Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Rizon

He'll be out in about a year, most likely less.

I don't think that is correct. Not from what I am hearing about federal court sentences.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I don't think that is correct. Not from what I am hearing about federal court sentences.

Correct. He has to serve at least 85% of the sentence.

[Fidatelo]

I heard that he could get out early if the prison doesn't have enough room. I'm guessing this will be the case and he is out in about 15 months.

[FrogMan]

so, when's that game against the guards again?





FM

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I don't think that is correct. Not from what I am hearing about federal court sentences.

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I heard that he could get out early if the prison doesn't have enough room. I'm guessing this will be the case and he is out in about 15 months.

This is what will happen. With a little bit of good behavior and overcrowdedness, he won't serve his full sentence.

All that means is he'll be welcomed back to the NFL with open arms, so he can continue to stink up the field, and finally people will recognize he was only Kordell Stewart v2.0.

[albionmoonlight]

It is almost impossible for him to serve less than 85% of that sentence. Parole and overcrowding concerns don't exist at the federal level.

Short of an executive pardon or a motion by the government to reduce his sentence because he provided valuable information to help them solve another crime, he will serve at least 85% of his sentence.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It is almost impossible for him to serve less than 85% of that sentence. Parole and overcrowding concerns don't exist at the federal level.

Short of an executive pardon or a motion by the government to reduce his sentence because he provided valuable information to help them solve another crime, he will serve at least 85% of his sentence.

Finally, someone that knows what he's talking about.

People are just throwing out baseless crap in this thread.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Rizon

All that means is he'll be welcomed back to the NFL with open arms, so he can continue to stink up the field, and finally people will recognize he was only Kordell Stewart v2.0.

If he were on the Dolphins they would have at least 3 wins.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Rizon

All that means is he'll be welcomed back to the NFL with open arms, so he can continue to stink up the field, and finally people will recognize he was only Kordell Stewart v2.0.

He might not have been the greatest passer ever, but he was a good quaterback. He made his team better or at least gave them a much better chance of winning while he was in the line-up.

I would like to see the Falcon's winning percentage, while Vick was on the team, with and without Vick.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Finally, someone that knows what he's talking about.

People are just throwing out baseless crap in this thread.

I got my baseless crap from MNF. I'm not sure if that's a defence or an excuse...

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

He might not have been the greatest passer ever, but he was a good quaterback. He made his team better or at least gave them a much better chance of winning while he was in the line-up.

I would like to see the Falcon's winning percentage, while Vick was on the team, with and without Vick.

No doubt he improved the team, but as the argument has gone on ad nauseum in other threads, could you have gotten better results with the team if you either (1) used a different QB that you could have gotten for $130 million, or (2) gotten a lesser QB and spent your $130 million on the rest of the team? In my opinion, the answer is yes to both scenarios, so I didn't see him anything more than entertaining to watch. However, with that said, there is no denying he put butts in the seats and sold merchandise.

In sum, the Falcons benefited greatly in the financial/marketing department with Vick. I don't believe they benefited in on field performance by his play at the QB position.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

No doubt he improved the team, but as the argument has gone on ad nauseum in other threads, could you have gotten better results with the team if you either (1) used a different QB that you could have gotten for $130 million, or (2) gotten a lesser QB and spent your $130 million on the rest of the team? In my opinion, the answer is yes to both scenarios, so I didn't see him anything more than entertaining to watch. However, with that said, there is no denying he put butts in the seats and sold merchandise.

In sum, the Falcons benefited greatly in the financial/marketing department with Vick. I don't believe they benefited in on field performance by his play at the QB position.

I think the correct answer is "yes" to both scenarios if they are taking place in a complete vacuum or in a fantasy land.

In your first scenario, for example, who is this "different QB" the Falcons could have gotten for $130 million? Who out there, who was actually available, was worth that kind of money? Brady? Never available. Manning? Same. Favre? Nope. Teams don't let very good quarterbacks ever get to unrestricted or even restricted free agency.

As for your second scenario, that's possibly true, but, then again, just as likely not to be true. Quarterback is the most important position in football. The Trent Dilfer Ravens were the exception, not the rule. Who says the right players would be available? Free agency is a huge gamble, just because the Falcons had the money to spend, doesn't mean that it would have worked out. At all. A team with Joey Harrington/Bryon Leftwhich/Chris Redman at the helm isn't likely to go anywhere.

I think the Flacons' investment in Vick was the best use of their money (at the time) for both off field and on field success.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think the correct answer is "yes" to both scenarios if they are taking place in a complete vacuum or in a fantasy land.

In your first scenario, for example, who is this "different QB" the Falcons could have gotten for $130 million? Who out there, who was actually available, was worth that kind of money? Brady? Never available. Manning? Same. Favre? Nope. Teams don't let very good quarterbacks ever get to unrestricted or even restricted free agency.

As for your second scenario, that's possibly true, but, then again, just as likely not to be true. Quarterback is the most important position in football. The Trent Dilfer Ravens were the exception, not the rule. Who says the right players would be available? Free agency is a huge gamble, just because the Falcons had the money to spend, doesn't mean that it would have worked out. At all. A team with Joey Harrington/Bryon Leftwhich/Chris Redman at the helm isn't likely to go anywhere.

I think the Flacons' investment in Vick was the best use of their money (at the time) for both off field and on field success.

On the other hand, you only have to look in their division to find free agency pickups of Jake Delhomme, Drew Brees, and Jeff Garcia.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

On the other hand, you only have to look in their division to find free agency pickups of Jake Delhomme, Drew Brees, and Jeff Garcia.

Drew Brees is a good example of a good quaterback let go. When did they sign Vick to the long term deal?

As for Delhomme and Garcia, I am not convinced they would have fared any better than Vick in Atlanta.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I would like to see the Falcon's winning percentage, while Vick was on the team, with and without Vick.

This would be misleading and the reason leads to one of my biggest problems with having a player like Vick at QB.

Who were the backups that played behind Vick in Atlanta? Doug Johnson and Matt Schaub? Their style of play is the complete opposite of Vick's and the offense is designed for Vick and the players practice to Vick's style. When Vick would get hurt, which was almost every year, the Falcons had to play a completely different style and at different pace. So of course their record is going to be much better with Vick in the lineup.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This would be misleading and the reason leads to one of my biggest problems with having a player like Vick at QB.

Who were the backups that played behind Vick in Atlanta? Doug Johnson and Matt Schaub? Their style of play is the complete opposite of Vick's and the offense is designed for Vick and the players practice to Vick's style. When Vick would get hurt, which was almost every year, the Falcons had to play a completely different style and at different pace. So of course their record is going to be much better with Vick in the lineup.

This was brought up in the Joey and the Falcons thread as well. There may be some truth to it, but I think it's quite a bit overblown.

I have no doubt that the Flacons' offense was designed around Vick and had many plays that catered to his unique style, but it's not as if the Flacons were running a spread offense or anything.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I have no doubt that the Flacons' offense was designed around Vick and had many plays that catered to his unique style, but it's not as if the Flacons were running a spread offense or anything.

No, they were running pretty close to the option though.


New England is running the spread.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Just looking at some rough numbers.

In 2002, with Vick healthy for most of the season, the Falcons went 9-6-1 and won a playoff game.

In 2003, Vick broke his leg in the second pre-season game of the year against the Ravens. He misses 11 games that season and the Falcons go 5-11 (2-10 without Vick and 3-1 with him). If it was really all about the offensive scheme designed for Vick (and not Vick's talent as a QB), you would think the Flacons would have been able to pull it together at some point during the 2003 season with Doug Johnson at the helm. They had a few weeks in pre-season to work on their offensive scheme, not to mention time during the season.

In 2004, Vick comes back the Falcons go 11-5, win a playoff game and lose in the Conference Finals.

I think that's all pretty compelling evidence of Vick's value as a quaterback. He was not a good passer. I totally agree with that, but he won games and his team was much better with him in the line-up than they were with him out of it. A QB's job is to go out there and win football games. Who cares if he does it passing or running?

Kordell Stewart 2.0? I think not.

[Honolulu_Blue]

If you want to carry it out further, the Falcons went 8-8 in 2005 and 7-9 in 2006. Not very impressive records (though spectacular from a Lions' fan's perspective), but look what happens in 2007 without Vick? 3-10.

In 2007, the Falcons knew going into the season they didn't have Vick. They had a new coaching staff, plenty of time to work on a new offensive scheme and, yet, they still failed to get anywhere near the record they were at (barring a miraculous late season charge) with Vick as QB.

To sum up.

From 2002 - 2007 (today). The Falcon's winning percentage with Vick as their QB is .567 and without him it's been .200.

I think that's a pretty compelling case.

[st.cronin]

The right way to look at this question is not W-L, but instead to look at the Falcon's offense, in terms of points per game, yards per game, and maybe first downs per game.

[Synovia]

Falcons Defensive DVOA

2002:-3.4 (11th in the league)
2003: 9.1 (26th in the league)
2004: 0.5 (15th in the league)


The falcons record more closely correlates to their Defense than it does to Vick.


Michael Vick "just wins games" the same way Vince Young "just wins games": By having a good defense.


Also, your assumption that a team who loses their QB in week 4 could " have been able to pull it together at some point during the 2003 season with Doug Johnson at the helm" Is absurd. You can't switch from the option to a regular offense with an immobile QB in midseason.


as to your note about this year:

2007 Atl Def: 12.6 (27th in the league)

Their offense was bad last year. its worse this year, but that can be as much explained by Lefwhich getting playing time the same week he joined the team, and them trying to play Harrington in an offense hes not suited for.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The right way to look at this question is not W-L, but instead to look at the Falcon's offense, in terms of points per game, yards per game, and maybe first downs per game.

I disagree. Football (or any sport really) is all about winning. The Lions had a much better stastical game last week against the Cowboys, but who cares? They lost.

That said, I would imagine that the offensive stats would show similar results. I do not, however, have the time or inclination to dig into it. But I'd be interested to look at them if someone did.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Falcons Defensive DVOA

2002:-3.4 (11th in the league)
2003: 9.1 (26th in the league)
2004: 0.5 (15th in the league)


The falcons record more closely correlates to their Defense than it does to Vick.


Michael Vick "just wins games" the same way Vince Young "just wins games": By having a good defense.

That's right, because how an offense performs has no affect whatsoever on a team's defense. Time of possession, turnovers, points scored, all of that offensive stuff has no impact on how well a defense plays.

Why did the Falcons go 2-10 without Vick in 2003 and 3-1 with him? Same defense, no?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I disagree. Football (or any sport really) is all about winning.

Yes, but Trent Dilfer doesn't get credit for the Ravens winning all those games because the offense didn't play well. On the other hand Brian Brohm is still considered an elite NFL prospect, even though Louisville had a bad season, because their offense played well.

There are other factors, to be sure, but it seems like the first thing you want to know about a quarterback is "how does the offense move with him."

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yes, but Trent Dilfer doesn't get credit for the Ravens winning all those games because the offense didn't play well. On the other hand Brian Brohm is still considered an elite NFL prospect, even though Louisville had a bad season, because their offense played well.

There are other factors, to be sure, but it seems like the first thing you want to know about a quarterback is "how does the offense move with him."

actually the first thing you want to know is "is he into dogfighting?"

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That's right, because how an offense performs has no affect whatsoever on a team's defense. Time of possession, turnovers, points scored, all of that offensive stuff has no impact on how well a defense plays.

Why did the Falcons go 2-10 without Vick in 2003 and 3-1 with him? Same defense, no?

They went 3-2, not 3-1.

They beat 11-5 Carolina, 7-9 tampa, and 5-11 Jacksonville. They lost to 12-4 Indy, and 5-11 Houston.

They played 3 sub 500 teams, and 2 above 500 teams, and came out 3-2. I don't see what the huge deal is.


And no, how an offense plays has VERY LITTLE effect on per play statistics like DVOA. Thats the whole point of using DVOA instead of useless stats like "total yards" and "points scored"


its a whole lot easier for an offense to score when the defense is giving them the ball on the 30. DVOA accounts for that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The right way to look at this question is not W-L, but instead to look at the Falcon's offense, in terms of points per game, yards per game, and maybe first downs per game.

Quick rundown. Now the 2003 (Non-Vick Year) will be a bit tainted because Vick played 4 games that year.

2002:
PPG: 22.5
YPG: 345.9
FDG: 19.75
Time of Possession: 33:17

2003 (12 games without Vick)
PPG: 16.6
YPG: 272.3
FDG: 15.75
Time of Possession: 27:47

2004
PPG: 18.75
YPG: 317.75
FDG: 18.75
Time of Possession: 29:14

[Atocep]

I don't know many teams you would argue aren't going to be better with their starting QB in instead of their backup. The argument earlier in the thread was spending the $130 mil on a QB and improve in other areas.

I would expect an even larger gap with the falcons than your typical team with the starter out, though, because of what I posted above. An offensive line will block differently for Vick, different plays will be called, and the team will play completely differently. Most teams will build their offense around the QB, but with Vick its taken to the extreme because you can't plug in any backup and get anywhere near the same results.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Synovia

They went 3-2, not 3-1.

They beat 11-5 Carolina, 7-9 tampa, and 5-11 Jacksonville. They lost to 12-4 Indy, and 5-11 Houston.

They played 3 sub 500 teams, and 2 above 500 teams, and came out 3-2. I don't see what the huge deal is.


And no, how an offense plays has VERY LITTLE effect on per play statistics like DVOA. Thats the whole point of using DVOA instead of useless stats like "total yards" and "points scored"


its a whole lot easier for an offense to score when the defense is giving them the ball on the 30. DVOA accounts for that.

Technically, Vick didn't start the game against Houston, so, as a starter, he was 3-1. I think going 3-1 on a team that was previously 2-10 is a pretty big deal. Clearly, the Falcons faired very poorly against teams above and below .500 before Vick was starting.

As for the DVOA, don't you find it odd that, according to that stat, the Falcon's defense was terrible in 2003 (sans Vick), but very solid in 2002 and 2004 (with Vick)? I know it's not as simple as that. Many different things happen over the course of the football game that determine who wins or looses or whether a team plays well or not. Maybe the Falcons' defense was ravaged by injury in 2003? Maybe they changed coordinators and it was a period of adjustment? Maybe the defense lacked confidence in the Vickless offense and played poorly because of it?

I think both the offensive and defensive statistics show that the Falcons were a better team on both sides of the ball with Vick at the helm. Over the last few years, thanks to my time wasted watching the Lions, I have become a bit of an expert on very shitty teams. Once a defense looses confidence in an offense, things can go down hill very quickly. A team loses focus, hope, and just plays poorly. I didn't follow the 2003 Falcons at all, but I could very much see that happening after Vick went down.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't know many teams you would argue aren't going to be better with their starting QB in instead of their backup.

So long as your starting quaterback isn't Drew Bledsoe (see, e.g., Brady, Tom and Romo, Tony).

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Quick rundown. Now the 2003 (Non-Vick Year) will be a bit tainted because Vick played 4 games that year.

2002:
PPG: 22.5
YPG: 345.9
FDG: 19.75
Time of Possession: 33:17

2003 (12 games without Vick)
PPG: 16.6
YPG: 272.3
FDG: 15.75
Time of Possession: 27:47

2004
PPG: 18.75
YPG: 317.75
FDG: 18.75
Time of Possession: 29:14

You don't think that Defense plays a role in Points per game? Ever heard the phrase "football is a game of field position?"

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't know many teams you would argue aren't going to be better with their starting QB in instead of their backup. The argument earlier in the thread was spending the $130 mil on a QB and improve in other areas.

I agree, but, really, what I am responding to in this thread are comments like this:

Originally Posted by Rizon

so he can continue to stink up the field, and finally people will recognize he was only Kordell Stewart v2.0.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Synovia

You don't think that Defense plays a role in Points per game? Ever heard the phrase "football is a game of field position?"

Never said that. I was just giving St. Cronin his stats, because I'm a nice guy.

I specifically didn't comment at all on them because of the very nature of statistics.

[Synovia]

"As for the DVOA, don't you find it odd that, according to that stat, the Falcon's defense was terrible in 2003 (sans Vick), but very solid in 2002 and 2004 (with Vick)?"

No, I dont find it very Odd. Do you find it very odd that the Bears are one of the worst in the league this year, after being one of the best last year? That that Colts are one of the best after being one of the worst last year?

Defenses fluctuate much more than offenses.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Falcons Defensive DVOA

2002:-3.4 (11th in the league)
2003: 9.1 (26th in the league)
2004: 0.5 (15th in the league)


The falcons record more closely correlates to their Defense than it does to Vick.


Michael Vick "just wins games" the same way Vince Young "just wins games": By having a good defense.

I am curious, since you appear to think that the quarterback position is pretty meaningless when it comes to "winning games", how do you think the Colts would have done with Jim Sogri at the helm? The Patriots with Matt Cassel?

I mean, the Panthers have look great since Delhomme got injured, I am sure even the Lions' wouldn't miss a beat with T.J. O'Sullivan at quarterback.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I am curious, since you appear to think that the quarterback position is pretty meaningless when it comes to "winning games", how do you think the Colts would have done with Jim Sogri at the helm? The Patriots with Matt Cassel?

Thats the furthest thing from the truth, thanks for putting words in my mouth.


I think the Pats still win 10 games with the backup. The pats probably lose to Dal/Pit, 50/50 with Sorgi-Indy, but still sweep the division. Indy I think would fare a little worse (they wouldn't sweep their division).

The quarterback is probably the most important piece in the offense, but its ridiculous to say that a quarterback on a team with a bad offense is winning games, just as its ridiculous to say that a QB on a team with a good offense is losing games.

Vick was responsible for the offense, and they were never better than "slightly better than average" and were often well worse than average. Thats absolutely ABYSMAL when you consider that all the other QBs in his cap range run offenses in the top 5 or so of the league.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Thats the furthest thing from the truth, thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You're welcome. I'm a decent writer and would be more than happy to do so again. Perhaps I could even jazz it up a little with some witty dialogue.

Originally Posted by Synovia

The quarterback is probably the most important piece in the offense, but its ridiculous to say that a quarterback on a team with a bad offense is winning games, just as its ridiculous to say that a QB on a team with a good offense is losing games.

I don't think it's that terribly ridiculous actually. I think a good quaterback can make an average offense much better - and therefore win games - and a bad quaterback can make an offense much worse and, therefore, lose games.

A team doesn't win or lose entirely because of one player, but I think certainly players have the ability to change the course of a game because of their talents. I watched Barry Sanders do it for years with the Lions. I think Michael Vick was one of those players.

Originally Posted by Synovia

Vick was responsible for the offense, and they were never better than "slightly better than average" and were often well worse than average. Thats absolutely ABYSMAL when you consider that all the other QBs in his cap range run offenses in the top 5 or so of the league.

Vick's contract was huge. He was paid more than his on-filed performance probably warranted, but like President Vinaterri noted above, Vick's deal with the Falcons had a significant off-the-field aspect to it (marketing, attendence, etc.). Still, when Michael Vick signed the deal he had already been to a Pro Bowl and the had been very successful with him at QB.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I think the correct answer is "yes" to both scenarios if they are taking place in a complete vacuum or in a fantasy land.

In your first scenario, for example, who is this "different QB" the Falcons could have gotten for $130 million? Who out there, who was actually available, was worth that kind of money? Brady? Never available. Manning? Same. Favre? Nope. Teams don't let very good quarterbacks ever get to unrestricted or even restricted free agency.

As for your second scenario, that's possibly true, but, then again, just as likely not to be true. Quarterback is the most important position in football. The Trent Dilfer Ravens were the exception, not the rule. Who says the right players would be available? Free agency is a huge gamble, just because the Falcons had the money to spend, doesn't mean that it would have worked out. At all. A team with Joey Harrington/Bryon Leftwhich/Chris Redman at the helm isn't likely to go anywhere.

I think the Flacons' investment in Vick was the best use of their money (at the time) for both off field and on field success.

You could have gotten what the Chargers got from the trade - LaDanian Tomlinson and Drew Brees. That would have made the Falcons a lot better, and LT would be both marketable and good.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

You could have gotten what the Chargers got from the trade - LaDanian Tomlinson and Drew Brees. That would have made the Falcons a lot better, and LT would be both marketable and good.

ARGH...Drew Brees was not involved in the Vick/LT trade. Brees was selected with the Chargers #2 pick. There's a pretty good chance the Chargers could have drafted LT and Brees without making a trade at all.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't know many teams you would argue aren't going to be better with their starting QB in instead of their backup.

Just this season, the Jags surprisingly dumped Leftwich and Garrard is playing better than Byron ever did.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by stevew

ARGH...Drew Brees was not involved in the Vick/LT trade. Brees was selected with the Chargers #2 pick. There's a pretty good chance the Chargers could have drafted LT and Brees without making a trade at all.

Fair enough, my memory of the event is years old, but the fact is that the Chargers came away from the draft with one of the best backs ever, and the best one since Barry Sanders, while they also got a franchise QB in the second round. The Falcons did neither. The question was put as to how the Falcons could have bettered their team that year, and I answered how. Despite my answers false fact, the main fact remains that with a franchise QB and a franchise Rb of the caliber of LT, the Falcons could have done a lot better than they did. That ignores the players available in free agency, trades, and other draftees.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by stevew

ARGH...Drew Brees was not involved in the Vick/LT trade. Brees was selected with the Chargers #2 pick. There's a pretty good chance the Chargers could have drafted LT and Brees without making a trade at all.

Yep, they got Reche Caldwell the next year and Tay Cody in the third that year plus Tim Dwight.

One kind of funny (and meaningless) fact that I just saw. All 3 offensive players San Diego received in that deal (LT, Dwight and Caldwell) all have higher career QB ratings than Vick.

[Synovia]

You have an issue with Vick being compared with Kordell Stewart, and yet say QBs win games.

Kordell as a starter in Pittsbugh
Regular season: 46-29

Vick in Atlanta
40-31-1

he's not Kordell Stewart 2.0. He's Kordell Stewart 0.8

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Synovia

You don't think that Defense plays a role in Points per game? Ever heard the phrase "football is a game of field position?"

Wait a sec! So the defense plays a role in points per game, but the offense doesn't have any impact on how well the defense plays (due to turnovers, time of possession, etc.)?

[Abe Sargent]

Now I don;t want to get too revisionist. I think we have to use the knowledge of the time, and not future knowledge to assess decisions of the past. Sure, we could go back and tell the Bengals to take Culpepper not Aklili Smith, but that's the way it goes.

However, I went back and looked at the 2001 draft and I see some bombs and borombs in the top ten that year (a boromb is a player like Chris Naeole or Kyle Brady who is taken very high, and is always a solid player, but is never a great player. The expectation is that a player taken top ten in a Pro Bowl stud player, and instead is boring and solid. Thus the combination of boring and bomb. Not a true bomb)

Players like Justin Smith (boromb), Gerrard Warren (on the fence between bomb and boromb), David Terrell (bomb), Jamal Reynolds (bomb) were all drafted in the top ten. All came out worse than Vick, who at least went Pro Bowling (although you could point out the talent poor QB position in the NFC as a factor, he was still better than those.)

However, look at some of the other Top 10 talent that year - Richard Seymour, LT, Leonard Davis (who should have been Offensive Rookie of the Year), and Koren Robinson.

Who knows what category to put Andre Carter in, but he was a solid choice too, I think. Player taken at number 11? Dan Morgan.

Thus, there were good choices valued highly that could have been taken. There probably are in any draft. However, I dont want to back mask the future onto the past, and put Tom Brady in the first round or anything. so I am only comparing to fellow Top 10 picks.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Synovia

You have an issue with Vick being compared with Kordell Stewart, and yet say QBs win games.

Kordell as a starter in Pittsbugh
Regular season: 46-29

Vick in Atlanta
40-31-1

he's not Kordell Stewart 2.0. He's Kordell Stewart 0.8

Is there any good "with Kordell" and "without Kordell" data like there is with Vick to really gauge his impact as a QB?

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wait a sec! So the defense plays a role in points per game, but the offense doesn't have any impact on how well the defense plays (due to turnovers, time of possession, etc.)?

Not on a per play basis, not really. In terms of total yards, points scored, etc, yeah, but not on a per play basis.

I really suggest you check out football outsiders DVOA.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Is there any good "with Kordell" and "without Kordell" data like there is with Vick to really gauge his impact as a QB?

Not that I know of, because I don't think anyone has tried to argue that Kordell Stewart was good. he went to a probowl though, Just like Vick.

Stewart

55.8 comp pct, 6.3 y/a, 77 TDs, 84 Int 5.2 YPC, 38 TDs

Vick

53.8 comp pct, 6.8 y/a, 71 TDs, 52 Int 7.2 YPC, 21 TDs

I'd say Vick is the better player, but I'd say they're in the same league.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Stewart

55.8 comp pct, 6.3 y/a, 77 TDs, 84 Int 5.2 YPC, 38 TDs

Vick

53.8 comp pct, 6.8 y/a, 71 TDs, 52 Int 7.2 YPC, 21 TDs

I think the problem with Kordell was the bolded part...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Just this season, the Jags surprisingly dumped Leftwich and Garrard is playing better than Byron ever did.

There's an exception to everything. Being able to name one really doesn't change anything.