Michael Vick Discussion Thread

[vols bravesfan]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

I would love to see Vick back in the NFL. I don't like what he did but like many have said everyone deserves a second chance.

[jmood88]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Naive. Now we're checking for grammar, spelling, and punctuation ? There's too many run-on sentences below for me to read that post.

I said nothing about grammar or punctuation and I took it out anyway because I wasn't going to continue the juvenile insults with you.

[pistoldill]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

I don't see why Vick cannot be a successful QB in the league. He was before he went to the pound. I think it is weird to think the guy needs to move to another position when he is good at another.

[JBH3]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

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

Schaub didn't play his first full yr untill '05.

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). The difference, of course is, McNabb would still have very good "QB-centric" stats but we're talking wins and loses.

McNabb never HAD to put up those rushing totals. He wasn't one-dimesnional like Vick, and in time the staff realized to protect his future he can't be a scrambler...he'd take too many hits. Vick never developed into a passer...it's that cut and dry, and having watched him in college and on into the pros he never displayed the touch necessary to be an effective passer.

The numbers back that up or not, whether or not Salutations want's to acknowledge them or not.

I said nothing about grammar or punctuation and I took it out anyway because I wasn't going to continue the juvenile insults with you.

LOL...You fail to realize that whether or not it's grammar, punctuation, whatever...why act as if you're some great "writer" by pointing out I spelled naive wrong.

Where were there any insults?

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.

Ok. I can agree w/ that.

[jmood88]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

For the record, Vick is 38-28-1 as a starter; since the start of the 2005 season he is 15-16.

It would appear defenses did manage to find a way to deal with him.

2002- defense ranked 19th, offense ranked 14th
2004- defense ranked 14th, offense ranked 20th
2005- defense ranked 22nd, offense ranked 12th
2006- defense ranked 22nd, offense ranked 12th

Each year he played a full season (except for 2004) the defense got worse and his last two years the defense was the worst it had been since he got there while he statistically had his 2nd best season passing and his best season running in 2006 with 2005 being his off year. He could've played better but teams weren't figuring out ways to stop him.

[3bitz]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

My list of teams Vick could either start or be the back up QB..........

1.Texans- Matt Shaub is not the future of this team "only" because he has a fragile tag on him.

2.Cowboys-Jerry Jones maybe saying he ain't looking but who is he to believe?

3.Redskins-If Campbell starts to continue his feud behind that whole Jay Cutler mess things could get ugly real fast in D.C.

4.Patriots-read this very carefully, "Bill Belichieck doesn't give a damn about what the outside world thinks he thinks," and some of you think that I'm saying he would replace Tom Brady,hell no. He would get his on bootlegs like Michael Bishop used to do when he played. Besides if Brady goes down and no Matt Cassel there........

5.Bills-They got T.O. why not throw vick in ala nike cartoon commercial?

6.Buccaneers-they love having thirty qbs on their roster(they still waiting on Jake the Snake to come out of retirenment)

7.Dolphins-Yeah they got Pat White, but if you put them both in at the same time....
can u say the "Vickpat" formation?

8. Seattle-Jim Mora....enough said.

9.Denver-Kyle Orton...enough said.

10.Raiders-Cause everybody always puts the Raiders down for last chance players.

11.Vikings-Only if Farve doesn't make up his mind before mid season....or Thanksging.

12.Ravens-Ozzie Newsome is a gm that likes underdogs, no pun intended, but vic should be an excellent insurence policy if Wacko Flacco goes down or gets the famous sophmore slumps.

13.Jaguars-I can't seem to figure it out but they really,really,really,really,really,hate D.Garrard. All the guy does is make plays,sometimes for the other team, but mostly for the Jags.

14.the 49's-They have the NFLs worst bunch of Qbs(Vikes second)

15. Panthers-Delhomme or bust.........

and last the Rams. Marc Bulger is a great Qb......... two years ago,and there is nobody left from the greatest show on turf left to throw to. This team lacks legit star power. No offense Steven Jackson.....

[Fox1994]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

I don't think the Raiders should take him just because it might rattle JaMarcus. Granted, he needs a fire lit under him, but not his whole confidence shattered.

I think the 9ers should take him. They don't have a viable QB. Neither does Denver, the way I see it.

[coogrfan]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

He's almost certainly not coming to Houston. Texans owner Bob McNair has a standing policy against bringing in guys with "character issues". There is no reason to believe McNair would make an exception for Vick, especially in light of the PR hit the team would take by signing him.

[KOL]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

I see him at either Denver, Tampa Bay or Minnesota (If they don't get Favre)
I won't be surprised if the CFL comes calling.

[kehlis]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

I see him at either Denver, Tampa Bay or Minnesota (If they don't get Favre)
I won't be surprised if the CFL comes calling.

Denver?

How would he fit in with Josh McDaniels' system? He is the exact opposite of what he looks for.

[MattieShoes]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Vick is a terrible passer, but the one thing he did have going for him is opposing teams would have to gameplan for him specifically. I think he'd fit best on a team where he's the backup. The ability to sub him in for a few plays here and there could play havoc with the opponents prep work and playcalling during the game.

[55]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

6.Buccaneers-they love having thirty qbs on their roster(they still waiting on Jake the Snake to come out of retirenment)

Do you realize that Jon Gruden is no longer our head coach? We don't collect quarterbacks anymore. There will be three on the roster this coming season and everyone already knows who they will be: McCown, Freeman and Leftwich.

[MattieShoes]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Do you realize that Jon Gruden is no longer our head coach? We don't collect quarterbacks anymore. There will be three on the roster this coming season and everyone already knows who they will be: McCown, Freeman and Leftwich.

Everybody that gives up Garcia regrets it the next year.
SFO went 2-14
CLE went 6-10 (actually an improvement, but they're still Cleveland so it balances)
DET went 3-13
PHI went 8-8 (from 10-6)

Just sayin, be prepared.

[jmood88]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Ha ha...thinks for that figure. What say you jmood?

I'm waiting on you to address what I wrote.

[JBH3]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

2002- defense ranked 19th, offense ranked 14th
2004- defense ranked 14th, offense ranked 20th
2005- defense ranked 22nd, offense ranked 12th
2006- defense ranked 22nd, offense ranked 12th

Each year he played a full season (except for 2004) the defense got worse and his last two years the defense was the worst it had been since he got there while he statistically had his 2nd best season passing and his best season running in 2006 with 2005 being his off year. He could've played better but teams weren't figuring out ways to stop him.

"Weren't figuring out ways to stop him"...and since he didn't elevate his offense any higher than 12th shows that they never had to "stop" him just CONTAIN him.

I'm not sure if posting this actually helps your argument...