Was Michael Vick a Failure? (1 Viewer)

[trogg78]

He was a great player and was never really coached to in the NFL. I hope when he comes back he gets a coach that understands how to use him. He could be one of the greatest comeback stories.

 

[SSOG]

You keep mentioning how much Vick was paid. I think that's entirely the wrong prism through which to evaluate Vick, since he was more than worth it in simple cost-based terms. I mean, look at Falcons ticket sales with and without Vick. Look at merchandising with and without Vick. Blank made far more money off of Vick than he wound up paying to Vick. He was more than worth what he was paid... the only question is whether he was worth the hype, the cap hit, or the spot on the field.

particularly the bolded part. A lot of people seem to be missing this, it doesn't matter that Vick was paid so much money.

It matters quite a bit in a salary cap league. If a guy doesn't perform up to his contract it cripples the team competitively.

Depends on how you define success. Do you define it solely by championships? In that case, Vick was a failure, because he never delivered. Wins? Then Vick was a success- just look at his winning percentage. National relevance? Success once again- like Vick or not, everyone TALKED about Vick. He made the Falcons relevant. Profitability? Success again. If you narrowly define success to mean winning championships, then Vick was a failure, but by pretty much any definition he was a success.

 

[Assani Fisher]

As a Florida fan, I have to say, I've never considered Tim Tebow's running ability a "handicap"...

To be fair, college football and the NFL are two different worlds. Tim Tebow is a much better passer now then Vick ever was, thus he's more valuable.

I agree. Vick's lack of passing prowess was a handicap, but there's nobody who can possibly say that his running ability was a handicap.

As a Florida fan, I have to say, I've never considered Tim Tebow's running ability a "handicap"...

To be fair, college football and the NFL are two different worlds. Tim Tebow is a much better passer now then Vick ever was, thus he's more valuable.

Not to get too far off topic, but do you know which Heisman-winning QB had the top passer rating in his Heisman season? Tim Tebow, breaking Wuerrful's old record.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to debate this. Do you seriously believe that Tim Tebow right now is a better passer than Vick ever was? I mean, really? You think Tim Tebow could step into a NFL team tomorrow(assuming he knows the playbook) and put up the passing stats that Vick did in his best year? How would you compare Tebow's passing(totally ignore his rushing ability) with that of Alex Smith in college. Now imagine Alex Smith only as a sophomore. Now consider how Alex Smith has looked in the NFL.

Its very very rare for a QB to succeed like Big Ben right away...most look horrible at first, and thats after 3 or 4 years in school.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I think he was a failure because he only reached one conference championship game, and they didn't even win it. When you're the #1 pick overall, expectations are higher than that.

IIRC his team was horrible the year before he got there, went something like 2-11 when he got injured one year, went 0-1 last year without him, and were obviously horrible this year....yet with him they were solid playoff contenders. Seems kinda unfair to pin that on him considering those facts, no?

Not really. Yes, he made the team better. You're right; no doubt about that. He took a rotten team and made them respectable. But he was the #1 pick, and the Falcons had to trade with the Chargers (who got LT with the switched pick) to get him. At that level, and the way he was paid, expectations were higher. The team would expect more success for a longer period of time. If he was a 3rd or 4th rd pick who got a shot and produced for a few seasons...sure. But Vick was drafted to be the face of the franchise. There were some dividends on that investment, but not enough to justify what they did to get and keep him. Eli has led the Giants to the playoffs three times, but fans are just getting the feeling now that, after winning a playoff game, he's becoming "worth it." And the jury is still out. He'll need to accomplish even more during his career. If it was, say, Matt Schaub, expectations would be lower. Three playoff berths for the Texans and they'll name a street after him.

How good of a team do you think the Giants would be without Eli? Personally, I think they'd still be a playoff contender. The Falcons were HORRIBLE without Vick. Vick gave them a 6+ game improvement! Put Vick on a team that wins 8 games without him, and he may have won a super bowl. Vick is just one player. To blame him for not getting farther is entirely unfair. Then you make an analogy to a Giants team that has a lot of very good players(great pass rush, Tiki Barber was a great RB before retiring, solid #1 WR, solid TE, etc.) when Vick never had a solid team like that. I think a better comparison would be to Elway: With a horrible team he led them far but could never win a SB. With a great team he won a SB.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Number 1 overall pick at quarterback

At one time the highest paid player in NFL history

2 total career playoff appearances

2 total career playoff wins

Out of football in 6 years

Pretty sure that's the resume of a failure.

You guys keep bringing up "#1 overall pick" as if hes a failure due to that.1999: Tim Couch

2000: Courtney Brown

2001: Mike Vick

2002: David Carr

Its not the sure thing that you're making it out to be. Furthermore, as I already said, merely saying "2 playoff appearances" is overlooking how bad they were without him.

 

[Assani Fisher]

overall, I think the public overrates QBs with good WRs and underrates QBs with poor WRs because they fail to realize just how dependant a QB is on his WRs. Take a look at Manning's stats this year without Harrison. Or take a look at Brady's this year with Moss. People love to bash Vince Young and Mike Vick as horrible passers, but its tough with poor WRs.

 

[SSOG]

As a Florida fan, I have to say, I've never considered Tim Tebow's running ability a "handicap"...

To be fair, college football and the NFL are two different worlds. Tim Tebow is a much better passer now then Vick ever was, thus he's more valuable.

I agree. Vick's lack of passing prowess was a handicap, but there's nobody who can possibly say that his running ability was a handicap.

As a Florida fan, I have to say, I've never considered Tim Tebow's running ability a "handicap"...

To be fair, college football and the NFL are two different worlds. Tim Tebow is a much better passer now then Vick ever was, thus he's more valuable.

Not to get too far off topic, but do you know which Heisman-winning QB had the top passer rating in his Heisman season? Tim Tebow, breaking Wuerrful's old record.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to debate this. Do you seriously believe that Tim Tebow right now is a better passer than Vick ever was? I mean, really? You think Tim Tebow could step into a NFL team tomorrow(assuming he knows the playbook) and put up the passing stats that Vick did in his best year? How would you compare Tebow's passing(totally ignore his rushing ability) with that of Alex Smith in college. Now imagine Alex Smith only as a sophomore. Now consider how Alex Smith has looked in the NFL.

Its very very rare for a QB to succeed like Big Ben right away...most look horrible at first, and thats after 3 or 4 years in school.

Okay, I get your point now, and I agree. I interpreted that statement as "Tebow is a better passer now than Vick ever was (in college)". I figured if the OP was saying that Tim Tebow was a better passer than Vick right now, he would have said "right now" instead of "ever was". Chalk it up to a difference in interpretation.