Michael Vick Trade (Was it worth it?)
 

2001 Draft, Chargers trade the first overall pick (Vick) for the fifth overall, the 67th, a 2nd round pick in 2002, and Tim Dwight.

Seemed like the falcons traded a ton for (basically) a kordell stewart clone.

Verdict's still out. I doubt we get to the playoffs twice and have a chance at back-to-back winning seasons for the first time ever if we don't make the trade, though.

Tomlinson alone, makes that deal sour for the Falcons.

What Grammaticus said.

But the Falcons would not have drafted Tomlinson...they would have likely picked David Terrell with the #5 pick. Vick > Terrell

I think the verdict is also still out, due to the time it takes QBs to develop vs. the time it takes RBs to develop; however, a very strong case can be made for Tomlinson's health vs. Vick's health.

Yeah, the health issue is a concern, but as VPI pointed out, I doubt we draft LT in the 5-hole anyway, considering Americus Boy's love affair with Jamal, who was coming off of a nice comeback year and was expected to be stronger in '01. VPI's probably right about Terrell. The only good that could have come from that pick is that we probably end up with Peppers and/or Palmer as a result. :p

and remember, a part of that deal is the extra pick, freeing San Diego to take Brees in the 2nd round.

I think for both teams, it was a franchise booster. I have a hard time picturing the Chargers doing as well as they are with Vick at the helm and no LT. And Vick is the franchise (and a marketing gold mine) in Atlanta. The important thing, to me, is that I don't think either franchise would be a succesful as they are today without having made that trade.

Yup.

I would just like to take a moment to recognize Raider's Army for being perhaps the first person in the history of the internet to start this discussion without mistakingly including Drew Brees in the Chargers side of the trade.

My opinion varies daily, but ultimately it was a win/win trade.

JEEZUS CHRISTMAS CAN YOU STOP BEING A VICK APOLOGIST!

this is bordering on lunacy. just stop. STOP. :mad:

And would you stop wanting him to be a clone of a pocket QB.


Do the Falcs win with him in? - Yes.

Do they win with him out? - No.

what kind of stupidity is this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident.

A strange little man, he is.

I would like to apologize on behalf of Michael Vick for having one of the three highest winning percentages among NLF quarterbacks since 2001, going to two pro-bowls in his first four seasons, making the playoffs twice in his first four seasons and taking a ragtag football team to the NFC Championship game.

When comparing the trade, I just look at who got the best player(s). Trying to figure out "what ifs" is all conjecture. Personally, I think the Chargers ended up much better off than the Falcons did.

Also, with Vick...I think comparing his development with a typical QB is wrong. Running QBs tend to have a much shorter career than the typical QB (or they change their ways). A running QB needs to develop and do his thing earlier than your typical QB if he's going to have a major impact IMO. Vick still has a chance to do something, but I feel his window is closing quick for him to live up to the hype when he came out.

Chargers have 'won' the trade, barely. Vick certainly could be one of those guys like Elway or Young who blossoms late in his career, but there's no guarantee of that.

Vick doesn't like the cold.

Atlanta is no different than the Panthers. they're the exact same team: defensive-minded head coach, good defense, strong running games. the only difference is the Panthers were thisclose to wining a Super Bowl and the Falcons haven't been there yet. at this point in time i can't honestly say i'd take Vick over Delhomme - Delhomme hasn't been as injured, is a proven late game QB, and nearly single handedly won a championship. highlight clips mean nothing if you can't win.

Vick is a good running back. if the NFL allows the option then my money is on Atlanta. until then, Vick ain't good.

Chargers got LT and Brees out of the deal, Falcons got a QB who has yet to play a 16 game season and who abandons the play to tuck the ball in so he can make another top 10 play on ESPN.

I think it was a good move for both teams. I don't think either team would have been as successful in the other's shoes. Thomlinson and Schottenheimer are a great fit, and Vick's a great fit for what Atlanta does. It's amazing what Vick has accomplished with no wide receives and retread running backs, and I think Drew Brees owes Thomlinson a commission on his next contract.

The judgement could certainly change over the years. Until one or both of the players can win a title or be consistent in the playoffs, than there really isn't anything to brag about.

The NFL does "allow" the option. It's just that no one runs it.

There you go, Leafs.

I don't sense that Vick is much of a leader out there. He just kind of does his thing. Just a guess from way on the outside looking in though.

The option doesn't work in the NFL. Linebackers are way too fast.

Ask Green Bay how much he likes the cold ;) 1st home playoff loss ever...

Vick’s value to a team is equal to that of a running back. He is a good runner and a poor passer. The fear of his running is what makes passing options appear when they would not otherwise. Once the fear of him running is diminished, he will be an even poorer passer.

Most running backs production severely drops off after the age of 30 and many do not even make it that long. I know there are some notable exceptions, but the vast majority of runners are no longer worth the value after 30 (about a 7 or 8 year career). A decent quarterbacks shelf life is more like 15 years, with about 3 being lower production developmental years.

Based on this logic, Vick’s shelf life is that of a running back and not a quarterback. Unless he reinvents himself as a passer, he may have 5 years left. Although his injury record shows that he is not even a particularly durable runner.

Sure, the verdict is still out on Vick, but why engage in such a risky investment, when there are so many better options available. The Falcons are draining their resources into Vick, which is holding the team back. Yeah, they had some moderate success, but they had better success with Dan Reeves and Jamal Anderson.

It is a tough call to cut the cord on an investment that you have put so much into, but you have to make the call at some point. It’s even tougher when everyone is hyping the guy beyond the second coming. My guess is, you’ll still be awaiting that coming in 5 years.

I liked the trade then, and I love it now. I wasn't sold on Vick, but I liked LT coming in. That draft sure helped me forget about Leaf.

I thought the trade made alot of sense for both teams before it even happened. And I think both teams got what they wanted out of it. I do think the Chargers set themselves up better long term with Tomlinson and Brees tho.

Both teams had pretty good drafts in 2001 (Atlanta's 2nd was Crumpler), and I think you have to say it was a win-win for both teams. Put where both of these teams are today in the context of the teams that picked 2nd and 3rd in that draft, Arizona and Cleveland, and it's tough to say that either was a big loser. It's kind of hard to make a call on this as well because if I remember correctly Vick wasn't going to sign with the Chargers anyway ala Eli, so they had to make a deal, it wasn't that they somehow saw LT as a more valuable player and made a move accordingly. Vick may not be everything you want in a QB but I'd be very surprised if he didn't win a ring or two before he's done. Put a good team around him and one of these years he'll string some of that magic together for a couple games in the playoffs.

I can't watch a falcons game without thinking the team would be better off with Vick lined up as FL, and Schaub as the starting QB.

The Falcons already can't get the ball to their WR's or protect their mobile QB. Enter Schaub unmobile QB, who can't even complete 50% of his passes either. Bad idea..

4-12 isn't better than having a chance at the postseason.

Problem with that logic is that Vick is not good at getting the ball to the WRs on the run.

Vick seems to get the ball fine to Crumpler on the run because Crumpler actually gets seperation. Jenkins and White are young, but can't get open. Teams like Carolina and the Bears play man on the outside, put a safety deep and 8 in the box with someone to watch Crumpler and the Falcons can move the ball without big runs. Its tough to throw the ball without a reciever who can get open which is why the Falcons try every year to find a guy that can. (Price(FA), Jenkins(1st), White(1st))

Dude, but Michael Vick sucks. Didn't you get the memo?

Good point, and I agree.

However, on just ability alone, I think Vick is way overhyped. He's a great athlete, but he is no where close to being an elite QB.

As a representative of the Dolphins we are willing to give up Frerotte and Rosensfels (on fire lately) for Vick.. Let us know..

How about that trade?

This is a good post.

I beg to differ with the first statement. They MAYBE win with him in. The Vick years: 7-9,8-8,11-5,5-11,9-6-1

I mean c'mon, are you people so blind as to look at the hard numbers? A career 53.8 comp %, a 75 QB rating. Is this "winning"?

Those likely may be his final career numbers. Unless you can add future AFL numbers.

If you're gonna base your argument on stats, you lose some credit when you intentionally leave out certain stats that make him look better.

Not that I'm a Vick fan (anymore), or that it changes the answer to the above question.

To be fair, they use the 2nd round pick to get a QB rather than using the 1st rounder so not being able to take Vick forced their hand. So, from the Chargers perspective, the trade was basically what everyone says. It's just not from that perspective if you say Chargers v Falcons.

Chargers got Tomlinson, Brees, Tay Cody, Reche Caldwell, and Tim Dwight
Or Chargets get Vick, early 2nd round pick

SI

Vick is the most overrated player in the NFL

I bet Vick would've been a better QB if he didn't wear out his arm slamming injured dogs against the pavement.

Sick fuck.

I don't see how anyone but Falcons fans, VTech fans and Vick aplogists could call this anything like a close to good trade for Atlanta. It might go down as one of the worst trades ever made.

And don't use the reasoning, "Well, the Falcons wouldn't have drafted LT and Brees, blah, blah..." The Falcons should get all the blame for being a poorly run franchise to that point of time in their history (fluke '98 year excepted).

Well at least the half of his passes he completes would get to a quick, running back styled wide receiver. If Vick's the one throwing th ball, who's catching it?

Stats that make him look better? WTF are you talking about? Who cares what other stats make him look better. Whats as important as win/loss, Completion % and QB rating? Those are bottom of the line stats, what counts. Even if you want to factor in his running ability, it doesnt seem to have halped them much in the W column.

Huh? Am I missing something? I made anti-Vick comments just before yours, but even I would acknowledge he has helped them in the W column. There's no arguing that they do win when he's in the lineup. So I'm not sure where you're getting that. Agreed completely, though, on QB-specific stats like pass completion % and rating.

Also, I think you have to factor in his running ability. You know it's not his passing that is winning games for them when he's in. Although I would argue it's a consistently strong defense the past five or six years that is the primary reason they have been better. Vick's presense only elevates the offense just enough to make those close, low-scoring losses into close, low-scoring wins.

larrymcg421 said I left out stats that made Vick look better. Thats the problem here, people are ignoring the fact his completion% and QB rating suck, and other than an 11-5 season they are basically a .500 team every year. Who gives a shit about the other stats there are? Factor his running ability in, it still doesnt change the fact they arent an elite team, merely average. They are not a consistant winning program. Paint it whatever color you want, but Vick hasnt elevated the Falcons like he was supposed to.

I'm pretty sure I remember that coming out of college, Vick was as hyped for his passing as he was for his running. He was supposed to be like a super-charged version of Brett Favre, is the way I remember him described.

I think history will remember him as one of the most disappointing #1 picks of all time.

+1

Michael Vick is a coach-killer. But also a dog-killer. :)

no, i don't think he'll ever be labeled a bust. i don't like Vick, but i know a balla when i see one. he'll just be remembered as one in a long line of QBs who were able to go to x amount of Pro Bowls but as far as being a difference maker in terms of wins/losses he had no affect. to me, Mike Vick is the black Jake Plummer or the black Eli Manning. nice individual stats, but can you ever really say thse guys took their teams to the next level? but Vick is certainly not a bust. even if he can't take his teams to the Super Bowl - he brings in fans to the stadium and is/was great for merchandising. you can't make money off of busts. that's why they're busts - they are of no financial or competitive use to your team. Eli Manning is not a difference maker it seems so far, but he's the face of the franchise and sells jerseys. i'm sure the Giants feel 2 out of 3 ain't bad. same goes for the Falcons.

he still should be converted to a RB, though.

His running hasn't helped them in the win column? Huh? In what world is a first down or a TD less valuable because the QB runs for it rather than throws for it?

And your W-L numbers aren't telling the whole story either. Since he got the starting job in 2002, Vick has missed 14 games and the Falcons are 3-11 in those games.

QB Rating is one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. QB A who throws it out in the flat for a 1 yard TD is apparently so much better than QB B who runs it in from the 1, even though they provide the exact same value to the team. It can actually be argued that QB B's extra impact on the running game (not just for his own running but from opening holes for the RB since the LB's have to watch the QB now) makes him even more valuable.

Again, none of this changes the fact that he's a sick fuck or that the Chargers got the better end of this deal even if it was a straight up trade.

Where are all of these wins you keep talking about that he gets running the ball? Everybody wants to talk about how he runs the ball and wins games, but the win/loss at the end of the day still shows 1 good season and the rest mediocre. What good is his running stats and TDs if they still lose? And as far as his missing all of those games that just leads to durability questions.
Theonly thing I totall agree with is that he is a sick fuck and the chargers won this trade hands down.

Eli Manning is pretty much a league average quarterback. Hes not exceptional, but hes decent. MV has never been better than BAD.


Good Quarterbacks win games. MV has never taken a team outside a standard deviation of 8-8.

Running for 14 yards on 3rd and 18 doesnt make up for the fact that you got sacked twice when you should have thrown the ball away.

How do you think the Falcons are getting what wins they get? I already mentioned the D, but after that, what is it? Or are you arguing it's all D and Vick did nothing? His legs were their offense. The issues of dealing with Vick as a runner opened things up for their other runners and made a bad passing game into just a slightly sub-medicore one.

The win loss records by themselves aren't indicative of Vick's value to the Falcons. The win loss record when he is in there versus when he is not is much more substantive. How bad do you think the Falcons would be without Vick? If you don't think he has made a difference for that team (and, please, it's choking me just saying it), then honestly, you're smoking something.

If you are arguing that they do better with Vick then say, Harrington, then yes, they win more games with him in there. But you talk as if in the last 6 years they wouldnt have had other options at QB. I honestly think they could win as many games if they had kept Shaub as they do with Vick. My main point isnt that they havent won games with Vick being there, but that for a guy touted as so talented and such a dangerous guy that they are essentially a .500 team. I agree he has won games for them but do you honestly think that they would be 1-15 every year without him, because with him they are mediocre. If he is so GD good then why are they so average?
This has turned into a "they win 2 more games a year with him than without him" thread. Fine, they win more with him. But for all the money and hype is it worth it? Is 1 good season in his career (11-5) worth it?

I'm just pointing out the numbers, which you can't deny. As said, they are 37-28-1 with him and 3-11 without him since 2002.

Using the three stats you based your judgment of Vick on, Schaub has lower QB rating, lower completion %, and lower W/L record.

The whole point of my earlier post is that it's silly to isolate stats to make a player look bad, when everyone knows there's a nother stat that cancels out some of the badness. It'd be like saying Marino sucked in 1984 because he threw 17 INT's while ignoring all the other stats.

Now if you want to argue that the rushing stats don't do enough to make up for the other stuff, then that's certainly fair game, but there's no need to hide the stat that reflects the most successful aspect of his game.

After CR's first post to him (somewhat) defending Vick just shows there are crazies on both extremes. Chargers won the deal (though it is true that the Falcons would have found some way to fuck up having the 5th pick), but Vick was important for the Falcons success during the time he was the starting QB. Look at the rest of the offense and you'll note how deprived of talent it was/is. Dunn is a solid RB, true, and Crumpler is a good TE, but the rest of the offense just blows. Without Vick's legs, the Falcons never lead the league in rushing, even once, and with their recievers (the BEARS cut Dez White right before the Falcons picked up him) it wouldn't have been pretty for, say, Schaub.

And if you recall, Doug Johnson was being spoken of in the same terms of Schaub is today. Schaub may actually be the real deal, but he wouldn't have done all that well in Atlanta... at least he's got Andre Johnson in Houston.

I think NP makes the best point. Has ATL won games with Vick? Yes. But, would Atlanta have won more games with another QB that you could get with $130 million? Yes.

Not to mention you could argue that Vick's big contract (which he is clearly NOT worth) prevents the team from affording to get other guys who could bolster other parts of the team. So, one could in fact argue that with just a regular joe QB (but the addition of 2-3 $50 million guys at other positions), they would in fact win more games without Vick and his salary than with him. The problem with judging ATL's record without him does not take into account that it does not involve not having his salary either.

Exactly. First, is Shaub had played some his #s would be better than Vicks, because I believe he is a better QB. Not a better runner, but a better QB. His #s reflect very little playing time. Second, Vinatieri is correct. For that amount of money they could have had another QB who barely completes 50% of his passes plus some other good players. Also, when you look at the other ATL offensive players and say "they arent that good" its because ATL is as bad at evaluating WRs as they are QBs.

If you think they are bad as evaluating QB's, then you conceed that Schaub sucks, because they did draft him in the 3rd round a few years back.

Even ATL could have one fall in their lap. Besides, how do we know if he sucks, he has barely played. Lastly, I didnt say he DIDNT suck, I just said the Falcons could probably go 8-8 with him just as easily as they do Vick.

You said they are bad at evaluating QBs.. means you think Schaub sucks. It's not exactly what you said, but what the logical end is of that statement.

WTF does that have to do with anything? Regardless of whether he sucks or not that has no bearing on the conversation. All I said was is the Falcons could do just as well with him sucking as they do Vick sucking.

It has to do with you saying the Falcons suck at evaluating QBs... and no I do not believe the Falcons would have done as good with Schaub. It wouldn't have been as bad as the Doug Johnson season, but it wouldn't have been that much better. Like I said, Doug Johnson was the Matt Schaub back then. Anti-Vick folk were clamoring for him to start and it was assumed he'd get a starting job when he became a FA. That changed once he was put in the role and the Falcons went south. Then again, I definately don't blame it all on him.

This is fucking ridiculous. You are basically arguing that since tha Falcons didnt lose every Fucking game they played that Vick is a stud QB because without him they would have lost them all.

#1 overall selected, supposed franchise QBs should deliver more than 1 decent season out of 6, especially when you give them the money they did. A few sportscenter highlight runs doesnt offset the fact he hasnt delivered what someone making his money taken in that spot is expected to.

Nobody is calling him a stud QB. Please try to pay attention.

I thought you were still looking for stats that made Vick look good, I didnt think you would be back for awhile.

And yet you still ignore the very relevant stat I put up regarding the win-loss record when he's in and when he's not. I guess no sense addressing anything that goes against your beliefs, huh?

No, I saw them, and I stand by what I stated above:

#1 overall selected, supposed franchise QBs should deliver more than 1 decent season out of 6, especially when you give them the money they did. A few sportscenter highlight runs doesnt offset the fact he hasnt delivered what someone making his money taken in that spot is expected to

He still hasnt consistantly delivered wins or playoff appearances. Throw LT out, at this point they would lose this trade just factoring Brees vs Vick. He has proven to be a tremendous runner, but a below average QB.

You won't get an argument from me on any of that. If you look at my first two posts in this thread, you will see that is entirely my opinion as well. What you are arguing that is patently false is that Vick did not have a positive impact on the performance of this team. Actually, he did, and it was a very large one, based on the win-loss disparity.

Chief, while you claim NP is ignoring your comparison of the ATLwin-loss record with and without him, you are also choosing to ignore the point he made and I supported which is that your comparison is somewhat faulty because you should be comparing the ATL win-loss record without Vick (but without his salary) and with him (with his salary). Since it is of course physically impossible to do that comparison, one could assume at least at a minimum that ATL would have a better record that 3-12 (or whatever it was) without Vick if there were 2-3 additional quality players on the team in his absence.

With all that said, I do believe Vick is an above average QB because of everything he brings to the table. But he is not a QB that will get you to the SB. He had some early success because he did something new and surprising that took teams to get use to. Now that teams have seen him play and have adjusted their game plans, he is not going to do any better than he did in the past.

But does the difference in win-loss record show Vick was good or does it show the offense was built around him and his unique talent?

Yep. Vick has won more games than no Vick but still paying his salary. I just think that a less expensive option plus 2-4 more quality players with the extra money would make them a better team. Sure he has a positive impact on the team, but I look at it as being negative if I think they could have done better with that money spread out. The won loss record you point is valid, but at the end of the day I just dont think they are a contender with Vick and his salary, where they might be without.

I think this statement is misleading. Everyone talks about salary, but let's face, he could restructure, they could find money, etc, but when you think your biggest offseason move is to get Ashlie Lelie your team isn't trying very hard. Is he overrated, by his numbers, sure. Let's not even beging to talk about offensive play calling the last 2 seasons, especially in the red zone. He sells out a huge dome in a region where crappy college football teams have more backing. He's thrown 75 TDs and ran for 20 more in what is basically 4.5 seasons of play. He has 50 picks, but heck, even Marino had 75 picks or so in his first few seasons. The fact that he was a #1 overall pick isn't really all that relevant in terms of his success. He's won more than he's lost, he was rushed in to NFL action by a crappy team, he's been able to get the ball in the endzone more than he turns it over, and he sells a million tickets and merchandise...to be fair, let's compare him to other QBs taken in the 1st round in the past few years, then you tell me how he is for a first round pick...

2000: Pennington, solid QB
2001: Vick
2002: Carr, Harrington, Ramsey; yeah, great year
2003: Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, Grossman; Palmer's been out of this world, the rest mediocre
2004: Manning, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Losman; good year, maybe if Vick had the Steelers running game, defense and WRs, he'd win big too.
2005: Smith, Rodgers, Campbell; jury is still out on Smith, others suck.
2006: Too early to tell really with Leinart, Young, Cutler

Point being, about 20% of 1st round QBs eventually become great, even if that high. To expect Vick to be able to win SuperBowls with receivers who can't run routes or catch balls is a bit unfair. He's not all world, but each week he puts his team in a position to win and has come out more often than not on top.

I agree with mike wrt to the salary. If they really wanted to, they could restructure the deal.. but it seemed like they didn't really try to really get all that much better on the offensive side. Sure, they drafted recievers, but never went after big free agent WRs. The play calling was against Vick's strengths (instead of playing to his big arm they tried to go West Coast) and they thought all was well with a small O-line, lack of talent in the wideouts, and above average RBs.

I understand they point about play calling against his strength, whch is running. But do you want your starting QB, who makes a ton of money, running as a primary option all the time?
The fact that he was a #1 overall pick isn't really all that relevant in terms of his success, but it is relevant in terms of expectations. Is that fair? Hell no, but thats is the way it works in the NFL.

Please don't let your biases influence you argument or anything. Vick's strengths were running AND throwing deep. He has a very good arm and while he isn't as accurate on the short and medium passing game, he can really launch a ball very well. Unfortunately he didn't get to show it under Mora.

Speaking of a #1 overall pick, I'd say he's been more successful than, say, Eli Manning. Has Eli been a bust?

Too bad because the way he's going he's going to be playing in the CFL.

Is expressing my opinion letting my biases influence my argument? Yep, just like yours are. Thats why its what you think/believe.
Eli? SO far yes, he has been somewhat of a bust. Not Akili Smith bust, but not what was expected either.

Your opinion is highly biased. It comes through in the basically "Vick is just a running back playing QB" type of statements you are making. I mean CR has had to defend Vick against some of your attacks... it shows me that you are too far to an extreme on this.

And I don't really think you can be "somewhat of a bust". It's one of those things that you either are or aren't.

This has got to be the most inane piece of nonsense I've ever seen.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. They made a bad pick with Vick, and then made a bigger mistake giving him that monster contract. That doesnt mean that they made a bad pick with Shaub or anyone else.

They can only restructure the deal if Vick agrees to it. Generally, when you restructure, the player gets more money (total) to free up some cap space right now. Restructuring would have meant giving Vick EVEN MORE money.

Cut The "Vick's WRs dont have any talent" Crap. Theyre all first rounders, or guys who had success with other teams. The constant here is Vick, not WR talent.

CR doesnt have to defend Vick, its just his choice, like you choose to. YOu are a fucking moron to come out and say my opinion is biased, of course it is , its biased by what I think, just like yours is. If they werent we would all think the same and agree. I do think Vick would have been a better RB than QB. Lots of guys have strong arms, doesnt make them good QBs. You yourself said he isnt good on short/medium routes. Hes a 100+ million dollar QB! Should he have been able to figure that out and improve in 6 years?

And I'd say you're a fucking lunatic.

More money later on... that's how the game works. It's a constant shuffle.

And which talented WRs did Vick have, pray tell? Peerless Price? The guy who had one good year before hand and couldn't get on Dallas' top 4 recievers? The one who is having even worse numbers for Buffalo today? Ashley Lelie? The one Denver was willing to get rid of after having drafted him in the first round because he dropped balls left and right? Jenkins and White? Because they are first rounders and that, of course, mean they should be stars (ask J.J. Stokes, Reggie Williams and a score of others if that holds true).


If you think Eli is a better QB than Vick then I'd have to say you aren't paying attention. I wouldn't call you a "fucking lunatic", but then again, I tend not to fly off the handle that quickly. Manning's QB rating was about the same as Vick's last season, and that's not counting the running ability.


Sorry, but unlike you, I'm not that far extreme. I can see weaknesses in Vick's game, but you can see no strengths... thinking he's basically a RB playing QB.

Here are the results of a QB rating system I worked on. It de-emphasizes completion percentage a little in favor of yards per attempt and takes into account sacks and runs. Sacks are incompletions and the yards lost are subtracted from passing yardage. Rushes are completions and yards are added. Touchdowns and lost fumbles added to touchdowns and INTs, respectively.

Here are the NFL passer rating numbers:

Rank	Name	NFL Rating
1	P. Manning	100.95
2	D. Huard	98.02
3	D. Brees	96.23
4	D. McNabb	95.53
5	T. Romo	95.10
6	C. Palmer	93.87
7	M. Bulger	92.94
8	P. Rivers	92.01
9	J. Cutler	88.49
10	T. Brady	87.91
11	M. Brunell	86.52
12	J. Losman	84.94
13	C. Pennington	82.60
14	J. Delhomme	82.56
15	S. McNair	82.48
16	D. Carr	82.09
17	D. Garrard	80.49
18	J. Kitna	79.88
19	B. Leftwich	79.02
20	E. Manning	76.99
21	M. Hasselbeck	76.01
22	M. Vick	75.69
23	B. Roethlisberger	75.40
24	A. Smith	74.76
25	M. Leinart	74.00
26	R. Grossman	73.90
27	B. Favre	72.67
28	B. Johnson	72.03
29	C. Frye	71.99
30	J. Plummer	68.78
31	J. Harrington	68.19
32	V. Young	66.73
33	B. Gradkowski	65.87
34	T. Jackson	62.53
35	A. Walter	55.78

Here are the "QB rating" numbers:

Rk	Name	QB Rat
1	P. Manning	103.69
2	D. McNabb	97.37
3	D. Brees	91.62
4	P. Rivers	87.90
5	D. Huard	86.93
6	T. Romo	86.57
7	M. Bulger	86.10
8	C. Palmer	85.17
9	B. Leftwich	83.70
10	T. Brady	83.46
11	M. Brunell	82.23
12	S. McNair	81.44
13	J. Cutler	80.56
14	M. Vick	80.40
15	V. Young	77.20
16	J. Delhomme	76.99
17	E. Manning	76.44
18	D. Garrard	75.80
19	C. Pennington	74.82
20	J. Losman	73.62
21	M. Hasselbeck	73.20
22	M. Leinart	72.82
23	R. Grossman	71.43
24	B. Roethlisberger	70.74
25	B. Favre	70.60
26	A. Smith	70.58
27	D. Carr	70.18
28	J. Kitna	69.01
29	J. Plummer	68.83
30	J. Harrington	67.34
31	B. Johnson	64.92
32	T. Jackson	62.98
33	C. Frye	62.20
34	B. Gradkowski	60.87
35	A. Walter	37.34

Here are the ratings for QB Running only:

Rk	Name	Run
1	V. Young	94.85
2	P. Manning	93.19
3	B. Leftwich	90.61
4	M. Vick	73.38
5	D. McNabb	70.37
6	S. McNair	65.01
7	T. Jackson	64.22
8	D. Garrard	52.07
9	J. Plummer	49.83
10	M. Leinart	44.12
11	B. Roethlisberger	40.57
12	P. Rivers	40.36
13	A. Smith	33.15
14	D. Brees	31.36
15	J. Harrington	30.81
16	C. Frye	29.07
17	T. Brady	28.56
18	T. Romo	28.40
19	D. Carr	26.55
20	M. Brunell	23.85
21	E. Manning	21.08
22	C. Pennington	19.69
23	B. Johnson	19.44
24	M. Hasselbeck	18.81
25	B. Gradkowski	12.44
26	J. Losman	7.05
27	M. Bulger	4.04
28	J. Cutler	2.32
29	J. Kitna	1.80
30	B. Favre	-0.38
31	R. Grossman	-12.45
32	J. Delhomme	-12.92
33	C. Palmer	-18.27
34	A. Walter	-46.58
35	D. Huard	-66.68

As the top 4 in the last set will prove, avoiding sacks can be very beneficial. Punching it in for TDs, too, of course.

YOu said that he wasnt good at short/medium passes. Also that he raely gets to throw deep. What does that leave other than running as a strength?
You may say I have a stronger opinion on the matter, but your statement about being biased is stupid, your opinion is biased as well, just like everyones is.

This whole conversation started out as who won the trade but has boiled down to " sure he cant throw short/medium routes but he can launch it deep and can run"

I think there's a bunch of ways to answer this question.

Was it worth it, at the time?

Absolutely, in my opinion. Vick was hailed not only as a franchise QB, but as a player who would revolutionize the position. Atlanta had a dire need for someone who would revive interest in the Falcons organization, and saw an opportunity to take what a lot of people thought was a "once-in-a-lifetime" player. At the time, I think it was a slam dunk.

I suppose one can argue that it's a lot to give up for a potential franchise player, but the fact is that there are plenty of examples of teams rolling the dice in this way. It's a potential franchise player. Maybe you get lucky and he carries your team for 10 years, maybe you don't.

Was it worth it, in hindsight? (Version 1)

Yes. They got six pretty decent seasons out of him. They flirted (a bit) with being a playoff team. Vick put the national spotlight (mostly for good) on Atlanta. They were regularly featured in the media due to Vick (highlights, et. al.). They made a boatload on merchandising. Vick filled the stands.

Sure, maybe you now have to punt him, but maybe in a year this new kid is ready to step up and the fans won't be so far away as before to come back to the team. Plus, how much has the organization increased in value since 2001? I can't dig up the numbers, but I'd be a bit surprised if Vick's presence hasn't greatly helped Blank's bottom-line.

Was it worth it, in hindsight? (Version 2)

No. Sure, Vick got a lot of highlights, but over the course of 6 seasons he went from the perception of "wicked potential" to "laughingstock". It's been clear for at least the past season and a half that any good defense has little trouble either a) shutting him down or b) minimizing his effect. And yes, while the Falcons have maybe "flirted" with the playoffs, they've never really threatened to do much of anything (Green Bay game aside).

Plus, Vick's antics have left some really dirty PR stains on the franchise. Obviously the dog-fighting, but the Ron Mexico episode was really disgusting and turned off who knows how many female fans of the team. Vick's lack of judgment has also left the team in an exceptionally poor spot on the doorstep of a new season, and it's likely they'll have to view 2007-08 as a "lost" season. No franchise really wants to do this if they can avoid it. Lastly, how much was Vick's presence the reason for fan support? If it was a really big part, then Blank's no further now than when he made the original trade.


I guess the bottom-line, to me, is that I think trades like this are best judged in the context of the time period in which they happened. With each subsequent season so many variables are introduced that looking at outcomes 5/6 years down the road isn't really a fair judgment. Players in the draft are, to a certain extent, a gamble, and so each GM has to make an estimation of where they're going to place value, and then draft for it.

Are you deliberately being dense? I ask that honestly. I said that his strengths was throwing deep and running. How in the world does the fact he rarely gets to throw deep under the Mora regime mean that throwing deep isn't a strength anymore? That's kind of exactly what I mean by the system did not play to his strengths.

And my opinion about your bias is not "stupid". You are extremely biased. It'd be like calling out Rush Limbaugh's bias for blasting Hillary Clinton. The bias, when it is that extreme has to be called out, because you are deliberately shortchanging the person because you despise him. Refusing to the look at the stats that put him a good light, insisting he's a RB not a QB, that kind of BS. Questions any credibility your argument may hold.

Can I buy some room in the buble-world :)

I think you really need to go back and re-evaluate that statement. I think about 15% of first round WRs actually become stars. I'd like to see what stud QBs can do with Brian Finneran, Ashlie Lelie, Michael "drops" Jenkins, Roddy White, Peerless Price, Dez White, Shawn Jefferson, and more. These are the who's who is crappy WRs. I'm not guaranteeing Vick greatness with other WRs, but he's never had the chance. Put him in Indy, or Denver and he might light things up. Before this dog thing, I was actually looking forward to seeing if Petrino could do anything with Vick...then they went out and made sure to secure the big name WR...Joe Horn :rolleyes: