part of the reason Atl is doing well? yes. Is Delhomme a big part of Carolina's success? yes. Are either of these guys soley carrying their teams? No. It is hard judging these 2 guys b/c they have both played minimal amount of f'ball as starting Qb's in the NFL. So here is what I have come up with.

The last 2 years Delhomme has started 2003 and 2004 vs M. Vicks last 2 years as a starter 2002 and 2004

Delhomme

Wins: 18

Losses: 13

Playoff appearance: 1

SB appearance: 1

TD's thrown for in those 2 seasons: 48

TD's rushed for in those 2 seasons: 2

Total TD's: 50

Int: 31

FMBLES: 27 only 8 recovered

Vick

Wins: 19

Losses: 10 losses and 1 Tie

Playoff appearance: 2

SB appearance: 0

TD's thrown for in those 2 seasons: 29

TD's rushed for in those 2 seasons: 12

Total TD's: 41

Total INTS: 21

Total FMBLES: 27 only 5 recovered

OBVIOUSLY I could include the yards thrown for which Delhomme would be way ahead in and Vick would be way ahead in the Rushing yards. I think this is a clear indicator that judging these guys through 2 completed seasons as starters you could arguabley take Delhomme over Vick and it would not be a stretch by any means to say Delhomme will be as good as Vick over the next 3-5 years.

My point is how can someone flat out say Vick is more valuable to ATL over those 2 years as a starter as Delhomme is and was to Car. It is only because of they hype that Vick is placed so highly. I could have done this comparison with other QB's like Bulger, Hasselback, one year comparison with B. Rothelisberger etc..... to prove that Vick is arguably not yet the top 5-8 player at his position. He may be but it is to early to say he is for sure which many of you are saying. I am not saying he won't be a top 5-8 player at QB but I don't feel he is a lock by any means. Just as Delhomme is not a lock yet either.

 

[msommer]

Feel free to disagree with me on this - in my mind it boils down to thiselhomme and Vick had similar stats last year excl rushing (and victories). Comparisons on who made most out of whome are fairly futile as the teams obviously differ in talent level, injuries etc.One is (by some) annointed a top 5-8 qb, the other is not. Obviously rushing is part of the game and in this field it is hard to come up with any current (or past?) qb that even approaches Vicks ability.Personally I don't think that this ability is enough to propel Vick to an elite qb.I would ike to see a higher completion percentage, overall more accuracy, more touch on the balls and fewer sacks. I'd probably also want to see a diminishing trend in the rushing attempts, but that may be me being a traditionalist.Yes Vick can one day be in HOF, but he hasn't qualified yet. Probably Delhomme will not qualify ever.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When a defense plays Vick, the focus soley falls on him and by doing that the other Falcons players are better for it. The Falcons were a great rushing team this year because teams had to focus on Vick and the Falcons used Vick as a decoy in causes to open holes for the run.

I'm sure you realize this, but the Falcons were a great rushing team because Vick's a great runner. The Falcons weren't a great rushing team because other teams focused on Vick while Duckett/Dunn ran the ball. After week fifteen last year (which is the last week the Falcons really cared about playing) Doug Drinen sent me over some information. Basically, if you look at just the rushing yards put up by RBs, the Falcons ranked 18th in the league. The Jets, Chiefs, Steelers, Pats, Seahawks were 1-2-3-4-5, but the Falcons were clearly medicore at running the ball. They ended the year ranked first because they had 978 rushing yards from non-RBs.

 

[jurb26]

When a defense plays Vick, the focus soley falls on him and by doing that the other Falcons players are better for it.  The Falcons were a great rushing team this year because teams had to focus on Vick and the Falcons used Vick as a decoy in causes to open holes for the run. 

I'm sure you realize this, but the Falcons were a great rushing team because Vick's a great runner. The Falcons weren't a great rushing team because other teams focused on Vick while Duckett/Dunn ran the ball. After week fifteen last year (which is the last week the Falcons really cared about playing) Doug Drinen sent me over some information. Basically, if you look at just the rushing yards put up by RBs, the Falcons ranked 18th in the league. The Jets, Chiefs, Steelers, Pats, Seahawks were 1-2-3-4-5, but the Falcons were clearly medicore at running the ball. They ended the year ranked first because they had 978 rushing yards from non-RBs.

Isn't this a better arguement for Vick being a good RB though and not QB? We all know Vick is a good runner and that his running creates a good effect for Atl's O. What we don't konw is if he will ever be a good QB though! One who can put touch on the ball, read a D, throw the ball away when he should, ect.....

 

[Chase Stuart]

When a defense plays Vick, the focus soley falls on him and by doing that the other Falcons players are better for it.  The Falcons were a great rushing team this year because teams had to focus on Vick and the Falcons used Vick as a decoy in causes to open holes for the run. 

I'm sure you realize this, but the Falcons were a great rushing team because Vick's a great runner. The Falcons weren't a great rushing team because other teams focused on Vick while Duckett/Dunn ran the ball. After week fifteen last year (which is the last week the Falcons really cared about playing) Doug Drinen sent me over some information. Basically, if you look at just the rushing yards put up by RBs, the Falcons ranked 18th in the league. The Jets, Chiefs, Steelers, Pats, Seahawks were 1-2-3-4-5, but the Falcons were clearly medicore at running the ball. They ended the year ranked first because they had 978 rushing yards from non-RBs.

Isn't this a better arguement for Vick being a good RB though and not QB? We all know Vick is a good runner and that his running creates a good effect for Atl's O. What we don't konw is if he will ever be a good QB though! One who can put touch on the ball, read a D, throw the ball away when he should, ect.....

All it is, is an argument against anyone somehow thinking Vick's presence makes the Falcons RBs run better.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

When a defense plays Vick, the focus soley falls on him and by doing that the other Falcons players are better for it. The Falcons were a great rushing team this year because teams had to focus on Vick and the Falcons used Vick as a decoy in causes to open holes for the run.

I'm sure you realize this, but the Falcons were a great rushing team because Vick's a great runner. The Falcons weren't a great rushing team because other teams focused on Vick while Duckett/Dunn ran the ball. After week fifteen last year (which is the last week the Falcons really cared about playing) Doug Drinen sent me over some information. Basically, if you look at just the rushing yards put up by RBs, the Falcons ranked 18th in the league. The Jets, Chiefs, Steelers, Pats, Seahawks were 1-2-3-4-5, but the Falcons were clearly medicore at running the ball. They ended the year ranked first because they had 978 rushing yards from non-RBs.

Good point. I don't see how M.Vick made Dunn/Duckett that much better if at all. I mean the significance would be small I assume. The reason Atls running game was ranked so high was because of Vicks ability to run with the ball and get yards. In fact Vicks ability to run with the ball makes defenses focus on the run more. I could see how screens and other dumps off to the running backs may make Dunn/Duckett better but defenses play the run first with Atl all the time because of Vicks inability to be known as a great passer. And many of the yards Vick runs for are on roll out or scrambles where he just tucks the ball and runs. People are acting like Dunn has never had a 1000 yd season before.

 

[rhawkins68]

This comment: "He's paid to be the starter yet can not stay healthy for a complete season."...is pretty much false.

How so? 1. He is paid to be the starter, even more now. 2. 2/3 of his season's he has missed games due to injury. Nothing false about it unless your ignorning the fact he was injured.

2) If you think that Vick is only "1 or 2 big plays/game" you simply don't watch the Falcons. If you think that Vick doesn't manage the team well, you simply on't watch the Falcons or have very little familiarity with how and the way they respond to his presence

Your right only only watch about 4-5 games a year. This year I watched SD, KC, Car, Stl & Phi. Sorry, he does not impress me at all at the QB position.

a) The Falcon O-Line from a pass protection standpoint is subpar.

b) Vick's mindset is to create something out of nothing...so he winds up holding the ball. He is getting better at throwing the ball away, but usually he does that after escaping danger. Very rarely does he throw it away while still in the pocket.

c) As I mentioned in an earlier post, Delhomme INT/Fumble ratio per attempt (rush or pass) is worse than Vick's. What I will say though is that this is a weak area in his game. He is careless with the ball in the pocket.

They have an above average line. Sure you want to blame it on them but the two points you make in b are the real factors. It's more selective analysis. I am not sure where you getting the numbers for Vicks' fumbles I know the NFL site is wrong listing 0 lost fumbles is wrong. You do not fumble in 35/43 games and not lose any.

If Vick was such a strong leader and made such a HUGE differnce over other starting QB's in the league then his offense would be more efficient. Last year the following teams were above Vicks offense in efficiency BAL, HOU, OAK, DET, DAL, BUF & NYG.

In pts per drive they were 19th but the defense was 18th. Now for car they were 13th and the defense was 17th.

Team Effciency for the falcons

Offense 24th, Defense 16th, special teams 6th. So Vick in fact runs the weakest link on the team.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

In fact Vicks ability to run with the ball makes defenses focus on the run more.  I could see how screens and other dumps off to the running backs may make Dunn/Duckett better but defenses play the run first with Atl all the time because of Vicks inability to be known as a great passer.  And many of the yards Vick runs for are on roll out or scrambles where he just tucks the ball and runs.  People are acting like Dunn has never had a 1000 yd season before.

How so? Vick's yards on the ground are gained off of dropbacks, even it is a designed play for the most part.Sometimes it's a designed roll-out, but here's where the Vick detractors miss the boat. The Falcons running attack is as good as it is because they can gain yards on the ground and still not have the defense fully commit to stopping the run because no matter what you think about Vick, he still has the ability to get the ball to his WR's & TE. Now, is that the strength of his game, no. But by no means is he inadequate at it. He's simply not prolific at it...

 

[Chase Stuart]

Vick's career yards per pass attempt: 6.93Vick's career yards per rush attempt: 7.40Vick's post-season yards per pass attempt: 5.91Vick's post-season yards per rush attempt: 8.36

 

[rhawkins68]

When a defense plays Vick, the focus soley falls on him and by doing that the other Falcons players are better for it. The Falcons were a great rushing team this year because teams had to focus on Vick and the Falcons used Vick as a decoy in causes to open holes for the run.

I'm sure you realize this, but the Falcons were a great rushing team because Vick's a great runner. The Falcons weren't a great rushing team because other teams focused on Vick while Duckett/Dunn ran the ball. After week fifteen last year (which is the last week the Falcons really cared about playing) Doug Drinen sent me over some information. Basically, if you look at just the rushing yards put up by RBs, the Falcons ranked 18th in the league. The Jets, Chiefs, Steelers, Pats, Seahawks were 1-2-3-4-5, but the Falcons were clearly medicore at running the ball. They ended the year ranked first because they had 978 rushing yards from non-RBs.

Of course it's because of Vick and not the Coaching staff or the good play of the o-line. The o-line is won of the top 10 if not top 5 in the league. Vick added to the running game what other QB's would add to the passing game plus some and variety in play calling for the Falcons.