Michael Vick Discussion Thread

[jmood88]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

"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...

You don't contain a guy by letting him have his second highest total for passing yards or by allowing him to run for the most yards ever by a quarterback. I also don't see how being involved in an offense that for the most part got better each year he was there means that teams were better at figuring out ways to contain or stop him. You completely ignore the fact that his defense got worse, which was a big reason for why they didn't have as much team success as they did his first two years starting.

[JBH3]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

How did his offense get better? Because he put up higher raw numbers? They didn't rank any higher as evident by one of your previous posts.

Cardinals had no defense...they just went to a Superbowl.


McNabb had no receivers, yet made it 3 straight NFC Championships.

[jmood88]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

How did his offense get better? Because they put him higher raw numbers? They didn't rank any higher as evident by one of your previous posts

What? The offense ranked higher his last two years than they did his last two. If you're trying to say that they weren't better because they were ranked the same in 2005 and 2006 then I don't know what to tell you, they were still in the top half of the league in offense.

Cardinals had no defense...they just went to a Superbowl.

The Cardinals played in a horrible division and went 8-8, which was good for first in their dvision, but once they were in the playoffs their defense started playing better. Their defense went from giving up 26.6 points per game to 22.2.

McNabb had no receivers, yet made it 3 straight NFC Championships.

The Eagles not having receivers has nothing to do with what I was talking about but I'll humor you:
2001- 17th ranked offense, 7th ranked defense
2002- 10th ranked offense, 4th ranked defense
2003- 18th ranked offense, 20th ranked defense

2 of the three years the Eagles defense was miles above the Falcons and the Falcons had a better offense with Vick(except for 2002) than the Eagles had with McNabb. And before you say anything, I don't think Michael Vick is a better quarterback than Donvan but I have no idea why you brought up the Eagles. All that showed is that when you have a great defense you'll be able to go far.

Anyway, coogrfan brought up the Falcons record and said that teams were able to deal with him, which is false. His last year was one of his best years since he started for the Falcons. You called me out but you have yet to show me how he was being contained and you keep ignoring what happened with his defense.

[Exonerated]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

The Eagles had no receivers?

With all due respect Terrell Owens is a pretty good receiver. Some might say HOF worthy.

You know. 2nd most career rec tds IIRC.

Vick was fun to watch.

The NFL is at its core, an entertainment.

Thus, Vick was exciting to behold and loved for his freakish talents.

[colkilla]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

i wish the 'skins would sign him but not to be the starter. is he a great qb, no. a threat to go the distance every time he touches the ball, YES. i'd have him as my #2 on gameday, release collins of course and have brennan as the emergency. play him like a series or two a half with a package of plays from the shotgun/read option set/wildcat. if nothing else it is something the other team has to prepare for every week leading into the game, whether you play him or not. will it happen? no chance in hell. tho danny boy loves to make a splash, he never makes a splash that makes sense...

[shnuskis]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

The Eagles had no receivers?

With all due respect Terrell Owens is a pretty good receiver. Some might say HOF worthy.

You know. 2nd most career rec tds IIRC.

You do know that the years mentioned above 2001,2002,2003, Terrell Owens did not play for the Eagles right?

[JBH3]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

You don't contain a guy by letting him have his second highest total for passing yards or by allowing him to run for the most yards ever by a quarterback. I also don't see how being involved in an offense that for the most part got better each year he was there means that teams were better at figuring out ways to contain or stop him. You completely ignore the fact that his defense got worse, which was a big reason for why they didn't have as much team success as they did his first two years starting.

His offense for the most part didn't get better. They topped out at 12th, and that was about as far as a run first QB was going to take them.

You know these rankings you list are a litte deceiving. Looking at ProFootballReference.com the 2006 Atlanta Falcons were the only team over 5,000 yds to score under 300 pts. Actually the 2006 Bills scored 300 pts on 1,039 LESS yards.

So what does that say? That a run-first, non-accurate Qb is NOT that efficient.

I hear your case for Vick's D. It wasn't that good, and it didn't elevate his win total but then again...although there were some gaudy rushing numbers put up, and a high amount of yards from the offense what did it translate to?

BTW 2002 was the only year that Vick even elevated his offense into a top10 scoring offense, and he actually got them to #5 that year.

Other years:
2006 - 25th
2005 - 14th
2004 - 16th
2003 - 20th
2002 - 5th
2001 - 23rd

So yes you're right...Vick was good at moving the chains.

The Eagles had no receivers?

With all due respect Terrell Owens is a pretty good receiver. Some might say HOF worthy.

You know. 2nd most career rec tds IIRC.

Vick was fun to watch.

The NFL is at its core, an entertainment.

Thus, Vick was exciting to behold and loved for his freakish talents.

Aside from 21 reg. season games of TO, and one injury plagued year by Donte Stallworth I'd say that a corps of (2001-2007)...

Todd Pinkston
Freddie Mitchell
Reggie Brown
James Thrash
Antonio Freeman (washed up)
Billy McMullen
Greg Lewis
Hank Baskett

...Is not having any receivers. :wink:

[Fox1994]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

This is quite the debate. Btw, jmood, cool sig.

Moving right along, I think we can concede that neither Vick nor McNabb had good receivers. McNabb's just barely getting some. On the other hand, McNabb's a better pocket passer, whereas Vick is the best rushing quarterback - I'd say - the league has ever seen.

Also, McNabb has had better players on the other side of the ball on his team. The Eagles are still a pretty good D, as a matter of fact. Same they lost Dawkins. Back to the matter at hand...

Teams, evidently, never really adapted to Vick's play style. He was quite the 'chain-mover.' He got it done. I think he deserves the chance, at least, to start, but I don't know which teams would give him one. Past that, I'm insanely curious as to how he was able to move the chains so well without the team ever consistently scoring.

I suppose it could come down to Dunn or Duckett not 'punching-it-in' in the redzone, or perhaps the lack of capable receivers. If they can't catch in the open field, they almost-certainly can't catch in the redzone.

[jholder5]

Terrell Owens Says The NFL Suspending Michael Vick 4 Games Is Unfair And Not Needed

<object width="448" height="374"><param name="movie" value="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshhastilJ1Pl4BW8zw8"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/e/16711680/wshhastilJ1Pl4BW8zw8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" width="448" height="374"></embed></object>

[JBH3]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Oh...and jmood...Vick didn't help out his defense AT ALL.

He fumbled the ball -on average- <ON avg>1.3 times a game.

So some of the defense's lack of success can be tied directly to Vick's unconventional GIMMICK play. :wink:

[N51_rob]

Re: Terrell Owens Says The NFL Suspending Michael Vick 4 Games Is Unfair And Not Need

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...on-thread.html

[Fox1994]

Re: Terrell Owens Says The NFL Suspending Michael Vick 4 Games Is Unfair And Not Need

I agree wholeheartedly. lol. That "23 months" thing is gonna get blown way out of proportion and taken out of context, though. Shouldn't have said that to a media man. Keep that stuff in the locker room. lol.

[MattieShoes]

Re: Terrell Owens Says The NFL Suspending Michael Vick 4 Games Is Unfair And Not Need

The ironic thing to me is if he had said Vick is banned for life or if he said Vick is immediately reinstated, he'd get less crap for it. By going down the middle he seems to get it from both ends of the spectrum.

[coogrfan]

Re: Terrell Owens Says The NFL Suspending Michael Vick 4 Games Is Unfair And Not Need

I should care what TO thinks on any subject because...?

[jmood88]

Re: Michael Vick Discussion Thread

Oh...and jmood...Vick didn't help out his defense AT ALL.

He fumbled the ball -on average- <ON avg>1.3 times a game.

So some of the defense's lack of success can be tied directly to Vick's unconventional GIMMICK play. :wink:

His last two years he lost 8 fumbles so I don't see how that would affect his defense all that much. Even if he had lost a fumble a game, that still wouldn't account for the 24 other games. But this whole side discussion was about how he was contained, which didn't happen. Teams still couldn't stop him from running and he threw his highest number of touchdowns his last year.