Holy crap! Vick-to-the-Raiders Rumor
 

from SI.com's "Truth & Rumors" department:

:eek:

I'm speechless...

I wonder what kind of cap hit would result from ATL trading Vick and OAK trading Moss...seems like it would be too high to make that kind of deal workable.

I'm streaming Atlanta sports radio (http://www.790thezone.com) at the moment. Makes for great talk, but I'm not sure it makes sense to get two aging wide receivers and stick 'em with a young QB. By the time Jamarcus is ready, I'd worry that Moss and Porter would be over the hill, and have no confidence whatsoever in the current crop of wide receivers. If we're gonna make a deal, then let's figure out a way to get Calvin.

...and then there's the cap hit.

No possible way that happens. There would be so much of a backlash from the Atlanta fans that it would kill all momentum the franchise has gained in ticket sales. Say hello to a half-empty dome if Vick is traded.

Heh. I started typing my response before yours went up, then walked away for a bit. Exactly.

You'd have virtual race riots on talk radio if the Birds were to draft Quinn, but I'll bet the combination of Russell and Moss would tone down that angle, at least. The two of them could fill the dome, but if the Falcons were to start Schaub, it would be a huge mistake. It would take about three games for the anti-Vick people to find out that Matt Schaub isn't who they thought he was. ;) After that, you're looking at a half-empty dome, and a city full of pissed-off bruthas. ;)

According to this website (hxxp://www.falcfans.com/players/michael_vick.html) that seems to have a pretty good realistc breakdown of his numbers, Vick's cap hit would be 11.778 million dollars. To wit, the Falcons have a projected $10 million under the cap to spend. It would be pretty hard for the Falcons to pull the trigger as they would have to find a way to pay the first overall draft pick, plus the base salaries of Moss and Porter. It could work if the Falcons decide to rebuild, but then why would they want two aging receivers?

Agreed. I see sort of like an Allen Iverson-Philadelphia type divorce in the future. But not this year (probably in two to three more years).

Although, Vick to the Raiders (if they keep Moss) would be pretty freaking cool to watch.

This also doesn't make sense from the new coach angle (unless that first meeting went so horribly that they feel like they can't work together). Vick has always been at his best when stretching the field

True dat.

Yeah, it'd be awesome until the third play of the season, when Vick scrambles to Moss' side of the field and gets his shoulder separated by a hit from the guy Moss was supposed to be blocking.

Y'know, I've consistently made the same argument & still think it has a good bit of validity, but at this point I am starting to wonder at least a little bit.

The finger incident didn't go over very well. And even if the Miami PD gave Vick a clear endorsement & made him an honorary member of their drug task force the taint of the airport incident doesn't seem likely to fade IMO.

All of that, plus the losing, plus the wait-and-see (at best) mood about the coaching choice, plus the steadily decreasing faith that ownership has a clue about what it's doing ... well, I'm starting to wonder if we may not be looking at a half-empty Dome by the middle of next season regardless of who is playing QB.

Wise or not, the idea of a "fresh start" under a new coach mandates that they give him at least one more year, if not two. The only thing I could see changing that would be another, more serious off-field issue. If he under-performs next year, I think they have to seriously consider a move, regardless of the cap implications.

I'm not sure Vick is what we need right now. The Raiders are such a shambles adding Vick would be like adding fuel to the fire.

The Raiders have a great defense - seems to me that if you add *any* offense you'll, at the very least, be looking great in preseason.

Dude this deal need to be done for this reason alone!

Very true (unfortunate to admit). On the flipside, the "what could have been" for last year with a mediocre/bad defense was off the charts. So if they turn things around on offense this year and get a favorable schedule and some luck, they could be respectable in a hurry.

I agree with the folks saying this will never happen...

However... this makes me wonder... what if the Falcons tried to get Moss or Porter for Schaub?

I don't agree with this. No matter what Vick has done outside the field, there is always the chance that you see an absolutely amazing play made by him on the field. For that reason alone, Mr. Excitement will pack in the Dome, no matter what he does off the field.

No way Randy Moss plays a down as a Falcon. There are other reasons that this trade won't happen, but the Falcons don't want Moss and his issues.

If by wild chance this trade did happen, the Falcons would trade Moss before the season started.

Come on... that's not fair. Some WR's can block, some can't. Moss is very talented in many areas other than blocking, like half-assing it when running routes...

I think if Moss was on a contender, he might still be a jackass, but he's show up on Sunday more than TO ever did.

Dola

Especially now that he's spent time in purgatory. He can appreciate the earlier part of his career a lot more than before.

Wouldn't showing up on Sunday and trying further the cause of becoming a contender? Especially with a decent defense they have over there.

Moss is a loser plain and simple.

Moss isnt the problem in Oakland. The problem is a completely incompetent owner and coach. It wasnt just Moss, it was the entire offense that was misbehaving. The oakland Raiders problems: 1. Bad Ownership/GM (Al Davis) 2. Bad offensive coaching 3. The subway turnstiles they call an offensive line: especially Gallery, at the $8m a year theyre paying him. Randy Moss is probably about problem 20.

Last I calculated it, the cap hit for trading Vick would be about $20m. Hes not going anywhere.

All I said was that Moss was a loser. That's it. Whether he's problem 1 or 20 he's a problem. If you excuse his lack of effort by the situation you are basically saying Moss is a small, small man and is in fact a loser.

Actually, until late in this year, many people were quick to defend TO's hustle and his willingness to go all out on every play. It was always Moss who took plays off, even when he played for a contender. Until this year, TO never had that reputation.

Hmm..that's true.

I don't forsee this coming to pass either, simply because fans are filling the Dome to see Michael Vick.

Those that believe this latest incident will have fans leaving the stands are giving sports fans way too much credit.

This is classic Unsubstantiated Internet Rumor-mongoring. This was posted on Benmaller.com, with no source attributed.

The trade makes no sense for the Falcons. Absolutely none.

I do have a question regarding the cap hit. Don't the Falcons get hit with a second year hit as well? It's not just the 11-12M for 2007, or do I have that mixed up?

The problem is, if you say that, then you have to say that Porter is a loser, and Curry, and about 12 other players on the offense. I'm more inclined to think that its the OC, and Coach that are the losers, and not the players. I think it was still preseason when players (including defensive ones) started making comments about how it was a really bad atmosphere.

So would you rather have the #1 pick or Vick today? I'd take the #1 pick personally.

This does not make sense for either team. Why would the Falcons subject a brand new coach to Porter and Moss? Especially while trying to break in a rookie QB. And why would the Raiders take on Vick without their most talented (but troubled) receivers? I don't think either side would be happy after the deal.

Why would Vick need receivers? Just stick an extra Guard out there to block for him.

I'd take the #1, simply because I'd rather roll the dice with another QB with a big contract than a guy with a huge contract who definitely isn't the answer.

11.778 million is his cap hit if he is on the Falcons in 2007. If they trade him, all the bonus money accelerates into this year and the cap hit is in the 22 million dollar range.

Vick has had 3 1st round WRs, and 2 free agent WRs who were good with their last teams. I dont think getting him Santana Moss and Steve Smith would make him work.... However.... getting him 3 big TEs and running heavy sets all the time might...

I would take the #1 for future but also I would get Vick to get a full stadium and a huge popularity boost, so hard choice.

I'd rather have LT and Brees.

Exactly

Ahh, you're right. That's what I couldn't find and I assumed it was just piled up in the "cap hit".

So, it'd be a damn near impossibility to trade Vick.

Randy Moss is far more valuable (to me) than $22 million if he remains a Raider.

If the Falcons were smart they may want to jump on that offer. That is WAY too much to pay for that pretender of a quarterback. As always, the Raiders would be making yet another stupid move and still not have an answer at quarterback.

One more thing to think about.

Since the loss to the Cowboys in the 1980 play-offs, the Falcons have had six seasons where they finished better than 7-9.

Vick has been the starting quarterback for three of those seasons, and during his tenure as a starter, Atlanta has never finished worse than 7-9 (not counting the year he was injured for the first 13 games of the season).

If the Falcons take that offer, they take the 20m cap hit, not the raiders. They still owe him (cap-wise) $20m+ of his signing bonus. Oakland would get Vick for about $6m a year, and Atlanta would get $20m of dead cap. Although, if you were goign to do it, this is the year to, with that huge cap jump and all.

Can't possibly believe the Falcons would even consider this deal. Trading one problem child for two more makes no sense, especially with a new coach.

I think many people have the real Michael Vick confused with his Madden doppleganger.

Michael Vick may be fun to watch, but he'll never win the big game, regardless of where he plays.

You must not be paying attention...haven't you heard that Vick is a corn row wearin', pot smokin', herpes givin' running back who doesn't grasp the fundamentals of throwing a football, yet still gets lined up at quarterback despite having an IQ that rivals the mentally challenged. Who cares about how good the team has done with him at quarterback...that was obviously the work of Jim Mora and Dan Reeves.

Jeez...you'd think that you don't read message boards, for goodness sakes.

Since Mike Vick became QB, the falcons are a remarkable 47-48-1. That includes the only 2 seasons above .500. I'm sorry, when you have the highest paid quarterback in the league, and continually have a bottom 5 in the league passing game, theres a severe misuse of cap space going on.

What if Mike Vick agrees to cut the Falcons a check of 10-12 million in order to leave? How does that work against the cap? Cause if he "buys/gives back" some of his bonus money, and gets a brand new contract with the Raiders, it makes a bit more sense.

Don't forgot that he got a minor drunk and had sex with her, stomped on an opposing player, and held up someone at a McDonald's in Hampton.

In fairness, that tie could've easily been a win and they'd be .500 under Vick.

Considering that he's only played in 78 NFL games (incl post-season) and you have 96 in your win-loss record, I'm guessing there's a flaw in your calculations somewhere.

Damn...forgot about that. Plus, I think he's the one who murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

No, but he wrote a book about it.

All that shit happened after Vick hit that lady with a chair outside of that bowling alley. If it weren't for Doug Wilder, he'd still be in jail.

And after he made the short trip to Baltimore to participate in a drug-related video.

Is .500 under a QB who gets paid more than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Donovan Mcnabb, etc, something to be proud of? Counting rushing, the two biggest years of Mike Vick's career have been aroudn 3400-3600 yards from scrimmage, and 24 TDs/11 fumbles, and 13 picks. To put that in perspective, Rex Grossman threw for 3200 yards, 24 TDs, and turned the ball over 25 times this year. The best year of Michael Vick (who makes $16m a year)'s career, is pretty much equivalent to Rex Grossman this year: IE, below NFL starter level.

Stop Snitchin'

Let's see, did you count the games he was injured for in that total? Very judicious use of wording "since Mike Vick became QB", not "Mike Vick's record".

Shameful... you'd think that some Vick haters would have better things to do than deliberately mislead.

That reminds me, you remember when he put out the music video for 2 Legit 2 Quit. Man, that was a hoot!

what better vick or pepsi machine?

Vick has only lost nine fumbles....in his career. What else you gonna come up with?



lol. That's a good one.

In his best season, Vick dropped 10 passes.

Pathetic.

he's good at fumbling and having his team recover?

He also missed three game winning field goals.


He's nothing but a loser....a loser with corn rows, to boot.

FWIW - I think that given the chance, all but say 5-10 teams (guesstimating without looking and counting starting QB's) in the league would love to have Vick as their starting QB. This hatorade is from fans, not football experts IMO.

Did you know that Michael Vick has lost every coin toss? How can your team win when you're so dumb?!

well nfl.com doesn't agree with either of you.

lol, a Vick-like arguement.

Outside of the who's right, NFL.COM is pretty stupid... some great math...

What...when you add 5, 6, 1, 7, 5 and 3 together you don't get 6?

:D

Well *I* do, but this broken-ass calculator of mine doesn't agree.

That's what I get for going with espn.com.

Looks like they separate fumbles while rushing from fumbles while being sacked.

The true numbers may be:
While sacked: 36 fumbles, 18 lost
While rushing: 19 fumbles, 9 lost

Either way, I don't see those numbers being out of line with the NFL norms when you view them as separate totals (which I think is appropriate since no one else is going to put stats out that factor in his rushing value when they complain about his passer rating)

Well, nfl.com might be using that fancy math they teach at VPI. ;)

He's lost 9 fumbles while rushing. This post is funny since it was followed with a quote about 'Vick haters' trying to mislead, while every one of these discussions has the same 4 Vick supports doing more misleading than the 'haters'.

Really? Care to point out any instance where I've deliberately posted misleading numbers, chief?

By comparison...

From 2001-2006 (According to NFL.COM):

Vick - 55 Fumbles, 27 Lost
Brady - 59 Fumbles, 25 Lost
Manning - 31 Fumbles, 10 Lost
Favre - 53 Fumbles, 25 Lost
McNair - 45 Fumbles, 19 Lost


So, I'd say Vick is pretty on-par... yeah, he missed some games, but let's face it - the number of times he runs with it more than balances that out.

Edit: Man my boy Manning's numbers are impressive here. I figure this is probably largely a factor of # sacks, but still.

Judging individual players by the win/loss record of a team that contains 52 other players is one of the most idiotic thing that people do in modern sports discussions.

Seriously, is Tom Brady any worse a QB if Viniateri had missed all those clutch kicks? If his defense gave up an extra 10-20 pts. a game?

I take it all back. Daivd Winter is a genius.

You're getting your stats from the same place as anyone else accused of misleading, so youre just as responsible when theyre incorrect as anyone else, chief.


The guy fumbles the ball every 27 carries - that's just when he rushes. He averages about 7 rushes a game, so he fumbles the ball atleast every 4 games. This isn't including the other 39 fumbles, some which are guaranteed to be behind the scrimmage. Some which could be attributed to his 'Vick-like' ability, and if you factor in those - he averages nearly a fumble a game (every 9 carries).

A barely over 50 percenbt comnpletion percentage, a laughable quarterback rating for someone that's supposed to be a star, has the highest sacks per 16 game season total among active quarterbacks, averages almost 12 fumbles per 16 games (and that's based off his entire games played and not just starts), and one of those rare quarterbacks who opposing teams would love to see stand in the pocket all game long.

Yeah, I can see that whole formula for greatness.....

83 posts in the thread and 23 members viewing.

Love Vick or hate Vick, you have to admit that he peaks our interest in a way that few athletes do.

Call me crazy, but I don't think that a "Holy crap! Kitna-to-the-Texans Rumor" thread would reach 2 pages of replies.

That's because it is beyond argument that Jon Kitna represents the future of the Detroit Lions.

All of these stats about fumbles you're throwing out do sound so terrible.

However, let's really frame them correctly as I have done above. His stats are clearly NOT out of line with other NFL QB's. If you have some stats that tell differently, please present them. I'm by no means a major Vick fan, I just don't like seeing people throwing out misleading/deceptive information.

Doesn't really look on par to me. Last I knew a fumble was a fumble whether you were behind the line of scrimmage or past it. His fumble rate while running is worse that Tiki Barber's was when he had the reputation of being a fumbler (before his style change).

That's sort of like saying Love Hornsmaniac or hate Hornsmaniac, you have to admit that he peaks our interest in a way that few idiots do.

Vick just happens to be an easy discussion and there are always atleast 5-10 members from the Virginia/Atlanta area that are heavily supporting him in the discussion despite everyone else knowing the truth.

Not that it changes that much, but NFL.com shows 74 games over that time, and I'm unaware of any games Vick played but didn't start.

So, I do see your point there a bit. However, I would argue that if you compared times hit->fumbles it would be about equal. In addition, it appears to me like he had a really bad year in 2004 and has improved.

Anyway.. if a few extra fumbles is your key argument against Vick, well, I feel for you.

All ths stats about fumbles? In the post you quoted I had one stat about fumbles, the rest were sacks, rating and completion percentage.

His numbers in comparison would be even better than some of those you listed if it weren't for his inability to read defenses, react quickly and pass the ball. He does alot of nice plays, but he also creates alot of problems for himself by thinking he can turn something into nothing everytime.

Also all of the QBs you listed played in more games than Vick (Favre and Manning played in EVERY game).

never seen so much talk about an average nfl starter for an average nfl team

Vick is probably the most overrated athlete in the NFL (yesterday, today and tomorrow).

average NFL team? that's being nice for a team that has never had back to back winning seasons.

So you're not going to try and backup your accusation that I've deliberately attempted to mislead people with actual links?


Brady fumbles once every 17 rushes.

Vick fumbles once out of every 5.19 sacks, Brady fumbles once out of every 4.04 sacks.

This seems to point to me.

Like I said, I really don't care one way or another about Vick. I personally feel that there is a group that gives him way too much slack and a group that gives him way too much hatred.

When it comes down to it, I think he is a guy that like I said, all but around 10 teams would love to have as their starting QB in the NFL. Combining his pluses and his minuses, I think he is a guy that many, many teams would love to have over the starting QB they have now - including the Bears (someone mentioned Grossman above).

What the hell you talking about? He LOST 5 in 2001, 6 in 2002, 1 in 2003, 7 in 2004, 6 in 2005, and 3 in 2006. That being said, fumble recoveries are random. Fumbles are not.

Of course the per sack number will be better when you get sacked so many more times in a season, and for someone who is supposed to be such a great runner...

Yeah, probably my fault.

I don't feel like digging up the Sack numbers, but it seems hard to believe that he is the worst out there. Although if he is, I think it speaks more to his line than to him.

That's how I tend to see it. I know everyone likes to tout passer rating, but AFAIK, the only place I've seen QB's evalued in both rushing and passing is here. That's jives with your 'all but 10' statement.