View Full Version : Mike Vick
Did a search bc I def. thought there would have been a thread on this at some point, but didn't find anything.
My question is, at what point does everyone stop saying "oh give him another yr, he's still learning", and start saying "what you see, is what you get"? It's not as if the guy is a 2nd or 3rd yr QB, I'm starting to think when it comes to Vick, he comes as advertised, no more, no less.
kcchief19
11-19-2006, 03:05 PM
Vick is certainly is what he is. I think the misunderstanding with Vick -- as with most incredibly talented players -- is that one guy can't win everything. McNabb needed Owens to get to the Super Bowl; Elway needed Davis to win a super bowl; if Miami had ever given Marino a running game he probably would have won a few Super Bowls too.
Warrick Dunn is a decent back who had a career year in '05, but he's not a Terrell Davis. Dunn is technically nothing more than another version of Vick -- it's lightning and lightning, not thunder and lightning. Vick has never had any weapons at WR. When Alge Crumpler is your receiving threat, you don't have a high-powered offense.
I still think in the right system with the right players -- a power running back and a star wideout -- Vick would be a big winner. But no quarterback is going to win without supporting players.
RPI-Fan
11-19-2006, 03:21 PM
Did a search bc I def. thought there would have been a thread on this at some point, but didn't find anything.
My question is, at what point does everyone stop saying "oh give him another yr, he's still learning", and start saying "what you see, is what you get"? It's not as if the guy is a 2nd or 3rd yr QB, I'm starting to think when it comes to Vick, he comes as advertised, no more, no less.
This is pretty much EXACTLY what anybody who has any sort of clue has been saying since the middle of last season...
This is pretty much EXACTLY what anybody who has any sort of clue has been saying since the middle of last season...
Not debating that. I'm asking, when are people gonna realize that, what you see it what you get? What is it about Vick that people believe, after 6 yrs, he's all of a sudden gonna be something he hasn't been his entire NFL career?
Vinatieri for Prez
11-20-2006, 02:35 AM
McNabb needed Owens to get to the Super Bowl
HaHa! False.
panerd
11-20-2006, 05:53 AM
Did a search bc I def. thought there would have been a thread on this at some point, but didn't find anything.
My question is, at what point does everyone stop saying "oh give him another yr, he's still learning", and start saying "what you see, is what you get"? It's not as if the guy is a 2nd or 3rd yr QB, I'm starting to think when it comes to Vick, he comes as advertised, no more, no less.
The same time people stop debating the BCS in week 3 of the NCAA season. I dispise Rush Limbaugh the political commentator, but think that ESPN Rush is the only TV person that has ever had a logical position on Vick. He is an average NFL quarterback. He is exciting to watch, but like Allen Iverson, he just doesn't possess all the tools to make him one of the greats.
fenrrris
11-20-2006, 06:24 AM
As hard as it is to agree with anything that Rush ever said, I think you're right panerd. Vick just cannot pass for his life, but he gets hot once or twice a season and everyone instantly thinks he's the most dynamic player ever to grace the gridiron. Unfortunately for him, a quarterback that can't pass is a little like an actor who can cry on command, but can't actually act. Also, it doesn't help that he's clearly one of the least intelligent guys in the NFL.
I think McNabb is the opposite end of the spectrum: dynamic, capable, and, if not brilliant, one of the classiest characters in the league.
Stinks that he lost his season to a totally unimportant hit.
miami_fan
11-20-2006, 06:28 AM
Weren't Rush's comments about Donovan McNabb?
fenrrris
11-20-2006, 06:38 AM
The comments for which he was deservedly blasted were about DMac, but I don't think those are the ones panerd is talking about.
vick never really learned how to play QB at vatech, so his development is behind his peers in that regard. he became a must-have slam dunk #1 pick on the strength of his performance against FSU in the Sugar Bowl, where he had several amazing plays. I think that in their attempt to teach him new things they are stunting some of his instincts, and he's not reacting well...which is understandable, since his instincts are what got him this far.
I thought he'd turned the corner in that playoff game in GB a few years ago, he was very patient and very smart in the pocket all night.
Rizon
11-20-2006, 08:10 AM
Did a search bc I def. thought there would have been a thread on this at some point, but didn't find anything.
My question is, at what point does everyone stop saying "oh give him another yr, he's still learning", and start saying "what you see, is what you get"? It's not as if the guy is a 2nd or 3rd yr QB, I'm starting to think when it comes to Vick, he comes as advertised, no more, no less.
It took the Steelers 8 years to figure this out about the last guy like this.
So I say 8 years.
albionmoonlight
11-20-2006, 08:23 AM
How old was Jeff George before he couldn't find any team that would peg him as a #1 QB?
How long did the Steelers stick with Kordell?
QBs who have "freakish athletic ability" always stick around longer than they should because there is always some coach, scout, or GM who thinks that he can turn that QB into John Elway. Or, a coach, scout, or GM who is afraid of giving up on the next John Elway and having him flourish for another team.
Now, as to why the Atlanta fans have not yet turned on him . . . I am not sure. Fans tend to be the first to call for the hook, and I think that Vick has done enough to justify that calling.
VPI97
11-20-2006, 08:47 AM
Now, as to why the Atlanta fans have not yet turned on him . . . I am not sure. Fans tend to be the first to call for the hook, and I think that Vick has done enough to justify that calling.
Because Atlanta fans watch the games. Boxscore watchers who only see the poor stat line and a highlight package jump on the 'Vick sucks' bandwagon, but the fans who watched the game yesterday were the ones who saw Vick get hit 17 times on 26 dropbacks. They also see the enormous number of drops from Jenkins, White & Lelie and the confounding efforts by the coaching staff to put him in a drop back passer role instead of utilizing his athletic ability. Falcons fans know that Vick isn't a great passer...but they also know that given the deficiencies around him, his abilities give us a better chance to win than the alternative.
Buccaneer
11-20-2006, 08:52 AM
Now, as to why the Atlanta fans have not yet turned on him . . . I am not sure. Fans tend to be the first to call for the hook, and I think that Vick has done enough to justify that calling.
Well, the weekend before the last they did boo him lustily.
albionmoonlight
11-20-2006, 08:52 AM
Because Atlanta fans watch the games. Boxscore watchers who only see the poor stat line and a highlight package jump on the 'Vick sucks' bandwagon, but the fans who watched the game yesterday were the ones who saw Vick get hit 17 times on 26 dropbacks. They also see the enormous number of drops from Jenkins, White & Lelie and the confounding efforts by the coaching staff to put him in a drop back passer role instead of utilizing his athletic ability. Falcons fans know that Vick isn't a great passer...but they also know that given the deficiencies around him, his abilities give us a better chance to win than the alternative.
Fair point. I don't watch a lot of Falcons' games. I tend to see Atlanta only when they play against the Saints. And, actually, based on those games, both Vick and Dunn deserve to be first ballot hall of famers. They always manage to just kill us.
rkmsuf
11-20-2006, 09:17 AM
*pops champagne in honor of annual Michael Vick thread questioning his ability to play QB.
stevew
11-20-2006, 10:07 AM
At least Kordell Vick hasn't had to deal with constant rumors about his sexuality. We all know you can't get herpes from buttsex.
Seriously though, I think the Falcons basically are stuck with him for better or worse for at least 3 more seasons just due to cap implications.
MikeVick7
11-20-2006, 10:08 AM
If I cared about the NFL anymore, I would comment on this thread. But since I don't, I won't. That probably accounts for my poor performance as well...
Darkiller
11-20-2006, 11:04 AM
Looking back on that 2001 NFL Draft...I think it is clear now that the San Diego Chargers won that trade.
They exchanged Mike Vick for ... LaDainian Tomlinson and Drew Brees.
Tomlinson will go to the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest RBs ever and Drew Brees is arguably the league's MVP this year, one of the top 5 QBs in the NFL of the past three years and today, would be anyone's choice at QB if one GM had to choose between him & Vick to run the franchise.
Vick is a terrific athlete but not a very good QB...Brews is a very good QB today and Tomlinson a future HOFer...
San Diego had the better end of the trade.
stevew
11-20-2006, 11:13 AM
Looking back on that 2001 NFL Draft...I think it is clear now that the San Diego Chargers won that trade.
They exchanged Mike Vick for ... LaDainian Tomlinson and Drew Brees.
Tomlinson will go to the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest RBs ever and Drew Brees is arguably the league's MVP this year, one of the top 5 QBs in the NFL of the past three years and today, would be anyone's choice at QB if one GM had to choose between him & Vick to run the franchise.
Vick is a terrific athlete but not a very good QB...Brews is a very good QB today and Tomlinson a future HOFer...
San Diego had the better end of the trade.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
They took Brees with their 2nd round pick that they already had. He was not part of that trade.
ctmason
11-20-2006, 12:58 PM
If the Falcons make the playoffs this year and for many subsequent years, but never win the title, is it reasonable to think that they would do "better" without Vick?
I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.
JonInMiddleGA
11-20-2006, 01:04 PM
If the Falcons make the playoffs this year and for many subsequent years, but never win the title, is it reasonable to think that they would do "better" without Vick?
I'd have to say no, not in the current configuration.
In addition to Vick, they also have:
-- no offensive linemen that actually know how to pass block
-- no receivers (other than Crumpler maybe) who know how to catch a pass
-- no defensive linemen who can stay healthy
-- only one defensive back who can at least occasionally cover a statue
-- no offensive coordinator worth the use of the word
-- an owner who is turning into Mark Cuban, minus the charm or the personality
-- and above all else, a head coach who might be capable of handling Saturday morning 9-10 year old rec league games, but that's if he maxes out his potential
DeToxRox
11-20-2006, 01:06 PM
I've always disliked Jim Mora Jr. I was so glad when Shannon Sharpe called him out after Mora was pissed they were bad mouthing Vick on the pre-game. He just seems like a hard ass without a clue.
ISiddiqui
11-20-2006, 01:06 PM
-- no offensive linemen that actually know how to pass block
Interestingly, I seemed to note that when Lehr was suspended for steroids and a one of the guards went down was right before the Pittsburgh game. Could it be that the backups are far better pass blockers, but for some reason the coaching staff doesn't want to use them because the starters are better run blockers?
Vince
11-20-2006, 01:12 PM
I've always disliked Jim Mora Jr. I was so glad when Shannon Sharpe called him out after Mora was pissed they were bad mouthing Vick on the pre-game. He just seems like a hard ass without a clue.
You know, I was very disappointed when he left the 49ers (while we were looking for a HC at the time). The further away from that time we get, the less I care that we lost him.
*pops champagne in honor of annual Michael Vick thread questioning his ability to play QB.
I'm not so much questioning his ability to play, I presonally dont think he can play, but that's a whole different discussion in itself, my question is what is it about him that people think he is all of a sudden gonna turn in to something he has never been up til now?
rkmsuf
11-20-2006, 01:21 PM
I'm not so much questioning his ability to play, I presonally dont think he can play, but that's a whole different discussion in itself, my question is what is it about him that people think he is all of a sudden gonna turn in to something he has never been up til now?
that's part of the annual thread as well. It might even be twice a year.
JonInMiddleGA
11-20-2006, 01:25 PM
He just seems like a insecure little man compensating by pretending he's a hard ass without a clue.
Fixed that for you ;)
JonInMiddleGA
11-20-2006, 01:26 PM
that's part of the annual thread as well. It might even be twice a year.
Which serves as proof that, even as a .500 QB, he's more interesting than 95+ percent of the players in the NFL.
flounder
11-20-2006, 01:29 PM
Interestingly, I seemed to note that when Lehr was suspended for steroids and a one of the guards went down was right before the Pittsburgh game. Could it be that the backups are far better pass blockers, but for some reason the coaching staff doesn't want to use them because the starters are better run blockers?
My brother is a big time Falcons fan and this is his theory.
cartman
11-20-2006, 01:38 PM
who better QB, Mike Vick or Ron Mexico?
rkmsuf
12-05-2006, 08:52 AM
lol
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4015/rmuk2.png
QuikSand
12-05-2006, 09:10 AM
The thing that is so mystifying about Vick, to me, is that the explanation/defense/excuse seems to shift to fit the cause. For a long time, we kept hearing about how the A-T-L was some sort of unstoppable juggernaut with Vick playing, simply in terms of winning games. I don't know how true that ever was, nor how false it has proven to be of late, but we don't seem to hear that too much any more.
Now, the argument seems to be that Atl doesn't really have much of a team arouund him, so their inability to win many games can't be tagged to Vick or anyone, really, they just got dealt a tough hand (or perhaps had some unfortunate busts along the way).
To me, Vick has developed just about as I expected. He is crazy fast, and remains an effective weapon in many ways. He has adequate skills in some areas of quarterbacking, but as a pure passer, he simply never developed the "full package" for the NFL. He still has a big arm in the sense that he can throw the ball 50 yards downfield, but does not have the basic ability to accurately deliver several of the critical passes necessary to execute a full NFL offense. When opposing defenses don't have to worry about a certain range of potential plays that would ordinarily force them to remain diverse, they get to focus on what they need to. Yes, Atl still manages to play effectively on offense (sometimes), and yes, they still can win some games. But they are pretty far removed from the level of consistency and efficiency that is necessary to be a viable contender in the NFL, despite the occasional flashes of gigantic potential we see from time to time.
I don't know the team well enough to know whether they would be better off with a more traditional drop-back QB (Schaub, Brees, opr whomever) with this particular supporting cast. But I definitely think there is a great deal of trade-off involved with having Michael Vick as your starting NFL quarterback, and it's at least possible that his limitations offset his considerable skills.
rkmsuf
12-05-2006, 09:20 AM
To me he seems to lack having much in the way of leadership skills.
dbd1963
12-05-2006, 09:53 AM
As a Saints fan I've watched Vick for a few years. This year it really does look like his receivers just can't catch, but there's a bit of a caveat to that too. Vick has very little touch on the ball. He throws it in there hard and fast on just about every throw. Watching Drew Brees this year -- he has made some average WRs look awesome with his ability to put the ball right where it needs to be, with touch rather than blasting it in as hard as possible (as, for instance, Vick's cousin Aaron Brooks used to do).
So I would blame Vick's wide receivers for a good deal of the Falcons woes, but I would also say that part of their problem is a QB who doesn't have an appropriate sense of touch. I think that can ruin the chance of getting into a rythm, causing the WRs to overthink and even drop the easy ones.
The games I've seen, Vick hasn't been wildly innaccurate. He's just been using a bit too much brute force on the ball.
albionmoonlight
12-05-2006, 10:03 AM
Vick played as poorly as a passer in the last Saints-Falcons game as I have ever seen him play. That's not the worst assesment, however, because, as I noted above, he normally kicks our ass.
In the last game, though, he seemed like a rookie in terms of his decision making. We did something to take Crumpler out of the game plan (some combo of jaming him at the line and putting a safety over the top of him I would expect) and Vick looked lost without him.
Almost every time he dropped back, he seemed to do one of three things as soon as he felt a hint of pressure: 1.) take off and run; 2.) take a sack; or 3.) throw the deep ball.
I didn't see him checking down and finding running backs or wide receivers running shorter routes.
Now, whether that was Vick's fault for not seeing open checkdown guys, or whether it was the coaches' fault for not adjusting once it became clear that the Saints were gameplanning to take Crumpler out of the game, I don't know.
But, to keep it in terms of opposing quarterbacks that I have seen this season, he looked a LOT more like Alex Smith (2nd year player still getting used to making multiple reads at the NFL level) than Steve McNair (just tore us apart by constantly finding the open guy).
All that said, Vick won yesterday in a game that I didn't see, so someone is still doing something right in the ATL.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.