Michael Vick Discussion Thread

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Can't remember which year it was but he was hurt somewhere in there (I remember because it happened in a preseason game against the Ravens... got clocked and I think a leg injury).

He was Madden cursed in 2003/4, lol

[JBH3]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

JaMarcus Russell? Nevermind let's just end it now. It takes two to tango. JaMarcus Russell barely decent receiving corp is better than anything Vick has EVER used. All Vick had was Crumpler and Dunn. A tight end who was doubled majority of the time and Dunn someone who is not considered an every down back. But that's beating a dead horse. Do I think Vick can lead a team to a ring, no. Do I think he's still can be a factor in the National Football League, yes without a doubt. I think individuals are setting the bar to high for Vick right now, I hate to see the reaction when he makes his first turnover or loses his first game. That'll probably be lead story on Sportscenter, lol

Don't make that "no reciever" argument. McNabb never had anything until 2004 (yr of TO), and still put up respectable QB numbers. After '04 he maintained that...

Vick HAS NO ACCURACY...that's the problem. There's no arguing that...the numbers speak for themselves.

Jamarcus Russell is also a career 54% passer, not far off from Vick, and is another example of a QB w/ a rocket arm and accuracy that doesn't compare.

[wwharton]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

2003 was the year he got hurt and only played in 5 games, and then Doug Johnson quaterbacked the Falcons to a 4-7 record; Vick was 1-4 before the injury.

Vick has since played 3 healthy seasons, playing 15/15/16 games from 04-06.

That's interesting. I thought Schaub got in more games than that.

He was Madden cursed in 2003/4, lol

lol, that's right... should've just went to the madden covers.

Don't make that "no reciever" argument. McNabb never had anything until 2004 (yr of TO), and still put up respectable QB numbers. After '04 he maintained that...

Vick HAS NO ACCURACY...that's the problem. There's no arguing that...the numbers speak for themselves.

Jamarcus Russell is also a career 54% passer, not far off from Vick, and is another example of a QB w/ a rocket arm and accuracy that doesn't compare.

McNabb has never put up the rushing totals of Vick either. I think comparing them is apples to oranges (though he's one of the closest so I see where you're going, just don't think it can work). Most importantly, I can't speak for everyone but I don't think Vick is as good as McNabb and DEFINITELY don't expect him to be after 2 years off. He needs more targets than McNabb... and it'd help to have a defense on the level of the Eagles. People talk about the Ravens and Steelers D but ignore the fact that teams like the Eagles have had one of the top D's for years too. Give McNabb the 05 Falcons D and the Eagles probably don't make the playoffs. The difference, of course is, McNabb would still have very good "QB-centric" stats but we're talking wins and loses.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Don't make that "no reciever" argument. McNabb never had anything until 2004 (yr of TO), and still put up respectable QB numbers. After '04 he maintained that...

Vick HAS NO ACCURACY...that's the problem. There's no arguing that...the numbers speak for themselves.

Jamarcus Russell is also a career 54% passer, not far off from Vick, and is another example of a QB w/ a rocket arm and accuracy that doesn't compare.

WHO CATCHES THE BALL??!!! Stop going off paper and watch the game!! Get NFL Sunday ticket or something and watch these guys play. Matter of fact go find the WR drop stats for those years. Your comparing one year starter JaMarcus Russell's stats with 5-6 year stats of Vick's? C'mon dude a blind man can see the injustice of that argument. Also Russell isn't that scrambling person Vick is. If you compare him to anyone of recent memory compare him to Daunte Culpepper. Same build, same style. You compare Vick to no one because he is of different caliber of player then most. You are killing me *sarcasm* with that accuracey stat. Joe Namath has only a 50.1% career completion. So your telling me since Michael Vick has a 53.8% he's a better quarterback than Joe Namath? C'mon dude you talkin yourself off a cliff right now........ Your Bringing Kool Aid To A Gin Party Right Now

PS- Also the Eagles used to throw 70-80% of the time. Now I'm saying McNabb is not as great as he is (I love you Donovan, no homo) but he has most certainly had more opprotunity to develop into the prolific passer he has become

[coogrfan]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Based on the last few pages, it appears that some people feel Vick the QB should not be judged by his personal stats or his W-L %.

I give up-what's left? Attendance?

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Based on the last few pages, it appears that some people feel Vick the QB should not be judged by his personal stats or his W-L %.

I give up-what's left? Attendance?

You shouldn't judge anyone solely on stats but their impact on the game. And that's the point I'm trying to establish but some folks just watch Sportscenter and think their intellectually inclined in sports

Oh yeah also he has a winning record as a starter

[kehlis]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

You shouldn't judge anyone solely on stats but their impact on the game. And that's the point I'm trying to establish but some folks just watch Sportscenter and think their intellectually inclined in sports

Oh yeah also he has a winning record as a starter

I would love to know what made you inclined to form this assumption?

[coogrfan]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

You shouldn't judge anyone solely on stats but their impact on the game. And that's the point I'm trying to establish but some folks just watch Sportscenter and think their intellectually inclined in sports

Oh yeah also he has a winning record as a starter

Hmmm-seems to me that those Sportscenter highlight reel plays are about the only argument one can make for Vick as a qb.

Bottom line-Vick is a career 53.8 passer. Last season that number would have tied him for dead last in the league among starters. He is also one game under .500 as a starter since week one of the 2005 season.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

I would love to know what made you inclined to form this assumption?

PM me with that. Keep this about Michael Vick, not whether or not I'm smarter than you in sports (which by no means I feel as though I'm smarter than anyone, something I learned in sports: their is always someone better than you). Is their anything you would like to say concerning Vick??

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Hmmm-seems to me that those Sportscenter highlight reel plays are about the only argument one can make for Vick as a qb.

Bottom line-Vick is a career 53.8 passer. Last season that number would have tied him for dead last in the league among starters. He is also one game under .500 as a starter since week one of the 2005 season.

C'mon dude we've established those points already, and like I said about Joe Namath above, I could also make another case for REX GROSSMAN career 54% passer. Who would you rather have Vick or Grossman? Dude I can make arguments all day for the type of IMPACT PLAYER Vick is. I've killed the career completion percentage thing let's move on, I'm very open minded but right now you have no case for that leave it alone. And the "SINCE 2005 STAT" has Sportscenter written all over it. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TURNED ON SPORTSCENTER AND HAVE HEARD "SINCE BLAH BLAH BLAH......."

[kehlis]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

PM me with that. Keep this about Michael Vick, not whether or not I'm smarter than you in sports (which by no means I feel as though I'm smarter than anyone, something I learned in sports: their is always someone better than you). Is their anything you would like to say concerning Vick??

Why? if you're going to claim people here are sportcenter gurus in public isn't fair for you to explain that in public?

You never questioned me so I could care less. I just thought it was an unfair assumption to make, in addition to being an incorrect one.

[Lintyfresh85]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Seems like Salutations should probably take a break from the forum for a while.

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Why? if you're going to claim people here are sportcenter gurus in public isn't fair for you to explain that in public?

You never questioned me so I could care less. I just thought it was an unfair assumption to make, in addition to being an incorrect one.

Dude it's not me calling everyone stupid. Let's not turn this into a argument between me vs. the forum. Plus if we argue back and forth about something else besides the topic in the OP:Vick this will be closed and right now Vick is the hot topic in the NFL. Also LizzyFresh I know your probably a mod or very popular with 17,000 posts but your comment also has nothing to do with Vick. You people are "vets" but yet your trying to fill a thread with useless and pointless arguments. If their is anything you would like to TYPE to me not concerning Vick please send me a PM. It's called maturity.

[av7]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Lets get back to the discussion about Michael Vick

[shotgun styles]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Vick had an arm, speed, agility, and no accuracy. You can't develop on something that you don't possess.

I agree with your entire assessment except this last part. You CAN develop accuracy. Problem is, players and coaches don't focus on it. Most pro coaches don't want to "fiddle" with a pro's mechanics for fear it will make things worse.

Scramblers rarely develop their accuracy because they can get by on running skills. When teams find a good containment strategy, these players falter.